After a long pause, retail fuel prices have been inching up over the past week and have crossed the Rs. 100 litre-mark again in several parts of the country, while LPG cylinder prices have been hiked by Rs. 50. India officially has a deregulated pricing regime, but in recent years, this practice has been put on hold during election campaigns. Is the fuel pricing policy problematic? D.K. Srivastava and S.C. Sharma discuss the question in a conversation moderated byVikas Dhoot :
How has India’s fuel pricing regime evolved in recent years, culminating in the so-called deregulated pricing regime?
S.C. Sharma:The story of dismantling oil prices starts from 1997. In 1995-96, India had an import dependency of about 65%-70%, so the government thought of moving from an administered price mechanism on a cost-plus basis to market-determined consumer prices for petrol, diesel and other fuels. The Nirmal Singh Committee made recommendations in late 1996 and it was decided that the oil pricing mechanism would be dismantled gradually from 1997 till 2002, from 75% in the first year to 100% by April 2002. Ram Naik, the Petroleum Minister in 2002, announced full dismantling as oil prices were comfortable.
From 2004, oil prices started moving up, and the United Progressive Alliance government restored the cost-plus pricing system to protect consumers. From an average price close to $48 a barrel in 2006, prices moved up each year and peaked at $143 a barrel in 2008. The average price was $69 then. In 2009, prices moved up to $89, and stayed between $100 and $120 till 2014. The government did not pass on the entire price burden to consumers, and subsidised prices for transport fuels, LPG and kerosene through a mechanism to provide for oil marketing companies’ under-recoveries. Till 2009-10, the government had issued Rs. 1,42,203 crore in oil bonds, but it started providing cash subsidies thereafter till 2014-15. Oil prices came down to about $50 per barrel in 2015, which was a happy situation for the National Democratic Alliance government, which again started implementing the market price mechanism. The prices remained at a low average level of $50-$60 per barrel, so the market price mechanism could be implemented very easily without giving much discomfort to the consumers.
The current high prices are largely due to two factors. The higher level of excise on transport fuels has led to higher VAT levies in States, which have in turn increased the prices. The Rupee has depreciated and the share of energy imports has gone from 70% to 86%-87%. The OPEC countries not releasing production quotas since COVID-19, and the Ukraine-Russia crisis, are also key factors for the high prices.
There is a stop-and-start approach to price changes despite a free pricing regime. As soon as elections in critical States are announced, fuel prices are frozen irrespective of global price trends. How does this affect the economy?
D.K. Srivastava:The broader lesson is that the government has not been able to stick to either the earlier regime or the current regime whenever global price pressures have gone above a certain threshold. When the variations are within a certain range, the mechanism has worked, but the moment there is added pressure on global crude prices, there are political economy reasons as well as sound economic reasons for the government to deviate from the stated policy either temporarily or in a more regular way. Even as a de-administered pricing regime was introduced, it was partial to begin with, and there were repeated deviations as soon as global prices rose. So, when prices cross a threshold, we give up. Right now, we say ‘temporarily’, but we have to really revisit this issue because the Indian economy has become vulnerable to global crude price pressures. In fact, if those prices are passed on fully to consumers and industrial users, they will generate major economic effects. High retail inflation now will lead to an adverse income effect, which will lead to a subdued consumption expenditure recovery. After COVID-19, the economy has not been able to recover fully and investment has not taken off because private final consumption expenditure has not fully recovered and there is a very strong adverse income effect. This is having an adverse impact on inflation and growth and the government is now faced with a very serious problem. If it allows this effect to be passed on fully, then post-COVID-19 economic recovery will take more time, because it has to allow consumption expenditure to recover to pre-COVID-19 levels. And if it does not do so, then there are obviously serious fiscal costs. So, who is going to bear the burden of these costs: the Central government or State governments? This is a critical and a long-term issue, because we are not able to manage a meaningful de-administered price over a long period of time and we make short-term compromises again and again.
In the short term, the only quick solution could be a reduction in excise duties or taxes, which will have a fiscal cost. But the government has had fairly healthy tax revenues this year…
DKS:Yes, in the short run, the tax buoyancy and the prospects for 2022-23 provide certain fiscal legroom to absorb a reduction in excise duty on petroleum products. This kind of buoyancy is also there for States through the VAT on petroleum products, so if the Centre and States can come together, coordinate and balance the burden of adjustment among themselves, then there is room to absorb some of the costs. But this is only for the current period. The corporate income tax reforms, the expected reform on personal income tax and the GST reforms all proved to have a revenue-adverse impact, so the capacity of the Central government to absorb increases in global crude prices became limited even before we hit the COVID-19 threshold. GST is still not revenue-neutral, corporate income tax has still not fully recovered, and if investment does not take place, the expected buoyancy won’t occur. Let us take recourse to the fiscal space available in the short run. But we have to recognise that the tax-to-GDP ratio, particularly of the Central government, has not touched the old peak levels after these reforms. So, we continue to live with important constraints.
SCS:The government has to choose between healthy revenue generation and giving a fillip to the economy through lower prices. The contribution of the petroleum sector to the exchequer in 2014-15 was Rs. 1,72,065 crore, which went up to Rs. 4,53,820 crore largely due to excessive excise duties. The excise today on petrol is around Rs. 29 a litre and Rs. 23-24 on diesel. The States have also benefitted with VAT collections having risen. So, it’s a dual effect for consumers. Over the last 25-30 years, one should have diversified revenue generation from different sectors, but if you depend only on the oil sector, it makes a difference to growth and inflation because everyone depends on oil.
The government has been critical of oil bonds that were issued earlier. Is a direct transfer from the fiscal pool a cleaner way to pay oil marketing companies for losses due to price freezes?
DKS:Obviously, oil bonds are a very inefficient intervention as they only tend to postpone the problem. Right now, the options of the government are limited because of the lack of a macro vision for fiscal reforms. For example, corporate income tax used to contribute 34.5% of the Centre’s gross taxes in 2014-15. This came down to 22.6% in 2020-21 and is at 25.2% even in 2021-22, which indicates that even in this better year, the government does not have the fiscal capacity to absorb the burden of sudden and sharp rises in global crude prices. This is because the timing of fiscal reforms, the rate reduction that led to this massive erosion of growth of corporate income tax, has really tied the hands of the Central government.
It is clear that from 2002 onwards, our strategy for dealing with the vulnerability of the Indian economy to global crude price rises on a trend basis has not been developed. So, we actually have a myopic view — when it is a sudden and sharp rise above trend, we develop some short-term measures like these oil bonds. But knowing fully well that the dependence of the Indian economy on imported crude oil has been rising and is now around 85%, and global crude prices are also rising, there has not been any long-term strategy to deal with this. So, all the time, we have short-term measures and our reforms are also not well-coordinated. This is why we keep landing ourselves in such macro situations that are so adverse for growth and inflation. We have calculated that if the average oil price in 2022-23 settles at $100 per barrel, the growth rate would fall by 70 basis points, inflation would increase by 100 basis points,ceteris paribus. These are major adverse macroeconomic effects soon after the deleterious impact of COVID-19. We have failed to develop the capacity and policy to cope with this well-known trend of increasing dependence and rising global prices on a trend basis. We get lost in the short-term volatility.
How does this stop-and-start pricing approach for fuels affect interest from global investors in the oil and gas sector or bidders for BPCL?
DKS:It is definitely a red flag because investors study closely governments’ behavioural responses to various kinds of shocks that emanate from the world economy. Everybody understands that this policy may not be resorted to for some time, because there are no elections around the corner. Investors also look at the prospects of the Indian economy and capacity utilisation. Unless the capacity utilisation ratio increases to something like 75 or 80, new investment decisions will be postponed, and the cycle can only be turned by reviving consumption expenditure. Passing through higher oil prices will dent investments as well as consumption through cost escalation and income shocks. So, we have a vicious circle for policymakers now.
SCS:Oil and energy are essential commodities and the government doesn’t want to completely let the sector out of its hands because any supply disruption impacts the country’s mobility and the economy’s health. If you see the reforms process towards market prices over the last 20 years and the stop-and-start approach over the past six-seven years, if the government control on prices was 90% earlier, it has become 10% to 15% now.
Should the Model Code of Conduct, to be followed during poll campaigns, include the deferral of routine administrative decisions such as revision of oil prices or small savings rates?
DKS:This is desirable, but it cannot happen unless the decision of determining the price goes to some independent body. I don’t think any government would be willing to give up whatever little legroom it has. We need to develop a proper medium-term growth strategy with taxation of petroleum products as a critical ingredient. Petroleum products are highly polluting, so we have a long-term trend of increasing tax burden on their users. But that long-term path should be determined. As long as we are seeing this prospect of continued high dependence as well as continued high prices, despite the move towards non-conventional energy sources, we have to really increase our tax-to-GDP ratio from other sources. Unless that is done, we will be dealing with various versions of stop-and-go pricing.
The government has to choose between healthy revenue generation and giving a fillip to the economy through lower fuel prices.
s.c. sharma
Springing a surprise, the Union Minister of State for Home Affairs, Ajay Mishra Teni, on Monday introduced the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill 2022. The Bill was neither put up for pre-legislative consultation nor indicated in the session’s legislative agenda in Parliament. Seemingly technical, it is a legislative proposal that undermines the privacy of not only persons convicted of crime but also every ordinary Indian citizen as it proposes replacing a law that is over a 100 years old.
What needs scrutiny
Let us first understand why it is being introduced, and what it intends to achieve. The Bill aims to replace the Identification of Prisoners Act 1920 that has been in need of amendment for several decades. Back in the 1980s, the Law Commission of India (in its 87th Report) and the Supreme Court of India in a judgment titledState of U.P. vs Ram Babu Misra had nearly simultaneously suggested the need to amend the statute. The criticism and the need for amendment was predominantly in respect of the limited definition of ‘measurements’ as under that Act. It seems that this is one of the primary issues that the proposed legislation is designed to resolve.
In this regard, it might be unexceptional, being an expression of long-held views within the legal establishment. However, the devil is in the details, with three expansions in the power of state surveillance (in the name of criminal reforms) that merit further scrutiny.
First, the definition of measurements is not restricted to taking measurements, but also their “analysis”, when the definition now states “iris and retina scan, physical, biological samples and their analysis, behavio[u]ral attributes including signatures….” This definition is nebulous and vague. It goes beyond the scope of a law which is only designed for taking measurements and could result in indirectly conferring legislative backing for techniques which may involve the collection of data from other sources. For instance, using facial recognition technology where measurements of persons as under this law are compared with samples taken from the general public.
At present there are extensive facial recognition technology programmes for “smart policing” that are deployed all across the country. For instance, the Delhi police use facial recognition technology originally acquired for identification of missing children in 2018 to also screen for “habitual offenders”. Similarly, the Tamil Nadu police deploy facial recognition systems which are integrated with State- and national-level databases including CCTV footage. Such experimental technologies cause mass surveillance and are prone to bias, impacting the fundamental rights of the most vulnerable in India.
