logo
José Mujica became the antithesis of a caudillo

José Mujica became the antithesis of a caudillo

Hindustan Times15-05-2025

It is not a flashy country and José Mujica, who died on May 13th aged 89, became its epitome. As Uruguay's president from 2010 to 2015 he continued to drive a battered sky-blue Volkswagen Beetle and to lunch in workaday bars on the main street of Montevideo, the capital. Foreign dignitaries or journalists who sought an audience usually had to trek out to his scrabbly farm with its three-roomed house of grey concrete where he lived for the last 40 years of his life. He often dressed in a fleece and tracksuit. He gave away much of his presidential salary. If it was partly a theatrical act, almost a caricature, it was one he lived to the full. He had a deep and genuine hatred of pomp and flummery, which he saw as inimical to the egalitarian principles of a democratic republic.
This frugal authenticity was one factor that turned Mr Mujica into a global icon, especially for those uncomfortable with a voracious and environmentally predatory consumer society. Another was his extraordinary life story, for the journey to the presidency had been long, tortuous and hard. The son of a florist and of a smallholder farmer who died when he was six, at 29 he joined the Tupamaros, an urban guerrilla group inspired by Che Guevara and the Cuban revolution. They were fond of Robin Hood stunts such as robbing supermarkets to distribute food to the poor. Mr Mujica was hit by six bullets when he and three comrades exchanged fire with police who had found them in a bar. He was imprisoned for a total of 14 years (he twice escaped), ten of them in solitary confinement, two at the bottom of a well with only ants and mice for company.
Far from fighting for democracy as leftist myth holds, Mr Mujica and the Tupamaros fought to extinguish it in what had long been a peaceful country. In that they succeeded: in response to guerrilla violence, the armed forces staged a coup in 1973 and ruled for 12 years. At least incarceration gave Mr Mujica time to think, which he said he did a lot (as well as 'listening to the ants', he added).
He emerged a changed man. Though he never made an explicit self-criticism of his guerrilla past, his actions offered one. He became a parliamentarian and a minister (of agriculture), accepting the market economy, foreign investment and liberal democracy—'and I have to make it work as well as I can,' he told The Economist. The 'enormous advantages' of democracy, he concluded, were that 'it doesn't believe itself to be finished or perfect' and its tolerance of disagreement. Because of that and because of the suffering he underwent, Uruguayans pardoned his past.
A third factor in his fame he owed to Uruguay. It is a secular, progressive country, one of the first to establish a welfare state. Younger members of Mr Mujica's coalition drew on that tradition to propose new rights. As president he legalised cannabis, abortion and gay marriage.
Unlike other Latin American leftist leaders, such as Rafael Correa in Ecuador or, more recently, Gustavo Petro in Colombia, he did not try to 'refound' his country. Nor did he try to rewrite the rules, in contrast to Claudia Sheinbaum in Mexico with her espousal of elected judges. When Uruguay's courts knocked down six of his government's laws, he accepted it without criticism.
He was not particularly good at governing. He tried and failed to reform a deteriorating education system dominated by an over-mighty trade union. He was good at talking. With a twinkle in his small, penetrating eyes, he enjoyed the cut and thrust of argument. Above all, he was not vindictive, not even against his jailers. 'I don't hate,' he said. 'Can you imagine the luxury it is not to hate?' He disappointed his own supporters by rejecting attempts to put the dictators on trial. 'Justice has the stink of vengeance,' he insisted. In that he was in tune with majority opinion in his country.
He retained a vestigial, if misplaced, loyalty to the Cuban regime (he acted as a discreet messenger between Barack Obama and Raúl Castro when the two negotiated a diplomatic thaw between their countries). But in practice he had evolved into a social democrat, one who mistrusted extreme positions. He came to believe that the key to a lasting change in material conditions was to change cultural attitudes and that was harder and took longer. Ironically, perhaps, for a former Marxist, he became a tribune for anti-materialism, at least up to a point. He invited young people to live modestly because 'the more you have the less happy you are'.
In a region not known for it, he was self-deprecating. 'I dedicated myself to changing the world and I didn't change anything, but it was amusing and gave sense to my life,' he said in one of his final interviews last year. His lasting legacy to the Latin American left was that he became the antithesis of a caudillo.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines to 100 year archives.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Mexican flag fuels debate amid LA protests over immigration raids
Mexican flag fuels debate amid LA protests over immigration raids

