Why music duo Bob Vylan's pro-Palestine chants at UK festival prompted US visa ban
But then, on the West Holts Stage, a lesser-known duo called Bob Vylan grabs the mic and shifts the vibe. 'Free, free Palestine!' Bob Vylan shouts, his voice raw with conviction. The crowd joins in, chanting 'Death to the IDF' as a screen behind him flashes, 'The UN calls it genocide. The BBC calls it a 'conflict.''
It's a gut-punch moment, broadcast live by the BBC until they pull the plug. Social media explodes—some cheer, others rage.
The next day, Bob's on Instagram with a defiant 'I said what I said,' admitting he's getting love and hate in equal measure. British police start sniffing around, and the US announces that the bands visas will be revoked. In justification Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau wrote on X, 'Foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country.'
Suddenly, Glastonbury 2025 isn't just about music—it's a battleground.
This wasn't Glastonbury's first political rodeo. Even before the festival kicked off, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer was grumbling about Kneecap, an Irish rap crew whose member Mo Chara got slapped with a terrorism charge for allegedly waving a Hezbollah flag at a 2024 gig in London.
Starmer didn't think they belonged at Worthy Farm. Kneecap didn't care—they'd already stirred things up at Coachella earlier in 2025, chanting 'Free Palestine' and flashing anti-Israel messages, only to lose their US visa sponsor.
Festivals like these aren't just parties; they're places where people – artists and fans alike – wear their hearts and their politics on their sleeves.
Nothing amplifies this sentiment more than Woodstock. In 1969, over 400,000 people crammed onto a New York farm while the Vietnam War and racial violence tore America apart. Jimi Hendrix didn't just play 'The Star-Spangled Banner,' he turned it into a howl of protest, his guitar screaming like bombs and sirens. Country Joe's 'Fixin'-to-Die' had the crowd singing along, half-laughing, half-furious at the war machine.
Bruce Springsteen explained it years later saying, 'artists sing and think to throw in our two cents, right in front of everyone. Maybe people don't come to concerts for politics, but we can get them thinking about the big stuff together.'
Then there's the Concert for Bangladesh in 1971. George Harrison saw a war-torn crisis with refugees, famine, horror, and decided to do something. He got Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton, and others to play, raising millions for UNICEF. But it wasn't all feel-good. Pakistan's government, cozy with US President Richard Nixon, was livid that Harrison shone a spotlight on the conflict. Nevertheless, it showed how music can be a megaphone for the voiceless, even if it ruffles powerful feathers.
Live Aid in 1985 was another game-changer. Irish singer Bob Geldof, fed up with the Ethiopian famine, rounded up everyone from Queen to U2 for a global concert that pulled in over $125 million. Asked why he did it, he said he'd being trying to raise awareness to the humanitarian crisis in Africa for months. I was 'dialling 999 for six months, but the ambulance never came.,' he said.
Live Aid was proof that musicians could outdo politicians in rallying people. But it wasn't perfect—years later, whispers surfaced that some money got tangled up with armed groups, and Geldof found Ethiopia still struggling when he visited. It was a painful reminder that good intentions don't always mean clean results.
To those familiar with Glastonbury, politics isn't new. Glastonbury's always had that rebel spirit. It started in 1970 as a scrappy £1 hippie fest, dreamed up by Michael Eavis. Now it's a £400-ticket giant, with corporate sponsors and beefy security.
Some old-timers grumble it's lost its edge, especially after 1990, when clashes with New Age travellers forced it to tighten up. But the politics never left. In 2016, Brexit cast a shadow, and Adele told the crowd to 'look after each other.' In 2019, Stormzy got everyone yelling 'F— Boris' about the then-Prime Minister. This year, Kneecap aimed the same at Starmer.
It's like Glastonbury's a place where the world's frustrations get a mic. It's not just Glastonbury, though. In 1985, Brazil's Rock in Rio was a victory lap after a brutal dictatorship fell. Serbia's EXIT Festival was born in 2000 from kids fighting to oust Milošević, turning music into resistance. And in 2025, Georgia's Tbilisi Open Air became a full-on protest, with bands like LoudSpeakers slamming the pro-Russian government and calling for freedom.