Data capture and ‘choice’
The second area of the expansion of surveillance concerns from whom such “measurements” can be gathered. The existing law permits data capture by police and prison officers either from persons convicted or persons arrested for commission of offences punishable with a minimum of one year’s imprisonment. Parallel powers are granted to judges, who can order any person to give measurements where it is in aid of investigation. While the judicial power is left undisturbed, it is the powers of the police and prison officials that are being widened. The law removes the existing — albeit minimal — limitation on persons whose measurements could be taken. It is poised to be expanded to all persons who are placed under arrest in a case. This is a truly breathtaking spectrum, including petty crime such as violating a prohibitory order for not wearing a mask, jaywalking or a traffic violation.
Here, the proposed Bill also contains muddied language stating that a person, “may not be obliged to allow taking of his biological samples”. This, on its surface, offers a choice to a person to refuse. However the words “may not be obliged” may also be read to offer discretion onto a police officer to confer such a choice. In any instance the exercise of such “choice” is presumed in law, it may not be truly voluntary, given the absence of wider accountability reforms in which existing policing practices are coercive.
Even if these objections are disregarded, the “choice”, if any, is limited only to, “biological samples” from the wider data points captured within what constitutes, “measurements”. For instance, “iris and retina scan” is mentioned separately to, “biological samples”, and hence a person arrested under any crime or preventive detention law if desired by the police will be required to scan their eyes.
Storage of data
The third area of concern is the database of the “measurements” which are gathered. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) shall for a period of 75 years from the date of collection maintain a digital record, “in the interest of prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of any offense”. As pointed out by Prof. Aparna Chandra (an associate professor of law) on Twitter, “How will these records be used for preventing crime except through surveillance?” This becomes clear when the provision permits the NCRB to, “share and disseminate such records with any law enforcement agency, in such manner as may be prescribed”.
It is important to consider that the NCRB already operates a centralised database, namely the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS), without any clear legislative framework. The interaction between the proposed law and CCTNS is not clearly defined though likely, given the powers conferred under for digital records go to the same government department.
The existence of such legislative power with a technical framework may permit multiple mirror copies and parallel databases of the “measurements” being stored with law enforcement, beyond a State Police department which will be prosecuting the crime and the NCRB which will store all records centrally. For instance, in response to a Standing Committee of Parliament on police modernisation, Rajasthan has stated that it maintains a ‘RajCop Application’ that integrates with “analytics capabilities in real-time with multiple data sources (inter-department and intra-department)”. Similarly, Punjab has said that the “PAIS (Punjab Artificial Intelligence System) App uses machine learning, deep learning, visual search, and face recognition for the identification of criminals to assist police personnel. This app helps in storing and carrying information about criminals”. Hence, multiple copies of “measurements” will be used by State government policing departments for various purposes and with experimental technologies. This also takes away the illusionary benefit of deletion which occurs on acquittal and will suffer from weak enforcement due to the absence of a data protection law.
In sum, once a person enters their “measurements” within the system, they stay there for life given the average life expectancy in India which hovers around 70 years is less than the retention period. The end result is a sprawling database in which innocent persons are treated as persons of interest for most of their natural lives.
While the impact on persons with privilege may be minimal, the masses — many of whom lack social and economic power in Indian society — may face harsher law enforcement. This becomes clear from the primary research-based article, “Settled Habits, New Tricks”, by Ameya Bokil, Nikita Sonavane and Srujana Bej from the Criminal Justice and Police Accountability Project (the other writers include Avaneendra Khare and Vaishali Janarthanan). They pointed to the caste bias against the Pardhi Adivasi community which was at one time designated as a criminal tribe. In this context they state, “In reality since these databases are fed by the police’s centuries-long caste-based system of preventive surveillance and predictive policing (which has already determined who is a criminal and what crimes habitual criminals commit repeatedly), there is no possibility of objectivity or lack of caste bias. The CCTNS only adds a technological veneer to a caste-based policing model....” It is foreseeable that if the proposed ambit of “measurements” is expanded and then put in a database, it will likely also target the Pardhis.
Onus is on government
Injuries to privacy are not mere academic debates and cause real, physical and mental consequences for people. To protect individual autonomy and fulfil our constitutional promises, the Supreme Court of India pronounced the Justice K.S. Puttaswamy judgment, reaffirming its status as a fundamental right. The responsibility to protect it falls to each organ of the government, including the legislature and the union executive. For India to fulfil its claims of being a constitutional democracy, rather than a mere electoral democracy, it will have to be better rather than regressing even from the Identification of Prisoners Act passed by a colonial regime.
Apar Gupta is a lawyer and the Executive Director of the Internet Freedom Foundation. Abhinav Sekhri is an advocate practising in Delhi
The visit of Nepal’s Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Deuba to India, beginning April 1 — four years after a Nepali leader visited New Delhi — is significant. It is the first bilateral visit abroad for Mr. Deuba who leads an election government; local elections are to take place on May 13 and federal elections are slated later in the year. In April 2018, Nepal Prime Minister K.P. Sharma Oli had a lacklustre-feel good visit to India, with little achievement worth talking about.
Mr. Deuba assumed office in July 2021, his fifth time as Prime Minister, leading a fragile coalition that has not been able to make Parliament function. The Nepal Parliament has been dysfunctional since July 2020 after cracks within the former Communist alliance developed in December 2019. The novel coronavirus pandemic has been a face-saving event for political forces.
Nepal’s relations with India, that plummeted to a historic low after the Indian blockade in September 2015, have yet to recover as Nepalis do not see relations with India improving any time soon. India’s refusal to accept demonetised bills with the Nepal Rastra Bank worth just INRRs. 7 crore and the unknown fate of the report submitted by the Eminent Persons Group (EPG) have not helped in securing it a better image in Nepal. The fact that passengers boarding flights from Nepal to India are still subjected to a pre-boarding security check even over 20 years after the hijack of an Indian Airlines aircraft, determines the perception of trust of India in Nepal. This is despite thousands of Nepalis serving in the Indian Army and Nepali villages expressing grief whenever violence escalates in India as many lose their lives defending a country that is not their own.
Complicated geopolitics
Geopolitics is a complicated challenge for Nepal, whose geography requires it to make best use of its position between China and India. The last couple of months are an example of how complicated it can get. When the Nepalese Parliament ratified a U.S.$500 million grant assistance-Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) pact, there were street protests and big-time social media campaigns supported by China. However, India’s silence and the offer of other routes for power transmission as an alternative to the MCC confused everyone: was India for or against the MCC grant to Nepal? With relations between India and the United States further complicated by the China factor and India abstaining on the Russia vote in the United Nations even as Nepal voted in favour of it, the problems have continued to mount.
The recent visit by the Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi, to Nepal has resulted in a situation that everyone in Nepal is trying to decipher. Analysts also suggest that Mr. Wang did assure his Indian counterpart that Nepal should work out its internal equations with India and that China would stay out. But in reality, the Chinese engagement has been very deep as seen in the anti-MCC campaign. U.S. grant and investment activities are seeing a revival post the MCC ratification and India does not want to see other powers active in Nepal.
With Mr. Deuba leading a fragile coalition, there are not many issues he may want to accomplish, but he should be able to push some of the key pending ones.
The main priorities
First, the power trade agreement needs to be such that India can build trust in Nepal. Despite more renewable energy projects (solar) coming up in India, hydropower is the only source that can manage peak demand in India. For India, buying power from Nepal would mean managing peak demand and also saving the billions of dollars of investments which would have to be invested in building new power plants, many of which would cause pollution.
Second, while trade and transit arrangements go through the usual extensions, it is time to undertake a complete rethink as the sales of goods and payments moves through electronic platforms — this can provide many new opportunities for businesses on both sides of the border.
Third, the Bilateral Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (BIPPA) signed between India and Nepal needs more attention from the Nepali side. A commitment from Mr. Deuba on implementing this would attract more foreign investments from Indian investors. The private sector in Nepal, especially the cartels in the garb of trade associations, are fighting tooth and nail against foreign investments. So, it will be important for Mr. Deuba to deliver a message that Nepal welcomes Indian investments and that he is willing to fight the domestic cartels knowing well that it may dent a bit of funding for his party for elections.
A new Nepal now
Finally, it is for Mr. Deuba to provide the confidence that Nepal is keen to work with India while at the same time making it clear that it cannot take on India’s pressure to ignore China or the U.S. In the context of Nepalis currently living in 180 countries, India must note that it is a new Nepal it has to deal with from now.
Perhaps there is hope that the situation can improve — in the appointment of Dr. Shankar Sharma, a seasoned economist, who was also Nepal’s Ambassador to the U.S., as Nepal’s Ambassador to India. He was responsible for recalibrating Nepal’s relations with the U.S. Perhaps we can hope that India will engage with him more deeply without the usual condescending attitude. Perhaps, an open moment has arrived.
Sujeev Shakya is the author of ‘Unleashing Nepal’ and ‘Unleashing The Vajra’
Why does everyone love to hate the Academy Awards? I have been befuddled by this ever since I began watching the show keenly two decades ago. My first year of breathless excitement is one for the record books: whenTitanicswept the awards.
Since then, my fascination for Hollywood’s most prestigious awards ceremony has only increased, as my knowledge of cinema and of the lives of the rich and famous have expanded in equal measure. The awards are not just about cheering on the films that captivate us, but getting a ringside seat in order to witness the emotions of the crème de la crème of the film fraternity, on a night when anything can happen.
As a film journalist, my excitement for the awards sets in January, when the nominations are first announced. From that moment, I frantically attempt to watch as many missed movies as possible before late February, when the event is traditionally scheduled. This is no mean feat living in India, where award candidates either have staggered/late releases or none at all, though this has improved in recent times with the influx of streaming platforms. Expectations intensify when the Academy host/s are finalised, by which time firm camps are in place for the Best Picture and Best Actor categories.
I often stay up the whole night in wide-eyed anticipation instead of setting an alarm to watch the show. There’s always a shocking fashion revelation or faux pas to look forward to. And when showtime begins, I try to figure out if the hosts are going to create a viral moment, such as when Ellen DeGeneres took that famous selfie, or if there is going to be a spectacular train wreck, such as in 2011 when Anne Hathaway and James Franco hosted the show. From the presenters’ banter to the jaw-dropping musical acts to the awards themselves, the Academy Awards are a breathless four hours of elation, heartbreak, shock and surprise.
Unlike others, I enjoy watching the post-interviews too, as winners are given a chance to speak in-depth about their craft, as opposed to the dramatic and rushed speeches on the Academy stage. And then comes my one true guilty pleasure: the after parties such as the Governors Ball or the Vanity Fair event where Hollywood royalty cuts loose.