Business Standard

time11 hours ago

  • Business Standard

Mexican flag fuels debate amid LA protests over immigration raids

Los Angeles has been roiled in protests since Friday, when ICE officers conducted raids at several workplaces in the city's garment district ANI US Mexico's green, white and red flag has emerged as a defining symbol of the ongoing immigration protests in Los Angeles, CNN reported. Demonstrators have been waving the Mexican flag alongside those of other Latin American countries and the United States to express solidarity with immigrants and to protest against recent federal raids. Los Angeles has been roiled in protests since Friday, when ICE officers conducted raids at several workplaces in the city's garment district. While initially peaceful, the protests have led to dozens of arrests and some violent clashes. President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard troops and Marines, sparking outrage from Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom, who described the mobilization as an "illegal takeover" and a "blatant abuse of power." The Mexican flag has been a longstanding symbol in immigration protests, especially in LA, which is seen as the capital of the Mexican diaspora in the US. According to Census data, over 3.4 million people of Mexican heritage or birth live in Los Angeles County--more than any other US county. Republican leaders have criticized the prominence of the flag. "Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers," Vice President JD Vance wrote on X. Senator Markwayne Mullin told CNN's Dana Bash, "They were literally out there protesting, carrying a foreign flag. That is absolutely insane. They're not just peaceful protesters. These are illegals." The Department of Homeland Security has circulated images showing protesters clashing with police while waving the Mexican flag. Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy, described the demonstrators on social media as "foreign nationals, waving foreign flags, rioting and obstructing federal law enforcement attempting to expel illegal foreign invaders." Despite criticism, protesters and academics defended the symbolic use of the flag. Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, a UCLA professor, said such demonization of symbols is a "well-documented move on the part of the Trump administration, knowing that every single demonstration of this type brings out the Mexican flag." Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger told CNN the optics were poor: "The visuals of the Mexican flag at protests are terrible, honestly... I just think that it would be much stronger if they were carrying American flags only." The flag's presence in protests has deep roots. Jorge Castaneda, former Mexican foreign minister, said, "This is something that goes back to the 1990s, when many people protested against Proposition 187," adding that most demonstrators today are likely American citizens. He noted it would be "quite reckless and foolish" for undocumented individuals to protest publicly due to deportation risks. Republican strategist Mike Madrid argued in the Sacramento Bee that waving the Mexican flag "transforms what should be a debate about American constitutional rights and due process into a conversation about foreign loyalty and cultural assimilation." However, others see the flag as a symbol of unity and identity. "The flags mean their families. The flags mean their communities. It's not about having an international invasion," Hinojosa-Ojeda said. Antonio Rodriguez, an organizer with the Brown Berets, said, "I don't necessarily think just because somebody has pride in their culture that they're un-American... Waving a Mexican flag, for us, is showing pride in our culture and our family. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Why are LA protesters waving the Mexican flag?
Why are LA protesters waving the Mexican flag?

First Post

time12 hours ago

  • First Post

Why are LA protesters waving the Mexican flag?