Festivals are where music and heart collide with the world's chaos. When Bob Vylan or Kneecap take a stand, they're following a path carved by Hendrix, Harrison, and countless others. Sure, it can backfire—visa bans, police probes, or fans turning away. But standing in that crowd, chanting, feeling the pulse of thousands who agree, it's electric. It's a reminder that music doesn't just entertain, it can shake things up, make you think, and maybe, just maybe, change the world a little.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
'Affordable, accessible and approachable': Amit Shah unveils new criminal laws; a major reform for justice in India
File Image NEW DELHI: Stating that the new criminal laws shall be regarded as the biggest reform since Independence, home minister Amit Shah on Tuesday said they will shift the people's mindset from 'what will happen if I file an FIR' to a strong belief that 'filing an FIR will lead to prompt justice'. Addressing the programme 'A Golden Year of Trust in the Justice System' here to mark the successful completion of one year of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), Shah said new laws introduced by the Narendra Modi will not only make the judicial process 'affordable, accessible and approachable' but also 'simple, consistent and transparent'. 'There can be no greater reform than making the justice system - which protects the rights of the people - transparent, citizen-centric, and time-bound,' Shah said during the event also attended by Delhi LG V K Saxena and chief minister Rekha Gupta. The home minister said the new criminal laws will be fully implemented across the country in nearly three years, while sharing that 23 states and Union territories have already completed 100% capacity building. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Giao dịch CFD với công nghệ và tốc độ tốt hơn IC Markets Đăng ký Undo He complimented Delhi for doing the best, among all states/UTs, to implement the laws expeditiously. Shah, who until now has taken 160 meetings on the new laws, shared that notifications have already been issued for e-Sakshya (electronic evidence) and e-Summons (electronic summons) in 11 states and Union territories (UTs). Nyaya Shruti (electronic court records) has been notified in six states/UTs, and community service as punishment in a dozen states/UTs, he added. In the past year, nearly 14.8 lakh police personnel, 42,000 prison staff, over 19,000 judicial officers, and more than 11,000 public prosecutors were trained in provisions of the new laws. 'A golden era of governance based on social, economic, and political justice is about to begin,' Shah said and added that 'after the full implementation of these laws, justice in the country will be delivered all the way up to the Supreme Court starting from filing of the FIR, within three years. He explained that BNS, BNSS and BSA lay down strict timelines for the three key pillars responsible for delivering justice to citizens—the police, prosecution, and judiciary. Mentioning the smart use of technology for accurate and speedy criminal justice, the home minister expressed confidence that offenders will be left with no opportunity to escape punishment by availing the benefit of doubt. He said this will raise the conviction rate and make the Indian criminal justice system one of the most modern in the world. Shah said that while the purpose of the old laws was to extend British rule and protect their property, the new laws are focused on protecting the life, property, and all constitutionally guaranteed rights of Indian citizens, with the goal being justice and not punishment. The home minister said the new laws add a separate chapter on crimes against children and women. For the first time, terrorism and organised crime have been defined and provision made for stringent punishment, he underlined.