It is a lot to take in. And it’s easy to understand where the reluctance to celebrate this show of avarice and privilege comes from, not to mention the many problems that have surrounded the gala in recent years: the #OscarsSoWhite protest in 2016 and #MeToo and Time’s Up taking center-stage in 2018 in the wake of Academy heavyweight Harvey Weinstein’s conviction. However, it is also important to note that the Academy (unlike, say, the Golden Globe Awards) have acted quickly to correct several fundamental mistakes. They also provide stars the biggest stage to shed light on issues that are close to them. This often makes the Academy Awards a night of political activism, unlike the popular award ceremonies in India. Whether it is Frances McDormand’s demand last year for an “inclusion rider” in clauses or Ariana DeBose this week batting for queer and Afro-Latina representation, the Academy Awards have always led to heated debates and increased awareness on topics of significance (of course you looked up ‘alopecia’ too). After having doubled the number of female members and tripled the members of colour, the Academy has put out another promise: from 2025, films will be eligible for consideration only if they meet the standards of two out of four broad groups of criteria.
This time, after two years of the pandemic (and last year’s pared-down event), it was surreal to welcome the stars back to the Dolby Theatre. While there will always be certain riveting moments from the awards that we will remember years later, the Oscars are a great night to appreciate and celebrate the movies, to appreciate and identify with struggles, to see up-close-and-personal the emotions of stars as they unfold, to root for favourites, to enter a world of glamour. What’s there not to like?
gautam.sundar@thehindu.co.in
The adoption of the Charter at the Fifth Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC) summit promises to re-energise the 25-year-old grouping at a time of growing global uncertainties. The Charter is expected to help impart a more connected vision to the seven-member organisation. The Charter, and India’s decision to lead the ‘security pillar’ out of the seven designated pillars of the revived BIMSTEC, has given India’s regional aspirations a new orientation, away from the stalemated SAARC that has been unable to meet since November 2014. The new opportunity is also accompanied by its own set of problems. These inherent challenges were reflected in the time taken to finalise the Charter — one of the key factors was the Rohingya crisis that has weakened bilateral Bangladesh-Myanmar ties, with Dhaka seeking full repatriation of the refugees and Naypyidaw disinclined to respond positively to international pleas. Unlike SAARC, which is burdened by India-Pakistan hostilities, BIMSTEC is relatively free of sharp bilateral disagreements and promises to provide India with a co-operative sphere of its own. Given the complexity of domestic and geopolitical factors, this sphere will require sustained bilateral and group-level discussions to prevent problems such as the Rohingya crisis from becoming impediments to the smooth delivery of economic and security outcomes. India too will have to ensure equally sustained political engagement with partners such as Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh to prevent any domestic political spillover from affecting bilateral and group-level working relationships.
With his call for a BIMSTEC Free Trade Agreement, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has outlined India’s vision to bolster trade connectivity in the grouping. An FTA spanning the maritime resource-rich members such as Myanmar and Sri Lanka could bring dramatic gains for all members. A ‘coastal shipping ecosystem’ and an interconnected electricity grid, in addition to the adopted Master Plan for Transport Connectivity, have the potential to boost intraregional trade and economic ties. Having walked away from mega trade blocs such as the China-led RCEP, New Delhi’s willingness to explore an FTA within the framework of a near-home regional grouping may provide greater accommodation for multi-party interests. The security- and trade-related lessons from the troubled SAARC and SAFTA experiences also ought to serve BIMSTEC well in the long run. Ultimately though, for the revived grouping to realise its trade and economic potential, India will have to take a leadership role in assuaging any apprehensions among the smaller members of intragroup power imbalances and strive to facilitate greater cross-border connectivity and flow of investments by lowering barriers to the movement of people and goods.
Tuesday’s agreement between Assam and Meghalaya to end their boundary dispute in six of the 12 areas, where discord persisted, is a welcome first step. The agreement signed by Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma and his Meghalaya counterpart Conrad Sangma, in the presence of Home Minister Amit Shah, also sets the stage to resolve differences in the remaining six areas. Based on a draft resolution of January 29 between the two States, the agreement covers Tarabari, Gizang, Hahim, Boklapara, Khanapara-Pillangkata and Ratacherra under the Kamrup, Kamrup (Metro) and Cachar districts of Assam and the West Khasi Hills, Ri-Bhoi and East Jaintia Hills districts of Meghalaya. By adopting a give-and-take approach, the two States have demonstrated that knotty boundary issues can be resolved — in this case, partially to begin with — if there is a will to arrive at an agreement. Of the disputed territory — a little over 36 square kilometres — the two States will get a near equal share, enshrining the sharing principle that might serve as a template to resolve other boundary disputes in the northeast. Assam, the mother State from which other States were carved out in the northeast, currently has boundary disputes with Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland. As the Home Minister underscored in Delhi, the spirit shown by Mr. Sarma and Mr. Sangma should be used in other disputes as well. People living in the six disputed areas should be allowed to choose where they want to live. While Mr. Sarma has blamed the Congress for allowing the dispute between Assam and Meghalaya to fester, Nandita Das, Congress MLA from the Boko seat, alleged that in three of the six “resolved sectors”, there was no give and take. The agreement requires delineation and demarcation by the Survey of India as well as parliamentary approval.
One can only hope that the right lessons will be drawn by Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram and Nagaland from Tuesday’s accord to understand the other’s point of view and come to agreements. In July 2021, five policemen and a civilian from Assam were shot dead in violent clashes with their Mizo counterparts at a disputed point between Assam and Mizoram. The clash came right after a meeting that Mr. Shah had had with the Chief Ministers of northeast States to resolve boundary disputes. It is imperative that Assam and the other States locked in dispute use goodwill and the good offices of the Centre. Rather than entrusting security to paramilitary forces, one confidence-building measure could be to deploy State police without arms wherever possible. It would be a signal that all States are committed to resolving their disputes peacefully. For the moment, Tuesday’s agreement is a moment to savour.
Lucknow, March 31: The Uttar Pradesh Vidhan Sabha Deputy Speaker Mr. Vasu Deo Singh to-day ruled that the newspapers had the right to publish news from their own angle “even if it hurts someone”. The ruling came while he rejected a notice of breach of privilege moved by Mr. Kalpa Nath Singh (Cong. O) against a local English daily for commenting on his party’s strength in the House and thus challenging the authority of the Chair. Mr. Kalpa Nath Singh said the daily had published a statement of Congress-O Legislature Party General Secretary, Mr. Basant Lal Sharma that his party’s strength in the House was 46 but had immediately reduced it to 37 quoting a Congress source. This amounted to demoralising his party members. Mr. Madho Prasad Tripathi (JS) charged the Congress with instigating the newspapers to give news intended to influence the Opposition members. Intervening, the Chief Minister Mr. Kamlapati Tripathy described the charge as “baseless”.
On a day when Union Home Minister Amit Shah was making a vivid speech in Parliament, invoking “janata ka faisla (people’s verdict)” and taunting political opponents including the Aam Aadmi Party, while responding to the debate on the Delhi Municipal Corporation (Amendment) Bill 2022, a section of his partymen pushed their way up to the Delhi Chief Minister’s residence and acted like lumpens. Nearly 200 members of the BJP’s youth wing, Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM), broke through barricades, vandalised a CCTV camera, kicked and banged the main gate and threw colour on it. They were ostensibly protesting against CM Kejriwal’s comments earlier on the film, ‘The Kashmir Files,’ in the Delhi Assembly. They were led by BJYM national president and BJP MP Tejasvi Surya, the leadership’s posterboy who has acquired a reputation for making incendiary remarks against minorities — and who, recently, had to “unconditionally” swallow some of his words when, ahead of the Goa polls, he made a provocation too many, calling for bringing back into the Hindu fold all those who had converted to Islam and Christianity. Surely, the BJP can spot the bizarre contrast in these two scenes of a democracy. Surely, it cannot congratulate itself for impaling the Opposition with sharp arguments on the floor of the House, the highest forum of debate, without first expressing contrition for the thuggish protest outside the Delhi CM’s residence on Wednesday.
The hostilities between the BJP and AAP have recently received a boost due to the latter’s Punjab victory. Its high-profile success for the second time in Delhi had already set it on a collision course with the BJP. At the same time, it has also become clear that the AAP is carving out for itself a less tidy, more complex trajectory. On the BJP-led Centre’s August 5 scrapping of Article 370 in Kashmir, for instance, the AAP was the first in the Opposition to explicitly support the decision. It has also not hesitated to take the battle to the BJP with its own endorsement of, and participation in, a performative patriotism and religiosity in public spaces, be it in a temple in Delhi or Ayodhya. Whether or not the AAP’s strategy is the best way to take on the BJP’s challenge is debatable. But it may have already made it a little more difficult for the BJP to label Kejriwal’s party as “anti Hindu” or “pro Muslim” or “pro terror” reflexively, a ploy it uses with almost every Opposition party.
Perhaps the lumpenism by the BJYM Wednesday was meant to pin one of these labels on AAP. Or it was a show of muscle by a party out to fix anyone who stands up to disagree. Whatever it was, the BJP must condemn it unequivocally. And Delhi Police, which registered an FIR against “unidentified persons” even though the culprits are caught on camera, brazen and unabashed, must know that its cave-in is being watched. In Parliament, Shah said “BJP workers don’t need to be afraid of anyone.” Perhaps he should tell his younger colleagues, who broke barricades and clambered atop a police vehicle, that not being afraid is not a licence to spread fear. Because blinking at the thuggery of its own does not behove a ruling party.
This editorial first appeared in the print edition on April 1, 2022 under the title ‘House and street’.
On Tuesday, sewer lines claimed four more lives in the city. Though the victims in northwest Delhi were not sanitation sector employees, the incident speaks of the many abdications that have imperilled work at sanitation sites in the country. Three telephone linesmen accidentally fell into an open septic pit below the overhead wires they were repairing. Much like the 340-odd sanitation workers, who according to government data, died while working at sewers and septic tanks between 2016 and 2020, the victims of Tuesday’s mishap were failed by their employers. They were not shielded by the protective gear mandated for such hazardous work by the safety laws of the country. An autorickshaw driver who jumped into the toxic cesspool to rescue the linesmen, was the fourth victim. The entangled wires and noxious gases in the pit that hobbled the rescue mission, are testimony to the unsafe working conditions at sewer lines that take a toll all too frequently.
Amongst the first important steps taken by Prime Minister Narendra Modi after he assumed office in 2014 was to end the culture of silence on matters related to sanitation. Unfortunately, however, the zeal that led to the accomplishment of most of the goals of the first phase of the Swachh Bharat Mission hasn’t translated into meaningful improvement in the working conditions of those who plumb sewage pits. Some local government agencies, including the Delhi Jal Board, did provide safety kits to the sewer cleaners and attempted to mechanise septic tank cleaning. Last year, the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) advised that sanitary workers should be treated as “frontline health workers for all purposes” and called for fixing responsibility for deaths at sanitation sites. However, municipalities and government agencies continue to subcontract work at sanitation sites to private contractors, many of whom are fly-by-night-operators, who do not maintain proper rolls of their employees. The intertwining of work at sanitation sites with caste and the desperate poverty of some of the workers makes the problem even more intractable.