As immigration protests grip Los Angeles following ICE raids and a federal troop deployment, the Mexican flag has emerged as a powerful and controversial symbol. Seen across rallies in LA County, the flag reflects cultural pride for some and raises political alarm for others. Why has it become central to this latest wave of demonstrations? read more A man skates holding a Mexican flag as smoke and flames rise from burning vehicles during a protest against federal immigration sweeps, near Los Angeles City Hall in downtown Los Angeles, California, US, June 8, 2025. File Image/Reuters As protests erupted across Los Angeles following a controversial string of ICE raids and the federal government's deployment of troops, one symbol stood out prominently amid the marches, rallies, and clashes: the green, white, and red Mexican flag. From downtown LA to surrounding cities like Compton and Paramount, demonstrators have carried the Mexican flag alongside American and other Latin American banners. How the Mexican flag is being used at LA protests Tensions in Los Angeles reached a boiling point after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers conducted sweeping raids last week in the city's garment district. The operation resulted in the arrest of 118 immigrants, according to federal authorities. The crackdown sparked an immediate wave of protests across various parts of LA, including the city center, Compton, and Paramount. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While many protests began peacefully, scenes of confrontation and civil unrest soon followed. Protesters voiced opposition to what they described as an indiscriminate assault on immigrant communities. Amid the chaos, many carried flags — chiefly the Mexican flag — as a gesture of solidarity and cultural pride. The Trump administration responded to the unrest by deploying approximately 2,000 National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles, a decision that inflamed tensions further. California Governor Gavin Newsom expressed strong opposition to the federal deployment, publicly denouncing it as a violation of California's authority. In a post on X, he stated: 'I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return them to my command… We didn't have a problem until Trump got involved. This is a serious breach of state sovereignty — inflaming tensions while pulling resources from where they're actually needed. Rescind the order. Return control to California.' The growing presence of law enforcement and military personnel only heightened public anger, leading to more clashes and dozens of arrests in ensuing days. Meanwhile, social media posts from officials and media coverage began to focus on one vivid and recurring image: the Mexican flag flying amid smoke, police lines and protest chants. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Why the Mexican flag For many demonstrators, waving the Mexican flag is neither an act of rebellion nor foreign interference — it is a symbol of identity, belonging and solidarity. Los Angeles County is home to over 3.4 million residents of Mexican heritage or birth, the largest such population in any US county. According to 2023 US Census estimates, approximately 4.8 million people of Hispanic or Latino origin live in LA County, comprising 48 per cent of the population. Among them, about 74 per cent are of Mexican descent. The flag's appearance in protests is thus rooted in demographic and cultural realities. Protesters have not only carried the Mexican flag but also the flags of other Latin American countries and the United States. A man waves a Mexican flag as smoke and flames rise from a burning vehicle during a protest against federal immigration sweeps, near Los Angeles City Hall in downtown Los Angeles, California, US, June 8, 2025. File Image/Reuters In some cases, hybrid flags combining national symbols have appeared as well. Elizabeth Torres, 36, who protested outside a detention centre in downtown LA, articulated the dual sentiments of cultural heritage and civic pride when she told The New York Times: 'I am a very proud American. But I have to show support also for our Mexican brothers and sisters.' In the eyes of participants like Torres, the flag represents more than a nation — it's a gesture of inclusion, a reminder of familial roots, and a protest against what they see as unjust immigration enforcement practices targeting communities like theirs. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD How Trump is seeing the 'foreign flags' While many demonstrators see the flag as a celebration of identity, the Trump administration has interpreted it as a political provocation. The visibility of foreign flags — especially the Mexican one — became a talking point for top officials who characterized the protests as a threat to national sovereignty and law enforcement. Vice President JD Vance posted on X: 'Insurrectionists carrying foreign flags are attacking immigration enforcement officers.' Stephen Miller, Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy, echoed similar sentiments in a widely circulated social media post: 'Foreign nationals, waving foreign flags, rioting and obstructing federal law enforcement attempting to expel illegal foreign invaders.' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt also weighed in, sharing a photo of a protester waving the Mexican flag and declaring: 'The riots in Los Angeles prove that we desperately need more immigration enforcement personnel and resources. America must reverse the invasion unleashed by Joe Biden of millions of unvetted illegal aliens into our country.' The Department of Homeland Security released multiple images and videos featuring the Mexican flag during protests, reinforcing a narrative that equates the protests with foreign interference and lawlessness. However, legal experts and academics have pushed back on these claims, emphasizing the legality and precedent behind flag-waving in protest contexts. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Raul Hinojosa-Ojeda, an associate professor of Chicana, Chicano and Central American Studies at UCLA, told CNN: 'Waving a foreign flag – or even destroying an American one – is legal under freedom of expression rights protected by the Constitution's First Amendment.' He also pointed out that the Trump administration's reaction to the flag is part of a broader strategy to delegitimise dissent by focusing on visual symbols: 'Invoking flags to demonise protesters is a well-documented move on the part of the Trump administration, knowing that every single demonstration of this type brings out the Mexican flag.' What history tell us The current Mexican flag was officially adopted in 1968, though earlier versions date back to the early 19th century during Mexico's war for independence from Spain. In Mexico, the use of the flag is strictly regulated by law — it can only be displayed during patriotic ceremonies, official events, or under specific conditions at schools and sports functions. In the US, however, the flag has long played a role in immigrant rights demonstrations. Its use at protests became particularly prominent in 1994, during resistance to California's Proposition 187. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD That controversial measure sought to deny undocumented immigrants access to public services like education and healthcare. The flag was used by demonstrators at the time to assert pride in their heritage and defy exclusionary policies. Former Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castañeda contextualised the flag's symbolism during a recent interview with CNN: 'This is something that goes back, actually, to the 1990s, when many people protested against Proposition 187 at the time. And then also the early 2000s when demonstrations all over the United States took place against several laws that were being implemented then on immigration.' Castañeda noted that while the flag is once again central to protest visuals, most of those carrying it are likely US citizens. 'Practically all of the demonstrators, all of the protesters, are American citizens,' he said. 'You would have to be quite reckless and foolish to be a Mexican citizen without papers, or even as a legal permanent resident, to go out and demonstrate today in these protests because you would most likely be arrested and deported, even if you're a legal permanent resident and certainly if you have no papers.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD While critics argue that the use of foreign flags can undermine the effectiveness of a protest by appearing unpatriotic, many in Los Angeles view the flag as a deeply personal symbol. For them, it serves not to reject America but to advocate for a more inclusive version of it. How waving foreign flags in US is not new Waving foreign flags during US demonstrations is not unique to these events. Public celebrations, parades, and political rallies across the United States frequently feature foreign flags without controversy. Puerto Rican flags were widely flown during New York City's Puerto Rican Day Parade. Irish flags are a staple of St. Patrick's Day celebrations. In various urban enclaves, such as Little Italy or Koreatown, national banners proudly decorate businesses and neighbourhoods. What makes the Mexican flag's use controversial in this moment is the political context. As the Trump administration accelerates efforts to remove undocumented immigrants, invoke the Alien Enemies Act, and implement stricter immigration enforcement measures, any sign of cultural pride among immigrant communities has become a lightning rod for criticism. The administration insists it is targeting 'the worst of the worst' in its enforcement push, but immigration advocates argue that ordinary families, workers, and community members are being swept up in these operations without just cause. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD With inputs from agencies