The Print
an hour ago
- The Print
The Preamble won't be changed back to the original. Here's why
The very first sentence of the Constitution has been studded with a lie for the last fifty years. We don't mind misattributing even grave things to the deceased Constitution makers. The Preamble, a one-sentence credo, carries the date 26 November 1949 in present tense, despite being altered 26 years afterwards. All this while leaders have been propagating with gusto that it is given by a demigod-like leader, BR Ambedkar. The irony of Indian politics can be understood by the condition of the Preamble of the Constitution. Our habit of playing with words and phrases is in full play here. Just review the issue. The Preamble of the original Constitution (1950) described India as a democratic republic. Twenty-six years later, two heavy political terms were added to it: 'secular' and 'socialist'. India was re-christened as 'democratic socialist secular republic' only on 26 November 1949. Now, fifty years after that deceit—intended or not—there is again a clamour to revert it to the original. No surprise if this turns out to be just another game of our leaders. The change was made during the Emergency. And the amendment was passed in the Parliament without genuine deliberation, as the Opposition was put in jail. It was perhaps a plot of an intellectual coterie that convinced Indira Gandhi to do it—she was not an ideologue like her father to flaunt such heavy terms. Also read: JP wasn't a saviour of Constitution. He called Mao his guru Tampering with basic structure The amendment proved to be a great distortion of the Constitution. Look at the facts: First, all political theorists considered the original Preamble remarkable. The famed British political scientist Ernest Barker began his 1952 book Principles of Social and Political Theory with the Preamble of the Indian Constitution. He said that it stated 'in a brief and pithy form the argument of much of the book'. This was a unique commendation for the original Preamble. Second, in political science or law teaching in India, the Preamble was called the soul and foundation of the Constitution. Therefore, to tamper with it was interfering with its soul. Third, the Supreme Court of India in the Berubari Union case (1960) described the Preamble as not part of the Constitution but an overall guiding principle of it, through which other provisions of the Constitution may be understood. So, the Preamble was itself a standard, a scale. And whoever heard of tampering with a scale? Fourth, the Supreme Court again, in 1973, in the Kesavananda Bharati case, declared that while the Preamble of the Constitution is not exempt from amendment, its basic structure cannot be changed. It grates against what was done three years later with it. Their Lordships, too, turned a Nelson's eye to this great contradiction. On all those four counts, it is undeniable that the alteration made to the Preamble was grave. The consequences have been graver still. The change made in 1976 hit the basics of the Constitution. It was especially damaging as it was an ideological amendment. It must also be noted that 'socialist' and 'secular' were known concepts to the Constitution makers. In fact, they discussed the issue of adding 'socialist' and 'secular' and rejected it. It is, therefore, a sin on the part of the leaders of the country to cheat the people by falsely propagandising this distorted Preamble for the last fifty years. Current propaganda, that it all is a 'legacy of Dr Ambedkar', is still more sinful. It is more so because it was Ambedkar himself who categorically rejected the proposal to include the words 'secular' and 'socialist' into the Constitution. It happened in the Constituent Assembly on 15 November 1948. A member of the Constituent Assembly, Professor KT Shah, had proposed to include the words 'secular, federal, socialist' into the Constitution. Rejecting it in toto, Ambedkar said: 'Mr. Vice‑President, Sir, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment of Prof. K. T. Shah. My objections, stated briefly, are two. In the first place, the Constitution…is merely a mechanism for the purpose of regulating the work of the various organs of the State…What should be the policy of the State, how the Society should be organised in its social and economic side are matters which must be decided by the people themselves according to time and circumstances. It cannot be laid down in the Constitution itself, because that is destroying democracy altogether…It is perfectly possible today, for the majority people to hold that the socialist organisation of society is better than the capitalist organisation of society. But it would be perfectly possible for thinking people to devise some other form of social organisation which might be better…I do not see therefore why the Constitution should tie down the people to live in a particular form…This is one reason why the amendment should be opposed…The second reason is that the amendment is purely superfluous…If these directive principles…are not socialistic in their direction and in their content, I fail to understand what more socialism can be. Therefore my submission is that these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution and it is unnecessary to accept this amendment.' Though he did not separately comment on the word 'secular', he dismissed the entire proposal. The Constituent Assembly concurred with him. Despite such rejection, the very terms were inserted into the Preamble through the 42nd Amendment in 1976. It is noteworthy, too, that the Janata Party government comprising the Jana Sangh, socialists, and other non-Congress parties continued with the distorted Preamble. They repealed many sections of the 42nd Amendment through the 44th Amendment in 1978, but they chose to keep the distortion of the Preamble. Thus, all political parties have injured the 'soul' of the Constitution. Also read: Hosabale, Dhankhar, Shivraj & Himanta give Modi yet another reason to amend BJP constitution Vote-bank politics After that, the character of the Constitution itself began to change. It gradually bore bitter fruit. It