The NHRC has asked the Delhi government, the city’s police commissioner and the chairman of the MTNL to submit a “detailed report” on the incident within four weeks. It has demanded action against the responsible officers. There is no doubt that accountability must be fixed. But for far too long, employers have paid short shrift to the dignity of workers at sanitation sites. It’s high time this fundamental problem is addressed.
This editorial first appeared in the print edition on April 1, 2022 under the title ‘Unacceptable toll’.
A Chinese delegation would visit India within the next two months to continue the dialogue between the two countries, External Affairs Minister P V Narasimha Rao told the Lok Sabha. While refuting Opposition criticism that India was dragging its feet on the matter, Rao said that both sides had a lot of homework to do before the next round of talks. “We are in touch with them, and we will continue to explore all possibilities to ensure that the dialogue fructifies,” he added. Winding up a two-day debate on grants for his ministry, Rao also referred to the India-Pakistan relationship and said that India wanted a no-war pact, which would reflect an abiding relationship between the two countries. But he also said that there was a history of no-war pacts and India did not want a repetition.
West Bengal is likely to go to the polls in the middle of May this year to elect a new legislative assembly. The Election Commission has sent a communication to the Left Front government suggesting a timetable for the elections. According to the Commission, it has asked the Jyoti Basu government if it was ready, and if it could make arrangements for adhering to the time-tables.
Four members of the Press Commission are giving a dissenting note that amounts to a severe indictment of the commission for its majority report likely to be presented to the government next week. The dissenters, who are eminent journalists and experts, have alleged that the report sought to arm the government with powers that can cow down the press.
Pour yourself a stiff one before you hear this one. According to Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, those who drink alcohol are “not Indians”. “They are mahapaapis,” he thundered in the state assembly. Now, if one could down a glass of mahua for every innocuous little thing that self-styled custodians of desi indignation have declared “un-Indian”, it would at least make for pleasant evenings. But to have a seasoned socialist leader, a six-time chief minister, join in this juvenile labelling is rather dispiriting. It suggests that even a Patiala peg of sobriety — arguably Nitish Kumar’s current choice of poison — might be injurious to health and reason.
The irony is that the Bihar CM’s rant came when the assembly was voting to amend the state’s harsh prohibition law, and to take its sting off for first-time offenders. A clear sign that even if Bihar’s prohibition policy began as a response to a constituency of women voters and its needs, it is now tottering on the ground. From bootlegging to hooch death tragedies to overburdened prisons and courts, it has left a trail of broken bottles and promises.
It’s hard to break a habit — drinkers know that best. Most also know that hurling moral indignation at a bottle of Old Monk doesn’t make it less tempting than before. Neither will calling those who enjoy their drink sinners salvage a failed social engineering experiment. Who knows, some enterprising chap might well be opening a branch of Mahapaapi Theka just to rub that in. So, what’s a man or woman to do? For starters, Nitish Kumar might stop channeling his inner WhatsApp uncle, and dial down on the moral panic. The long lines at liquor shops across the country should tell him that even hyper-nationalism — that most heady of intoxicants — isn’t going to come between a tippler and her drink. Let’s raise a toast to that.
This editorial first appeared in the print edition on April 1, 2022 under the title ‘Unacceptable toll’.
It might be a mere coincidence that three important developments took place within the span of a fortnight: The hijab verdict of the Karnataka High Court, India’s articulately-stated position at the UN on the subject of observing the International Day to Combat Islamophobia and, finally, the release and huge box-office success of the movie, The Kashmir Files. These were three different events, but the message from them is one: Pampering any community and accepting its unreasonable demands actually harms the cause of that community, instead of helping it. The message emanating from the three developments is about “anti-pamperism”.
Treated as a mere vote-bank for several decades by previous regimes in India, the entire approach of the establishment to the subject of Muslims in India — their social and economic empowerment as well as their emotional integration —has been that of handling a hot potato. Instead of dealing with the entire gamut of issues with the courage of conviction, many have been skirted, pushed under the carpet and their dispassionate analysis has been avoided. Meekly surrendering to unreasonable demands had become the usual way, right from the pre-Independence era. The entire so-called progressive establishment stands guilty of treating issues concerning Muslims either emotionally or politically, instead of intellectually and on the grounds of reason and logic. The consequences have been disastrous. But apparently, the so-called progressive establishment does not seem ready to learn and mend its ways.
Let’s start with the hijab. The Karnataka High Court judgment makes only a limited point. It says that it is too far-fetched to argue that the school dress code militates against fundamental rights. The court then states that “the prescription of dress code for the students, that too within the four walls of the classroom, as distinguished from the rest of the school premises, does not offend constitutionally-protected category of rights, when they are ‘religion-neutral’ and ‘universally applicable’ to all the students”. One cannot miss the point that those who advocate that the hijab be allowed in the classroom, thankfully, couldn’t argue that the hijab is a symbol of gender equality or liberalism. Any argument in favour of the hijab is, in fact, tantamount to the advocacy of male chauvinism and suppression of women. Favouring the hijab in the name of liberalism is taking the liberty to impose illiberal ideas.
All over the world, opinion-makers have dithered in calling a spade a spade and tried to camouflage their cold feet as liberalism. This was starkly evident in the UN’s recent resolution on the institution of the International Day to Combat Islamophobia. India courageously and logically opposed the singling out of Islamophobia, leaving aside the phobias against other belief systems. A global body like the UN did not cover itself in any glory by succumbing to the pressures of one very powerful religio-political lobby while being unconcerned about other belief systems. The Indian position shines as an example of a genuinely secular approach described as “sarva patha sam bhaav”, and for the first time in many years, India has not been shy about taking a clear position on similar issues. There was absolutely no logic in not accepting India’s suggestion that instead of instituting the International Day to Combat Islamophobia, let there be an Anti-Religiophobia Day. It is distressing, to say the least, that countries that have greatly suffered from terrorism, inadvertently promoted by their special treatment of the supporters of the supremacy of one belief system, also preferred to remain silent and support the irrationally conceived UN move.
Seen against this backdrop, one can guess why The Kashmir Files touched a chord in hearts across India. Remember, it doesn’t evoke any hatred towards any particular belief system. It is to the credit of the makers that when the movie ends, people feel sad about themselves, the echo chamber that they have inadvertently allowed to thrive and the establishment that served us pseudo-secularism in the name of true secularism simply for their political ends. Like in the hijab case and the International Day to Combat Islamophobia, here too popular feelings are evidently against giving special treatment to adherents of any particular belief system. People are against the disregarding of all human rights and the insensitivity towards the cruelty and injustice faced by the Kashmiri Pandits for no fault of theirs. Movie viewers don’t miss the point that the establishment — including the media — sheepishly acceded to the terrorists’ demand that they be referred to as “militants”. This realisation makes people restless and orients their anger more towards the same so-called progressive establishment, than towards the Muslims as a community. It is a fact that these so-called progressives, who have pampered the fanaticism of some, have harmed the social and economic development of the whole community.
Muslims in India and their so-called protectors would do well to realise that most Indians endorse the Karnataka High Court verdict, support the government’s position of instituting Anti-Religiophobia Day instead of the International Day to Combat Islamophobia and also feel that The Kashmir Files gives a voice to the voiceless victims of the mindless terrorism of the past several decades in Jammu and Kashmir. This is so because they are avowedly against any emotional or cultural secessionism or spreading a sense of separateness for the sake of being politically correct.
After all, it is a mockery of integration if one tries to accommodate secessionism simply to get the tag of “progressive”. Similarly, liberalism cannot just be about tolerating the illiberal.
This column first appeared in the print edition on April 1, 2022 under the title ‘End of illiberal liberalism’. The writer is MP, Rajya Sabha and former national vice-president of the BJP
The footprint of the Covid-19 pandemic across the sectors of the economy has instilled a new reckoning for resilience and sustainability on the economic, social and environmental (ESG) front. The necessity of good ESG practices in business, for instance, is being increasingly felt, while there has been widespread recognition of the benefits of cleaner air and water. Encouraging signals on sustainable development are observed across stakeholders including academia, policymakers and the industrial and consumer segments that put scientific research into practice. Climate change has become a top concern for discussion across the scientific committee.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its latest report on climate impacts, vulnerability and adaptation last month, which suggests that adaptation to climate impacts in the near to medium term can help communities and ecosystems become resilient against the threats from current and future levels of warming. At the risk of oversimplification, the message seems to be that while a single extreme weather event can erode decades of economic progress for affected communities, the severity of climate impacts can be mediated by adequate preparedness. Ecosystem-based adaptation, for instance, is recommended for taking care of communities and social well-being, while restoring forests, lands and marine ecosystems. The report details the variability in projected climate impacts and the vulnerabilities that can be expected across regions the world over due to differences in the range of warming, geographical location, demographics and the unique biophysical, social and cultural contexts. It is also logical and well-established that the need for climate action on the adaptation front will be a differentiated one, and that cost-effective adaptation depends on a host of enablers on which global partnerships need to deliver. Enablers include international cooperation, inclusive technology, financial flows, knowledge sharing and capacity building, with institutions and innovations to support policy development and on-ground implementation.
The IPCC report presents the latest findings on various aspects of climate science based on an assessment of the available peer-reviewed literature by expert authors on the subject matter. The expansive reports are based on the work of some of the best scientific minds. Expectedly, the reports are designed to be comprehensive and to come up with robust recommendations. In this spirit, it would be fair to mention a few words on the need to highlight the gaps in the literature, acknowledge the uncertainties in climate science and uncover the most effective ways to articulate recommendations that lead to action.
The IPCC has been consistently drawing attention to the lack of adequate science from and on developing countries. These countries have in turn been asking for the inclusion of what is broadly termed as “grey literature” or non-peer-reviewed literature (such as reports and working papers in the public space) in the IPCC process, wherein authors assess available literature to arrive at their recommendations for policymakers. Such “grey” resources are very often supported by respected donor organisations and governments and can be valuable sources of information in contexts where the resources for research and publishing are limited. Sometimes, the priority for national and local governments in developing countries is to allocate available resources and efforts for quicker policy response or urgent implementation. Good science encompasses the formal and the informal, theory and empiricism, the traditional along with the modern. It relies on evolution through acknowledging the gaps and unknowns, the negatives and positives of past knowledge. The understanding of adaptation finance, adaptation costing, and mapping of climate impacts and adaptation needs of communities in geographically remote locations, for instance, could improve with suitable sourcing of information.
Sustainable development, inclusive of climate resilience, calls for an ensemble approach — one that places contextually appropriate emphasis on tackling climate change impacts and development needs in a world with growing challenges. Emerging evidence indicates that developing countries that were well on target towards achieving or even out-performing SDG1 poverty targets may have to work harder to reach their projected pre–Covid levels of achievement. The pathway to be adopted is one of an integrated risk assessment approach, where solutions are interventions that impact the immediate, near and medium-term outcomes for developing economies. Striking the right balance is at any time a choice driven as much by enablers (capabilities, lifestyles and values, financial flows, technical know-how) as by constraints (warming levels, poverty, inequality, lack of health and education).