When US media feared ‘another Cuba' in the Himalayas and Indian Ocean
When US media feared ‘another Cuba' in the Himalayas and Indian Ocean

Scroll.in

time15 hours ago

  • Scroll.in

When US media feared ‘another Cuba' in the Himalayas and Indian Ocean

In the early 1960s, at the height of the Cold War, the United States viewed Cuba as one of its main security threats as well as an ideological opponent. At the start of the decade, it had tried to invade Cuba along with Cuban exiles in what is called the Bay of Pigs invasion, but failed miserably, leading to a loss of face. For a while after that, Cuba became shorthand in American media for small neighbours of larger democracies that were either flirting with communism or getting closer to a major communist power. Both Nepal and Sri Lanka were described in US media reports as 'India's Cuba'. This was a time when the John F Kennedy administration in the US saw democratic India under Jawaharlal Nehru as a friend and the kingdom of Nepal as teetering towards communism. In a report for the news agency United Press International, its foreign correspondent Patrick J Killen called Nepal 'India's Cuba' and 'India's 'Castro'' a 'beadless non-communist king'. Killen, who worked in Asia for 30 years, said the relations between India and Nepal were rapidly deteriorating as the Himalayan kingdom moved towards China's camp. 'A few years ago, Nepal was known principally for its high mountains (Mt. Everest), its abominable snowman (the Yeti) and its tough export (Gurkha soldiers),' Killen wrote in February 1962. 'Today, its 9.5 million people have awakened to the fact that their Arkansas-sized country is jammed between Asia's two cold war giants, India and China.' In March 1960, Nepal's India-educated Prime Minister BP Koirala had visited China's capital city Peking, now called Beijing, and a year later, the two countries settled their border dispute. 'Although most Indians were favourable to Koirala, he helped push Nepal to the road to neutralism,' wrote Killen. Whatever his successes, Koirala was deposed in 1960 in a coup d'état by King Mahendra Bir Bikram Shah Dev and imprisoned along with his colleagues. The king suspended the constitution, abolished the parliament, banned political parties, and took over the reins of the country through the Panchayat system. Nehru lamented this setback to democracy, which irked Nepal, prompting sharp official and public reactions. 'To make the point unmistakably, Nepalese students demonstrated in front of the Indian Embassy in Kathmandu in January and an effigy of Nehru was burned in a nearby town,' wrote Killen. Some in Nepal even blamed India for a clumsy assassination attempt on King Mahendra when a bomb was hurled at his jeep by Nepali Congress member Durgananda Jha during a visit to Janakpur in January 1962. This was a new low in the relations between Delhi and Kathmandu. 'Observers in New Delhi say the current split is the worst since Indian independence since 1947,' Killen wrote. 'One good reason, in the Indian view, is Nepal's increasing friendliness with China. On the other hand, the Nepalese feel India is too concerned with Nepal's international politics.' Of course, Nepal's concern about Indian interference in its affairs was as valid then as it is now. Killen too acknowledged that India took a 'paternal view of its tiny neighbour'. The fear of Nepal turning into 'India's Cuba' deepened after Mahendra's visit to China, where he announced that the Chinese would help build a road from Lhasa to Kathmandu. 'The announcement struck a raw Indian nerve,' wrote Killen. 'Indian newspapers were quick to point out that the agreement was a violation of the Nepal-India treaty which made it mandatory for each government to keep the other informed on third party negotiations.' The American correspondent pointed out that New Delhi's main and unspoken concern was that the Lhasa-Kathmandu road would reduce Nepal's dependence on India for its imports. In an off-the-record conversation, an Indian official told Killen, 'The trouble with the Nepalese is that they think they can deal with the Chinese the same way they dealt with us. They may find the Chinese are smarter.' Some Indian publications began to sound the alarm about Chinese presence in Kathmandu. Srikrishna Mulgaokar, the editor of the Hindustan Times, noted during a visit in 1962 that the Chinese Embassy in the Nepalese capital was 'far more generously manned than legitimate work would warrant'. In Killen's view, what was truly irking New Delhi was that 'India could pull down Mahendra's government without too much trouble and without a 'Bay of Pigs' fiasco. But New Delhi cannot afford to get rid of the king. Mahendra, as a god king, is enormously popular and is the only person who can hold together his diverse countrymen. He also is not a communist, but communism could fill the vacuum should he be removed.' This is exactly what transpired 46 years later once the monarchy fell, although Indo-Nepal relations never deteriorated to the level of US-Cuba ties. Ceylon's turn Apart from Nepal, Sri Lanka too was on the US radar. In a widely-syndicated article in 1962, Victor Riesel, who was best known for his columns on labour issues, wrote about the tensions between the US and Ceylon. In that article, Riesel called Ceylon 'India's Cuba' and blamed 'Trotyskite Socialists' for the turn of events. 