led to the establishment of an unstated anti-Hindu mindset in Indian politics, which slowly infiltrated the entire political and educational sphere. It is a dark irony that until the word 'secular' was added, the Constitution was indeed secular, treating all communities equally. But after inserting the word 'secular', most Indian leaders—knowingly or unknowingly—interpreted and applied it in ways that effectively rendered Hindus as second-class citizens. Now Hindus have become 'eighth-class citizens', to use the term from Anand Ranganathan's book Hindus in Hindu Rashtra. With time, Indian leaders competitively turned the terms 'minority' and 'secular' into mere tools of vote-bank politics. In the process, the original intent of the Constitution and the universal principles of common justice and morality have been undermined. Since all this unfolded gradually, it constituted a double betrayal of the Indian people. All political parties used the excuse of the 'Constitutional' mandate of secularism and a distorted reading of 'protection of minorities' as per Article 29 to provide facilities and privileges exclusively to non-Hindus. This, too, was against the intent of the Constitution makers, who had taken care to ensure every benefit to minorities without excluding the non-minorities from any benefits. But this exclusion is perpetrated by all rulers, especially after the distortion of the Preamble. In the absence of any political party to sincerely oppose it, Hindus were left with no means to even detect the wrong being done, let alone counter it. Most political leaders intended to woo bulk votes from a particular non-Hindu community. They quietly but openly cheated the unaware, helpless Hindu citizens. Therefore, any hope of correcting the distortion in the Preamble seems futile. Our political parties are deeply immersed in the quagmire of 'minority-ism'. It is unlikely that any of them will find the courage to come out of it. The issue will most probably be used to create a public uproar, each party using it to consolidate its constituencies. There will be talks of discrimination, accusations, and counter-accusations. Nothing more should be expected. Shankar Sharan is a columnist and professor of political science. He tweets @hesivh. Views are personal. (Edited by Theres Sudeep)
Hindustan Times
2 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Tougher UK visa measures for foreign workers tabled in Parliament
London: The British government on Tuesday tabled the first set of tougher visa norms in the House of Commons to curb the recruitment of foreign skilled workers across different sectors, including the care industry, dubbing it a 'complete reset' of the country's immigration system. The British government on Tuesday tabled the first set of tougher visa norms in the House of Commons to curb the recruitment of foreign skilled workers across different sectors, including the care industry, dubbing it a 'complete reset' of the country's immigration system. The new rules, proposed as part of an 'Immigration White Paper' back in May, will involve the skills and salary thresholds for foreign workers – including Indians – rise, overseas recruitment for care workers end, and more than 100 occupations including chefs and plasterers being taken off the shortage list which allowed certain visa exemptions. These changes, once approved by Parliament and effective from July 22, are designed to attract graduate level or above workers by making several low-paid jobs ineligible for visas. 'We are delivering a complete reset of our immigration system to restore proper control and order, after the previous government allowed net migration to quadruple in four years,' said UK Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. 'These new rules mean stronger controls to bring migration down, to restore order to the immigration system and to ensure we focus on investing in skills and training here in the UK,' she said. The minister said her department's tougher approach 'values skills, tackles exploitation and ensures those who come to the UK make a genuine contribution'. According to a Commons statement tabled by home office minister Seema Malhotra, skilled workers already in the UK will be exempt from the increased skill level requirement which stipulate a Bachelor's degree or equivalent for applications from July 22 onwards when these changes come into force. 'Salary requirements for work visas are being raised in line with the latest Office for National Statistics data, ahead of an upcoming thorough review of salary requirements (including discounts) by the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC),' reads Malhotra's parliamentary statement. Overseas recruitment for social care worker roles will close on July 22 and while new overseas applications will no longer be accepted, transitional provisions will allow 'in-country switching' for care workers already in the UK for another three years until July 2028. These changes restore order to the points-based system, focusing on higher skills, lower numbers and tighter controls, the UK Home Office said. They are an important step in ending the UK's reliance on overseas, lower skilled recruitment, it added. Only time-limited access below degree level will be allowed for certain professions on a 'temporary' shortage list of so-called 'critical roles', with the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) commissioned to conduct a review of this time-limited list – including occupations, salaries and benefits. 'Workers in occupations on the temporary shortage list will no longer be able to bring dependants and will not be permitted salary and visa fee discounts. The occupations included on the List are time-limited until the end of 2026 and will only remain beyond that date if the independent Migration Advisory Committee recommend it,' the Home Office said. The next set of changes recommended in the White Paper are also in line to be implemented by the end of this year, including raising the immigration skills charge on companies employing overseas workers and toughening English language requirements on visa applicants.