The pandemic highlighted the need for balance in nature-people relationships, even as it tested the ability of the developing world to be self-reliant in a situation where countries across the world acted to protect their own people and economies. While the SDGs (particularly for poverty alleviation, good health and well-being, jobs) became an anchor for defining recovery in the developing world, it was also evident that a well-prepared society is one that is well equipped to take care of its own. Pursuing the report’s call for climate-resilient development pathways requires follow-up action. Trust and confidence building, that developing countries will see improvements in the enablers for climate action and investments in efforts for overcoming constraints, define the path to success.
This column first appeared in the print edition on April 1, 2022 under the title ‘Crisis & sustainability’. The writer is Chair Professor in Environmental Economics, at the Institute of Economic Growth. Views are personal
Archana Sharma, a doctor who was booked for allegedly causing the death of a pregnant woman at a private facility in Rajasthan’s Dausa district, committed suicide on Tuesday. Her death has come as a shock to the medical and non-medical fraternity of the country. The doctor’s family has alleged that the FIR against her was instigated by the local political leadership.
Karl Marx once said that the suicide of an individual is the failure of the society as a whole. Nothing could be more appropriate in a country where every sunrise comes with brutality and every moonrise sees defeat in its most brutal form for millions of its citizens.
Violence and coercion form the essential fabric of our society. The concoction of force, threat and power is so toxic that the act of suicide in itself becomes an illegible footnote. In a country where mental health issues are not just poorly understood but also inadequately addressed, the suicide of a doctor following harassment shouldn’t come as a surprise. It should be clear to us that we live in a land where the biases of caste, gender, class and religion are ubiquitous and no one, including doctors, is immune to it. Despite the current ruckus regarding the death of a colleague, it is important — and sad — to mention that many among the medical fraternity are themselves impervious to the manifestation of violence, force and coercion until it happens to themselves or someone dear to them.
The criminal nature of those who drove her to take the extreme step is reprehensible. But we must remember that her suicide is not the first or the last of its kind — violent coercive actions often push the targets to end their lives. In our response to Sharma’s death, it is only appropriate that the emphasis is not merely restricted to the moral or psychological dimension but also on the social aspect.
This tragic incident reveals many layers of Indian society. We are a country which has turned deeply capitalist in a very short period of time. The influence of capitalism on our daily life is not only profound but acutely stressful. The very fact that the unfortunate patient in question had to seek treatment in a private healthcare setup is a glaring example of the failure of the public system. In the absence of a vibrant public healthcare system, violence and threats on doctors have significantly increased over the last couple of decades. The “paying” patient now demands “five-star” facilities. Doctors “sell” treatment and the patient has been reduced to a mere consumer.
We live in a country where the political leadership boasts to have “cleaned” up the system through encounters, where alleged criminals are killed in police custody. What message does such action convey to a poorly educated society, when patently illegal violence is condoned at the highest levels of the executive. The absence of justice is not only complemented by the ruling class but a sense of impunity is also sown in the minds of the masses. Should we be surprised that a doctor who is perceived to have erred is taken to task by the masses?
Most of my doctor friends who run healthcare facilities are understandably distraught at the suicide. But these same people were ignorant — or dismissive — of the suicide of Payal Tadvi, a doctor from a tribal community in 2019, who lived in Mumbai. She killed herself following harassment by caste-privileged seniors. It may seem unfair to compare the two tragedies, but we are forced to do so to glean insight into the way society functions and responds in a bizarrely complex country like ours. Whataboutery of this kind helps us in understanding the iniquity in our midst. As long as we continue to ignore suicides precipitated by some form of brutal browbeating, it is foolhardy to believe that the browbeating won’t happen with us. Every Rohith (Vemula) or Payal shall give reason to the cowards to push an Archana to take her life.
In India doctors are considered gods. This is unique. The anger of the Indian patient is also, therefore, unique. In 2012, a gynaecologist, T Sethulakshmi, was hacked to death by a man whose pregnant wife had died in her care in Thoothukudi. I can hardly recount such a murder from anywhere in the world. A part of this brutality arises from the breach of trust between the “god” and the “devotee”. This exclusive relationship is dangerous. Unfortunately, most doctors do not object to being worshipped as “god”. It gives them innumerable privileges. But this specious halo makes them vulnerable when they fail as humans.
Any suicide is a tragedy of unsurmountable proportions for the family. It has multiple ramifications for those left behind. Truly, it is the end point of the collective failure of society. Hence, its prevention begins within the society. Suicides which happen due to coercion and threat of violence are not truly suicides, they are murders committed by all of us. In India we harbour suicides in our shanties, colonies, homes, colleges, schools and professional institutions. We vote for suicide connivers. We worship power. We love the talk of death as a means of retribution. We are all waiting to participate in the next suicide. If we do not want that to happen, then we must raise our voice at every act of injustice, abuse, prejudice, threat and violence aimed at the ordinary Indian.
This column first appeared in the print edition on April 1, 2022 under the title ‘Death of a doctor foretold’. The writer is Professor, Department of Orthopaedics, AIIMS, New Delhi. Views are personal
Another prime minister of Pakistan is on the verge of losing office without completing his tenure. What went wrong with Imran Khan’s prime ministership? What does his impending departure mean for Pakistan and India?
Imran Khan’s political career — which was floundering since the founding of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) in 1996 — was given a boost by the army from 2011 onwards to counter Nawaz Sharif. He promised “Naya Pakistan” and won the 2018 election with the army’s support. This resulted in a hybrid arrangement, in which Khan flaunted his proximity to the army and was seen as doing its bidding. He adopted an autocratic style of governance, thereby alienating some close associates. He hounded his political opponents through selective accountability and galvanised them into joint action. However, he did not display the requisite political and administrative acumen to deal with Pakistan’s intractable problems.
Less than four years later, he is on the edge of a political precipice and Naya Pakistan continues to stare at its long-standing problems. He has presided over an economy characterised by high inflation, sliding (Pakistani) rupee, dwindling foreign exchange reserves and a mounting debt burden. The relationship with India remains fraught. His attempts to forge a relationship that goes beyond Afghanistan with the Biden administration have failed. He managed to alienate Saudi Arabia in 2020, making them recall one of their loans and end the deferred payment facility for oil imports. The army leadership had to step in to mollify the Saudis. He has failed to stem extremism and terrorism.
Every civilian surrogate promoted by the army has sooner or later felt stifled and defied them at the cost of their wrath. There were reports of the army leadership’s unhappiness with the performance of Usman Buzdar — Imran Khan’s appointee at the helm in Punjab province — and the PM’s foreign policy failures. Things came to a head late last year because of Imran Khan’s desire to retain the former director-general of the ISI, Faiz Hameed, against the wishes of army chief Qamar Javed Bajwa, who suspected Hameed of forging self-serving links with the PM with an eye on becoming the army chief on the completion of Bajwa’s tenure in November this year. Bajwa had his way in moving Hameed out of the ISI, but the damage was done. This was followed by signals of neutrality in political affairs from the army leadership. The Opposition’s efforts that had hitherto failed to dislodge Imran Khan from office gathered steam, culminating in a joint no-confidence motion against the government. The small parties allied with the government had started hobnobbing with the Opposition. The dissidents within the PTI also found their voice. The ensuing wheeling and dealing have resulted in the numbers in the National Assembly shifting against Imran Khan and, barring a last-minute miracle, the fate of his government appears sealed.
The most-talked-of scenario in the event of Imran Khan’s ouster is a government headed by PML(N) President Shehbaz Sharif, who is more acceptable to the army than his elder brother, Nawaz. However, he may not want to remain in power for too long and incur the burden of anti-incumbency. Opposition unity will also not last too long as all parties position themselves for the election due in the normal course in the second half of 2023. Therefore, Pakistan could see an early election. The army seems to have no clear favourite as of now and unless it acquires one before the election, it may settle for a less than ideal scenario, confident of its ability to deal with an inconvenient dispensation.
Imran Khan has responded by, inter alia, wrapping himself in the flag and claiming that he has defended Pakistan’s interests despite external pressures. This is also an attempt at image-building for future political battles. He alleges a foreign conspiracy and funding to oust him and has played up a letter purportedly conveying a threat from an American official in the context of his visit to Russia last month amid the raging Ukrainian crisis. Without naming the US, a senior minister has claimed that the foreign country threatened trouble for Pakistan in case the no-confidence motion against Khan failed — a charge denied by the Americans. All this is tilting at windmills. The PM has lost in a purely internal political game.
The no-confidence motion, however, does not signal a consolidation of democracy in Pakistan. Recent events, if anything, reaffirm the army’s supremacy. Their support brought Imran Khan to power and warded off threats from his opponents and their “neutrality” has placed him on a slippery slope. As the numbers game turned decisively against Khan on March 30, Bajwa met both him and President Arif Alvi, signalling that he was not a disinterested bystander.
Though Imran Khan has proved to be utterly inept, his fate begs the question — yet again — whether any prime minister, even the most competent one, can succeed in Pakistan without a radical shift in its internal and external orientation. The civil-military imbalance ends up paralysing every prime minister. Further, Pakistan’s army-led adversarial posture towards a much bigger and better endowed India places unsustainable burdens on its cash-strapped economy.
Owing to the army’s tight control over Pakistan’s foreign and security policies, the fate of a civilian leader can, at best, have a marginal impact on Pakistan’s external posture and key relationships. The dispensation succeeding Imran Khan’s — in the event of his ouster — will take power with Pakistan already in an electoral cycle and is likely to focus on the economy to give some relief to people and earn their goodwill, thus ruling out any bold foreign policy moves. If, however, the economic focus leads to a move to resume trade with India (its suspension since August 2019 has hurt the Pakistani economy and is resented by segments of trade and industry), we should facilitate the process as it helps our exporters too. Moreover, Khan has painted himself into a corner by calling for the reversal of the decision to withdraw the special status of Jammu and Kashmir for any bilateral engagement, indulging in anti-India rhetoric and poking his nose in India’s internal political discourse. He has seemed politically incapable of carrying forward army chief Bajwa’s tactical agenda to lower the temperature with India.
If a new dispensation manages to shun Imran Khan’s anti-India rhetoric, that would in itself be a plus for India’s problematic relationship with Pakistan.
This column first appeared in the print edition on April 1, 2022 under the title ‘The army’s government’. The writer is a former Indian High Commissioner to Pakistan
C K Daphtary (1893 – 1983) stood head and shoulders above the rest of his generation, as well as the generation of lawyers succeeding him. He had a benign and dignified face and his head was like that of the Roman senator, Cicero. Like that other great “CK” of cricketing fame (C K Nayudu) he is remembered more for the “sixes” he kept scoring inside and outside the court than for his otherwise consistent “run rate”, which too was phenomenal!