'You soon will be hearing about 'Adam's Bridge,'' Riesel wrote. 'It's not a bridge; it's a chain of shoals, which connects India to the island republic of Ceylon, somewhat like the U.S. and Cuba. The similarity is strengthened by the swiftness with which Ceylon is becoming India's Cuba.' Published two months before the Cuban missile crisis, Riesel's article was hard on Ceylon. 'Fascinating place, Ceylon,' he said. 'Its prime minister has insulted President Kennedy. Its government has mocked our ambassador, Frances E. Willis. It's real boss is the prime minister's nephew, the tough 31-year old finance minister, Felix Bandaranaike, who is dedicated to seizing millions of dollars worth of American property, terrorizing the free press, baiting the U.S. and promising that Ceylon will go down the road to socialism.' Ceylon, at the time, was not a republic. It had dominion status in the Commonwealth of Nations with Queen Elizabeth II as its head of state. Many of its post-independence leaders would frequently make public statements aimed at the domestic audience without paying heed to the diplomatic ramifications of their words. In the mid-1950s, for instance, Prime Minister John Kotelawala, did not hold back when expressing opinions about Nehru. In 1962, Sirimavo Bandaranaike – who had made history by becoming the world's first woman prime minister – annoyed Washington with her actions. That summer, the US embassy in Colombo tried to get Ceylon to renew a pact that gave the country the right to use the Voice of America transmitter. But Bandaranaike ignored the request, prompting the US ambassador to seek White House's intervention. Kennedy wrote a letter requesting Ceylon to renew the pact and asked Willis to deliver it to Bandaranaike, but she refused to give the ambassador an appointment for 16 days. 'After making us look silly in her island republic the size of West Virginia (with 10 million people), she finally permitted our ambassador to present Mr. Kennedy's memorandum,' Riesel wrote. Although Bandaranaike finally agreed to renew the pact, the Americans took the delay and the prime minister's attitude as an insult to Kennedy. This was at a time when Ceylon was receiving around $70 million in developmental assistance from the United States. 'This aid is continuing,' Reisel said. 'And we buy hundreds of millions of dollars worth of rubber, tea, cocoanut and other materials from Ceylon. We could buy this from other nations in the Orient.' Ambassador Willis had an unpleasant time in Ceylon and was constantly humiliated. On one occasion, when she had to travel to a conference in Delhi, the Ceylonese government 'deliberately made her take inferior means while the ambassadors of smaller nations, including Switzerland, were given first rate facilities,' Riesel wrote. He felt this was done 'deliberately so the U.S. would lose face at the crowded airport and in government circles which chuckled over the ease with which we were drubbed'. It did not help the matter that the Sirimavo Bandaranaike government nationalised the assets of American companies Caltex and Esso (along with Shell) under a policy meant to take control of the petroleum industry and break the monopoly of foreign giants. Riesel said the Ceylonese were 'real merry' when they discussed the 'seizure of the oil properties, gas stations and harbour bunkering facilities' of Caltex. 'They were turned over to the government-owned Ceylon Petroleum Corporation, which in turn leased the American property to the Soviet Union.' Two other things angered the US. One was Bandaranaike's attempt to mediate between India and China during the 1962 war. And the other was the growing prominence of Trotskyite labour union leader NM Perera, who had returned to Colombo after obtaining a PhD from the London School of Economics. In an attempt to court him, Washington gave Perera a 'no-strings attached' leadership grant to visit the United States. But while he accepted the offer, he broke away from the group after meeting two influential American union leaders and returned home via Cuba. 'Dr. Perera is a Trotskyite, which means that he stands for world revolution,' Riesel wrote. 'Trotsky was to the left of Stalin and would have made Mao look like a paper tiger.' Riesel called on Washington to stop financing Ceylon and 'to tell the Ceylonese to jump in the Indian Ocean'. Neither Sri Lanka nor Nepal ever turned into 'India's Cuba', notwithstanding the warnings from Riesel and Killen. But their relations with the United States remained uneven, going through periodic ups and downs.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store