He had a rare gift of what the French call the “mot juste”: He sometimes used it to the chagrin of the other party — though he was never unkind. When many decades ago an attempt was made by a disgruntled litigant on the life of Chief Justice Hidayatullah (CJI from February 1968 to December 1970) the CJI grappled bravely with the assailant (who had an open knife in hand) in Court Room No.1, and with the help of the assistant registrar and one of our own advocates, soon overpowered him. But not before the assailant had injured one of the other justices (A N Grover) sitting on the Bench with him — who suffered a gash on his head. When Daphtary visited that judge in the hospital, seeing his head bandaged but pleased to learn that he was out of danger, he nonchalantly said to him: “They are most dastardly, these assassins — they always attack you on your weakest part!”
The injured judge was taken aback, but seeing the mischievous twinkle in CK’s eye, laughed heartily.
Years after Daphtary had stepped down as Attorney-General of India (1963 to 1968) and resumed private practice, we were both briefed in a case in Bombay — on opposite sides. It was an important company case before the high court. I was briefed by a US Company (Firestone), and Daphtary for the Indian shareholders. I had made a great effort to prepare an efficient case since I was being opposed by a person who was, even at his age, the best advocate in the country. I concluded my arguments on the second day and thought I did reasonably well. Daphtary rose to argue, and spluttered “my learned friend …”; he then cleared his throat, and again said “my learned friend…”. The judge said, “Mr Daphtary why don’t you sit down and take a sip of water.” CK, who was waiting for this opening, said “no, no, my Lord, it is not my throat. It is the arguments of my learned friend — I simply cannot swallow them!”He could be witty also when things were bad — epitomised during the dark days of the internal Emergency of June 1975. I had shifted from Bombay to Delhi in May 1972, since I had been appointed Additional Solicitor-General of India. A day after the Emergency was declared, I resigned and resumed private practice in the Supreme Court. CK and ST Desai — both Senior Advocates — were distinguished Gujarati-speaking contemporaries. They always came in early to the Bar Library, each sat opposite the other, occasionally exchanging pleasantries, occasionally not. One morning in August 1975, I was the sole witness to the following conversation between them.
ST: (holding a cigarette between third and fourth finger in a loosely-clenched fist, as was his habit, and occasionally inhaling): “Chandubhai, bolo” (“Chandubhai, speak”).
CK: (puffing at his pipe, his eyes sparkling with mischief): “Sunderlal, tamé pehla bolo” (Sunderlal, you speak first”).
In those dark days, when informers were around, you only spoke when you were compelled to. Unwittingly, these stalwarts of the Bar had encapsulated, in an innocent spontaneous one-act play, the entire sordid climate of the times
I once asked him about Jinnah — Daphtary had been a junior in Jinnah’s chamber. In CK’s opinion, he was the best advocate of his time — which meant that he did not share Chief Justice M C Chagla’s scepticism about the maker of Pakistan.
CK was always in great humour. He and Cicily celebrated their 50th wedding anniversary. After the evening became convivial we all called for a speech. Daphtary rose and said: “You know, Cicily has been my wife for 50 long years. She has been a good wife but in married life of this length I must frankly confess that the first 49 years have been the most difficult!”
It was great to have known him, and I am delighted to be able to write about him on his birthday, April Fool’s Day.
This column first appeared in the print edition on April 1, 2022 under the title ‘Lawyer who scored sixes’. The writer is a constitutional jurist and senior advocate, Supreme Court
In a significant move for the Northeast, the Centre has decided to reduce the area under the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) in the states of Assam, Manipur and Nagaland. The law, which gives armed forces extraordinary powers to search, arrest and shoot on suspicion, has long been condemned by civil society organisations for undermining democratic rights. True, violent insurgency in the Northeast was the reason AFSPA kept getting extensions. But it also created a sense of otherness that prevented full integration of the Northeast with the rest of India. Add to this, unfortunate incidents such as the killing of 14 people by security forces in a botched anti-militancy operation in Nagaland’s Mon district last year, which intensified the demand for repeal of AFSPA throughout the Northeast.
It is welcome therefore that the Centre has decided to remove the ‘Disturbed Area’ tag, which operationalises AFSPA, completely from 23 districts and partially from one other in Assam. Meanwhile, in Manipur AFSPA will no longer apply to 15 police station areas of six districts. In Nagaland too 15 police stations across seven districts will be exempted. All these changes come into effect from today and highlight GoI’s efforts in recent years to end the scourge of militancy in the region. That said, application of AFSPA in Assam was far less heavy-handed compared to Manipur and Nagaland. Hence, removing the act from most of Assam was low-hanging fruit. Whereas the relatively small areas being exempted in Manipur and Nagaland mean most of these two states continue to remain in the shadow of the draconian law.
Nonetheless, the curtailment of AFSPA is a step in the right direction. The move is aided by the fact that around 7,000 militants in the Northeast have surrendered in recent years. Plus, agreements like the 2020 Bodo Accord and the 2021 Karbi-Anglong pact have politically addressed the root causes of regional insurgencies. Also, BJP today is in government alone or in coalition across all Northeast states. Hence, GoI is uniquely placed to usher in normalisation in the Northeast and facilitate economic development, which is the best antidote to insurgencies anyway. The Centre should continue on this track and work to repeal AFSPA across all of Northeast. This prone-to-abuse law that has its roots in the colonial era has no place in modern India.
One of the key factors in global business and commercial relationships is reputational gain or loss, magnified by network effects and feedback loops. India’s reputational pluses are its current and future growth, its educated talent, which is large in absolute numbers even if sadly small as a proportion of its population, its entrepreneurial energy, its potential as a manufacturing hub given its young workforce, and a political and policy culture that’s grown more receptive to needs of business. But the sluggishness of its legal system and its tendency to often change commercial and tax rules are reputational minuses, because they affect the critical matter of contractual consistency. Add to this the degree of social disharmony, both real and as perceived by investors.
A harmonious society is always bound to be more attractive in a highly competitive global business environment. In India, Karnataka is increasingly posing a question on this issue. The state is a magnet for all job seekers because of the economic vibrancy catalysed by the technology sector. Being an open and tolerant society has helped greatly. But now the state that was a beacon of hope for all of India seems to be narrowing options for a section of its own residents. On every level that is wrong and harms India. And since reputations matter, and optics are indeed consequential, political calls that translate into undermining livelihood opportunities of Muslims are damaging for the business environment – if not now, then over the medium term. Some argue that Gujarat’s emergence as a business hub hasn’t been affected despite the 2002 riots. The point is that there have been no major riots in Gujarat since then, and that contributed to its investment attractiveness.
Neither countries nor individual firms are any longer immune to pressure that comes from a deteriorating reputation. The scope of such pushback is not fixed, it evolves over time as collective standards change. Even China, with its gigantic $15 trillion economy, couldn’t prevent exits out of Hong Kong after its crackdown on democracy activists. Karnataka’s politicians need to keep these lessons in mind. Creating opportunities for everyone is not only intrinsically good, it also sets a virtuous cycle in motion.
The report of the parliamentary standing committee on personnel, public grievances and law and justice tabled in Parliament recently indicates that the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) comprise 22% fewer officers than its 'sanctioned strength' of 6,746 officers, the bare minimum deemed fit for administering India. This shortfall rising any more can have serious implications. GoI must present short-term and long-term solutions.
Shortfall in the IAS has been an issue right from the 1950s. Response to these challenges have real implications for governance, development and growth. Good governance is critical for any nation. A depleted administrative body does not help in this respect. Therefore, the government needs a plan to infuse the system with competent and qualified personnel in the short term, and put in place systems for sustained long-term responses. Lateral entry, bringing in persons from outside government who have proven domain expertise through a transparent system, could help fill the gap. It will allow GoI to hit the ground running. This is a way to also tap into a larger pool of talent, with the entry of new ideas and approaches to governance minus much of the notorious baggage.
Another possibility is increasing the number of non-cadre and state civil service officers to the all-India service. But this will mean depletion of the state and specialised non-cadre service. Improving the scope of movement within the two parts of the administrative system and from outside can help not only increase the ranks of the IAS but also revitalise it at a time when it needs revitalising. Considering the rising administrative and governance challenges, and growing engagement, a skeletal administrative staff will no longer suffice.
<
Read in source website
Sometimes, who says something is as important as what is being said. What Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw says matters if it is about the unease of doing business and digressing from economic progress. As founder-chairperson of one of the largest and most respected biopharmaceutical companies in a country justly proud of its tag as the 'pharmacy of the world', her critique is well-intentioned, grounded in the real world and should be taken seriously.
On Wednesday evening, reacting to a news report of 'non-Hindu' traders prohibited from setting up stalls at temple fairs or on shrine premises - after dredging up an old law that prohibits immoveable structures to be leased to non-Hindus in Hindu places of worship and needs scrapping anyway - Mazumdar-Shaw had tweeted, 'Karnataka has always forged inclusive economic development and we must not allow such communal exclusion - If ITBT became communal it would destroy our global leadership.' Tagging Chief Minister B S Bommai, she had added, 'Please resolve this growing religious divide.' Speaking next day at the assembly, Bommai ensured that a respected voice of industry and a self-styled 'proud Kannadiga' was heard by the administration. '[E]veryone should observe restraint' and ensure that peace and progress that Karnataka is known for is not affected. This was a reassuring response to a legitimate concern.
Science, innovation and business have thrived in Karnataka because of an enabling environment. To nix this for quick political gains is to shoot oneself in both feet. Karnataka and, indeed, India, should not have to deal with hijab bans, non-Hindu trespasses, etc, in 2022. It should be setting its mind on innovation, wealth creation, scientific pursuits and progress. As has been said in a different context, for a nation to progress, it is important for people to spend time on science, mathematics and literature instead of spending time showing that 5,000 years ago, their ancestors did science, mathematics and literature. Mazumdar-Shaw understands this, as does Bommai. Those kicking up a retrogressive fuss also must.
<
Read in source website
A little over two years after India went into one of the strictest lockdowns anywhere in the world to stop the coronavirus from spreading, the country began rolling back the last vestiges of pandemic restrictions on April 1. The most significant among these are mandates and fines relating to the use of masks, perhaps the strongest symbol of the pandemic. Regions such as Delhi and Maharashtra announced that masks will either no longer be mandatory or the fine for not wearing them will be dropped. Behind their decision was a significant legal change that came into force on Friday, when sections of India’s disaster management law meant to give the central government the authority to make and enforce pandemic-related rules expired. As orders invoked under provisions of the Disaster Management Act expired, Covid-19 ceased, for all legal purposes, being a disaster in India.
For all practical purposes, Covid-19 stopped being a threat when India’s third nationwide wave of infections tapered off in early February. Three waves and 1.84 billion vaccine doses have now left Indians with a wall of immunity that has halted the Sars-CoV-2’s ability to sicken more people. This is why India’s reopening has not coincided with an uptick in new infections, as has been the case in several other countries, most notably the United States and the United Kingdom. The protection has not been without debilitating costs: India has lost over 520,000 lives to the virus, and the actual death toll may be in millions. For much of the last two years, the virus led to an unprecedented erosion of wealth and earnings, and stopped the clock on the educational (and often social and psychological) development of millions of children.
As people settle into routines reminiscent of 2019, albeit with “new normals” such as hybrid working and (virtually redundant) temperature checks, the triumphs of the last two years must also be tempered by the one key lesson the virus taught us: The pandemic is unpredictable. True, the degree of vaccine coverage is widespread, but the protection from it is only temporary. Moreover, the virus may yet pack more evolutionary surprises. These two factors alone make a compelling case to remember that 2022 can never be 2019. And for that, it may well be worth keeping one of the pandemic’s most significant symbols — the mask — on, akin to how many east Asian societies made those part of their daily routines following the 2002 Sars and 2006 bird flu outbreaks.
In 2009, around a year after China Merchant Port started construction of the strategic Hambantota Port on the crucial Malacca Straits-Persian Gulf trade route, a former foreign secretary of India dismissed the view that Beijing was trying to encircle India through military bases in the Indian Ocean, famously saying that a “string of pearls” was a “pretty ineffective murder weapon”.
That may be the case, but the Chinese used the string of pearls to effectively choke Indian foreign policy in the Maldives, Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. This was a region where India was once the pre-eminent power.
The rise of Maoists in Nepal, which India itself facilitated, the ascent to power of a pro-Chinese regime in the Maldives in 2012, the massive Chinese investment in Sri Lankan infrastructure through high-interest loans, and the dalliance between the Bangladesh army and radical parties in the country with Beijing before 2014, all sent a message that India was willing to adjust to a growing Chinese presence in the Indian sub-continent and, indeed, live with it.
When Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi took over in May 2014, he came up with the “Neighbourhood First” policy and then expanded it to the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) by enunciating the “Security and Growth for all in the Region” (SAGAR) policy at Port Louis in Mauritius on March 12, 2015, while commissioning Kora class corvette Barracuda, the first India-made warship to be exported.
Since then, the Modi government has tried to regain India’s space in the subcontinent and the IOR by enhancing the security of the region, holding the hands of countries and regimes in trouble, usually economically, and adopting a non-reciprocal and non-intrusive diplomatic mindset.
That India’s interests in the Indian Ocean and beyond are a priority is evident from the fact that last year, the charge of handling Australia, a maritime neighbour, and a strategic ally, was given to the foreign secretary and, more recently, the charge of handling two other very close allies, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Israel, were brought under the purview of the top civil servant in the ministry of external affairs. A number of India’s envoys to the neighbourhood, including the IOR, have the experience of working in the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) — the envoys to Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, the UAE, and Israel are cases in point.
Despite India being seriously hit by Covid-19 infections over the past two years, the president, the PM, external affairs minister, national security adviser (NSA) and foreign secretary, all travelled to Bangladesh last year. Foreign Minister, S Jaishankar, and NSA Ajit Doval have travelled to the Maldives at least thrice, and a couple of times to all countries in the neighbourhood and the IOR. While Doval has been in constant touch with countries such as the UAE, Israel, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, the Maldives, and Mauritius on handling religious radicalisation, Jaishankar handed over the elaborate coastal radar system to the Maldives on March 27.
And, rather than extract a pound of flesh from a neighbour hit by high debt and rampaging inflation, India has provided economically hit Sri Lanka with nearly $2.5 billion support between January and March. While the total Indian development portfolio in Sri Lanka is more than $5 billion out of which $570 million is an outright grant, India has also extended a $400 million swap facility, deferred loans of $515 million, and offered $500 million line of credit for fuel and a $1 billion credit facility for procurement of food and essential items. Since January, Indian Oil Corp has sold 40,000 metric tonnes of fuel on credit to the cash-strapped island nation.
In the Maldives, India’s development partnership ranges upwards of $2.6 billion in grants, concessional loans, budgetary support, capacity building and training assistance. This includes the $500 million Greater Male Connectivity Project, four lines of credit worth $800 million, buyer’s credit of $240 million and financial support including budgetary support of $800 million.
In Mauritius, India helped build the new Supreme Court and is involved in the country’s iconic Metro Express project and the construction of a new ENT hospital. In January, Modi and Mauritius PM, Pravind Jugnath, inaugurated a social housing project and launched the construction of a Civil Services College and an 8MW photovoltaic cell farm project.
Given its proximity to India and Modi’s close relationship with Bangladesh PM Sheikh Hasina, New Delhi has given developmental assistance to the tune of $8 billion to Dhaka to promote larger connectivity through land and sea.
Nepal has proved trickier because the country’s political leaders have, time and again, played New Delhi against Beijing to get double the benefit. Rather than acting as a big brother and dictating terms to Kathmandu, India has simply ensured round the clock power to Nepal as well as fuel through a dedicated pipeline. Since 2014-2015, India has given ₹5155.27 crore of aid to Kathmandu despite Nepal becoming increasingly subservient to Chinese diktats.
India’s support to the neighbourhood and IOR is not only through developmental assistance but also taken the form of providing Covid-19 vaccines and humanitarian support to the entire region.
It has taken time, but India is now closer to its once pre-eminent position in the IOR than it has ever been in the past two decades. It helps that many Asian and Southeast Asian nations, and also the West, are concerned about Beijing’s growing footprint in the region — through trade, military bases, and infrastructure projects (funded through debt that usually comes back to bite as Sri Lanka discovered).
With India looking at its strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific with its Quad partners as well as key allies such as France, the UAE, and Israel, a new chapter has been added with New Delhi trying to forge close cooperation with Indonesia. The visit of NSA Ajit Doval to Indonesia on March 17 for the second security dialogue was to engage Djakarta in mutual security and cooperation as all the ingress routes to the South China Sea are under its jurisdiction. While Indonesia wants to maintain a balance between India and China, the dramatic economic fall of Sri Lanka (and the growing tenor of protests against the regime there) has made it evident to the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries that fence-sitting is no longer an option in the present global turmoil. But India, as the signs show, is back in the game.
The views expressed are personal
The accused in our case have refused to provide their voice samples,” informed the investigating officer of a case we registered against two political heavyweights during a bandh in Pune in December 2010. The telephonic discussion on how to orchestrate rioting, stone pelting and burning of buses between the two leaders was recorded by the special branch of the police. I was the commissioner of police (Pune) then and the bandh was called to protest the removal of Dadoji Konddev’s statue from the historic Lal Mahal area of the Pune Municipal Corporation.
We asked experts and went through laws to determine if the accused were obliged to give their voice samples. We needed to prove their conversation in court. There was no such provision. The politicians refused to give their voice samples, claiming it was a “violation of their personal liberty”.
The same political party came to power later and tried to withdraw the case in 2015. But it was rejected by the court, and the magistrate said that the case was of “criminal conspiracy for wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot”. However, much to our disappointment, the criminal case was withdrawn in 2017. In 2010, there was no provision to collect “voice measurement”, a step that the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022, recently introduced in the Lok Sabha, intends to change. The crux of the new bill is the definition of “measurement”, which now includes finger, palm and footprint impressions, photographs, iris and retina scan, physical, biological samples and their analysis, behavioural attributes including signatures, handwriting or any other examination referred to in section 53 or section 53A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973. It intends to replace the Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920, which defined measurement only as “finger impressions and footprint impressions”.
The bill’s statement of objects and reasons rightly mentions that technology has changed over the last century and that other countries have gained “credible and reliable results” with improved investigation and better conviction rates.
The bill envisages expanding the ambit of “persons” and “measurement” to help investigating agencies gather sufficient legally admissible evidence and establish the crime of the accused person. The data collected shall be retained in digital or electronic form by the National Crime Records Bureau that shall “store, preserve” or “destroy” the measurements for 75 years. States and Union Territories will have their agencies to do so too.
While the 1920 Act empowered the collection of measurements of persons convicted of any offence punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year or upwards, the new bill envisages so even for lesser conviction i.e. from anyone convicted of an offence punishable under any law for the time being in force.
However, in case of arrests, the new bill has limited the collection of samples to those arrested in offences with imprisonment for not less than seven years. But an accused involved in crimes against women and children, even with lesser punishment, shall be obliged to provide their measurements.
The 1920 Act covered all those arrested in offences punishable with rigorous imprisonment for one year and more. Magistrates, as per the bill, have wide powers to direct any person to give measurements under this Act. And, refusal shall be deemed to be an offence under Section 186 of the Indian Penal Code.
What is jarring is that those ordered to “give security for good behaviour or maintaining peace” under Section 117 of the CrPC will also be covered under the bill. Many police officers question the wisdom of taking measurements in such cases, which, as per CrPC Section 122, entail one year detention by a magistrate or a maximum of three years imprisonment by a sessions court, while those arrested for criminal cases, involving less than seven years imprisonment, are not obliged to.
The collection and analysis of finger or footprints and handwriting have long been established in all police organisations. However, the recently introduced measurements need enormous resources and infrastructure. The Centre and states will have to allocate funds to meet the commitment.
We need more experts to collect measurements from the scene of crime, more forensic labs, and equipment to analyse them to identify possible accused involved in a criminal case. The lack of experts and resources in forensic labs is the elephant in the room. The training of the investigation officers, prosecutors, judicial officers and collaboration with doctors and forensic experts need to be prioritised.
There is no doubt that technology should be used only for legitimate law enforcement purposes. But to call the bill “draconian” is absurd. It minimises the threat from organised crime, cybercriminals and terrorists who are proficient in identity thefts and identity frauds. On the contrary, the bill will help to check serious national and global threats posed by them.
We, in India, can frame rules regarding data collection and storage carefully so that the concept of personal liberty is not violated. Privacy protection measures can also be developed along with robust public oversight. But depriving law enforcement agencies of the use of the latest technologies would be a grave disservice to victims of crimes, and the nation at large.
Meeran Chadha Borwankar is former director-general, Bureau of Police Research and Development, and National Crime Records Bureau
The views expressed are personal
“Either we are elevated to the status of Gods or we are treated like killers. Has everyone forgotten we are human?” Dr Suneet Upadhyaya sat on the floor in front of a portrait of his wife, Archana, his frame bent and hunched over in a reflection of how broken he feels. In her suicide note, Archana Sharma, a gynaecologist, charged with murder after a pregnant woman, Asha Bairwa, died from post-delivery complications, urged the country to stop harassing doctors.
“I have not killed anyone,” Sharma’s handwritten scrawl reads.
This travesty of justice in Dausa in Rajasthan should make us all a lot angrier than it has.
At one point during his conversation with me, Dr Upadhyaya pulled a young boy towards him and held him tight, breaking down in inconsolable tears. “This is my son, he is 12. How should I explain to him why his mother died? What should I tell him?”
He blames the police, a local journalist and local politicians of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for his wife’s death by suicide, painting a sordid picture of extortion, blackmail, a compromised legal process and a system that he calls “rotten and without hope of justice.”
Asha, the young mother who died, was a parent to three girls. She was evidently under pressure to produce a male child. The doctors I spoke to confirm that she was anaemic and not in the best reproductive health. Ironically, she had delivered twins at the hospital that her family now accuses of murder.
“We did everything we could but we could not save her from postpartum hemorrhage [PPH]. We even refunded the money they had spent on the ambulance,” Dr Upadhyaya tells me, describing how the family at first conceded that he and his wife had done their best.
It is then that local politicians stepped into the act. Balya Joshi, a local BJP leader, and a clutch of others persuaded Laluram Bairwa, Asha’s husband to register a case of murder. A poor labourer, Bairwa has since told the media that he barely knows how to read or write. He says someone thrust documents at him and he signed them.
Asha was possibly a tragic victim of a patriarchal culture that gave her little agency in deciding how many children to have and when, which privileges boys over girls.
But Sharma’s death is the consequence of wilful callousness and complicity of the powerful.
Dr Upadhyaya has named a BJP Member of Parliament from the area, Kirodi Lal Meena, for being the “godfather to the mafia who runs a reign of terror in our area”. He told me that threats and blackmail were nothing new to his hospital. He had flagged the matter publicly over the years several times, but no action was taken. Meena has claimed innocence, arguing that he has been forcibly linked to the case. But Dr Upadhyaya is now convinced that his life is at risk for demanding justice for his wife.
“In one year, you will be writing my obituary, he will not let me live for taking him on. But I am ready. Come, kill me. In any case, you have killed my soul, if you take my body, I am ready for you,” the doctor says, his grief, rage, and disappointment mingling in a way that leaves you overwhelmed and helpless.
Dr Upadhyaya is at pains to underline that he doesn’t care about the politics of the BJP vs Congress. Rajasthan is Congress-led but “unable to act against Meena’s stranglehold,” he argues, and “other BJP leaders have reached out to me. But this is not just about me. It’s about all of us as doctors. Where is the environment for safe practice?”
The scathing irony of this moment is underlined by its timing. We are only just beginning to emerge from the shadows of Covid-19. It has been an extraordinarily tough two years for our health workers. Lives have been lost in the line of duty — and worse, doctors and nurses have sometimes been treated as pariahs (because of stigma and ignorance) and even faced physical assaults from relatives of angry patients.
We banged thalis and lit candles for our health workers. But as Dr Upadhyaya says, “Aap log ya phool phenkte ho ya mala charathe ho” — referencing the garland that drapes the portrait of a deceased person.
Will our perennially outraged nation expend some anger where it is needed?
Barkha Dutt is an award-winning journalist and author
The views expressed are personal.
As often happens to women in public transport, the man brushes past me as he rushes to the front of the bus. Someone decides to act on my behalf and grabs the guy and slaps him. Other passengers get involved and there’s a free for all. The bus comes to a halt. It’s not my stop. But I get off anyway.
The incident happened decades ago, but remains imprinted in my mind because I am still ambivalent about it. A huge part of me was grateful that Delhi’s infamous public apathy was nowhere on display that day. But part of me remains uncomfortable about a man fighting what should have been my fight.
I had not objected because I was not sure that the contact had been sexual or whether it was just another man being unmindful of a woman’s personal boundaries. To see the violence unfold was disconcerting; none of my “rescuers” had asked for my version.
There’s a third question that cropped up when I saw Will Smith slap Chris Rock on stage at the Oscars after the comedian made an utterly tasteless joke about Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith. How does a woman register her protest in the public space?
Most women are brought up to not “make a scene”. Jada’s eye roll (while her husband laughs) at the dig about her medical condition speaks volumes. Would she have walked up and smacked Rock? Would her husband have remained seated had he not noticed his wife’s unease? What does she think now that her husband has ensured she’s on headlines across the world? Her Instagram message: “This is a season for healing and I’m here for it,” sheds no light.
For some, Will Smith is a hero. Yes, they condemn the violence but much of the narrative includes praise for standing up for “his woman”.
For women who continue to fight for equal agency, there is something primitive about this modern version of throwing down the gauntlet. We do not need more violence in a world where one woman in three globally is subject to domestic abuse. And we certainly do not need a contemporary version of pistols drawn at dawn, to redeem our lost “honour”, an honour that is linked with male identity and ego.
Are we vulnerable in public spaces? The answer is a no-brainer. The excoriation of Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first black woman to be nominated as a United States (US) Supreme Court judge, in the name of confirmation hearings, tells you just how much. Through it all, Jackson has kept her composure, too smart to rise to the provocation.
“Love will make you do crazy things,” Smith said while accepting his award for best actor. We don’t need crazy. We’ve lived with crazy for too long.
The time has come to say to men: We will fight our own battles. If you’re an ally, support us. If you’re not, get out of the way.
Namita Bhandare writes on gender
The views expressed are personal
This week, ten central trade unions called a two-day (March 28 and 29) general strike in India. The unions, unsurprisingly, termed the exercise a great success. “Hundreds of millions of workers participated in the strike and millions joined the demonstrations held today all over the country”, the Centre of Indian Trade Unions (CITU), the Communist Party of India (Marxist) or CPI (M) affiliated trade union said in a statement at the end of the first day of the strike. Such statements, to be sure, need to be taken with more than a pinch of salt.
To put the “hundreds of millions” number in context, it must be reiterated that India’s total labour force (number of persons who are either working or looking for a job) was 549.2 million strong if the 2019-20 Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS) estimates are used with mid-year population projections available in National Account Statistics (NAS). The non-agricultural workforce, as expected, is much lower, an estimated 284.5 million. If even one-fourth of India’s non-agricultural workers had gone on strike, normal life would have been thrown out of gear.
Irrespective of one’s views regarding actions such as strikes, most people would agree that trade union calls such as this week’s strike evoke a relatively tepid response and very little public sympathy in India, except in regions where the communist parties are strong (such as Kerala) or sectors where formal sector workers still have strong trade union presence (such as public sector banks) .
Lest unions and their supporters argue that this apathy is a result of unfavourable media coverage and anti-worker bias in the society, it needs to be said that public support, including coverage in the media, is much bigger for other forms of class action such as farmers’ protests (for example the Long March to Mumbai in 2018 and last year’s farmers’ protests against the now repealed three farm laws) or the recent students’ protests against delay in fulfilment of vacancies in the Indian railways.
To be sure, trade unions have seen better days in India, but that was in the pre-reform era.
What explains the current predicament of the trade union movement in India? Most people would agree that a large section of the Indian population is actually facing what can be described as precarious economic conditions. Growth rates were going down even before the pandemic triggered a contraction, urban unemployment rates are still higher than pre-pandemic levels, consumer confidence continues to be significantly below pre-pandemic levels, and rising inflation is bound to have increase the economic pain going forward. Why are people not rising in rebellion against the government, as the unions would like them to?
The constituency which the trade unions would like to capture can be broadly classified into two parts — a small (but numerically significant) section which actually enjoys much better work conditions in the formal public sector, and a vastly large group of informal sector workers and the unemployed who want to join the ranks of the former group or parity with them but are not able to.
How big is the second group in the Indian economy? Numbers from the last economic census – it was conducted in 2013-14 – can give us an idea. They show that 95% of India’s economic establishments had between one and five employees. This statistic has profound implications for the feasibility (or lack of it) of trade union activity in the classical sense where hundreds or thousands of workers organise themselves against a big capitalist.
If one were to use Marxist jargon, the class-enemy for a large section of the Indian proletariat is actually from the ranks of the proletariat itself. Given this fact, it is hardly surprising that workers feel little enthusiasm to practice militant trade unionism in their day to day lives.
Does this mean that working class politics has no future in India? Far from it. Politics is always the art of the possible. The biggest reason for the weakness of the trade union movement in India is the humongous size of what Karl Marx would have called the reserved army of the unemployed and underemployed. Every policy which reduces its size, both in qualitative and quantitative terms, will tilt the balance of class forces in favour of workers in the Indian economy.
The unions are primarily trying to do this by pushing back against steps such as privatisation of public sector companies. Whether one agrees with such demands or not, it can be said with some degree of confidence that the impact of such struggles on India’s overall reserve army of labour is unlikely to be significant. What also needs to be underlined is the fact that maintaining status quo in entities such as public sector banks is going to be increasingly difficult as they have been losing their business to their private sector peers. Using the taxpayer’s money to keep cross-subsidising these operations is a difficult policy to justify given the fact that the beneficiaries would be the most pampered section of India’s workers.
There are no easy answers to these questions. To be sure, the problem is not something which has arisen today. John Maynard Keynes, perhaps the greatest economist of the 20th century, described this dilemma facing the communists beautifully in his 1926 essay Liberalism and Labour.
“The political problem of mankind is to combine three things: Economic Efficiency, Social Justice and Individual Liberty…The second ingredient is the best possession of the great party of the Proletariat. But the first and third require the qualities of the party which, by its traditions and ancient sympathies has been the home of Economic Individualism and Social Liberty”, Keynes wrote. India’s trade union leaders would do well to mull over Keynes’s words.
Every Friday, HT’s data and political economy editor, Roshan Kishore, will combine his commitment to data and passion for qualitative analysis in a new column for HT Premium, Terms of Trade. With a focus on one big number and one big issue, he will go behind the headlines to ask a question and address political economy issues and social puzzles facing contemporary India.
The views expressed are personal
It has been a norm of Indian media and intelligentsia, which is dominated by individuals from upper castes, to portray the constitutional office-holders, leaders, thinkers, scholars, and professionals from the Dalit community merely as someone limited to their caste, who got the job because of all factors, except for their capability and performance.
One is reminded of the coverage of KR Narayanan, the 10th President of India. Narayanan, who came from lowest rung of our society, progressed in his career as a seasoned diplomat, often sent on high-stake missions of the Indian government. But, all his achievements and capabilities were erased by the media, and he was labelled as a token appointment. Even the often-celebrated former election commissioner TN Seshan, who was a Brahmin and was contesting against Narayanan, could not digest his defeat, and in frustration made a failed attempt to downplay the election of Narayanan, by saying that he was elected “only because he was a Dalit”.
Similarly, while former Chief Justice of India, KG Balakrishnan, holds a record in presiding over maximum number of Constitution benches of the Supreme Court and delivered landmark judgments in important constitutional matters, he is only depicted as the first Dalit Chief Justice of India. His significant contributions to the development of constitutional law are often not recognised.
The hypocrisy of the Indian media and intelligentsia was also seen during the 2017 presidential elections. While the National Democratic Alliance had chosen Ramnath Kovind (incumbent President) as their nominee, the Opposition parties agreed on Meira Kumar’s name. As both come from Dalit community, the media depicted the presidential elections as a “Dalit vs Dalit” contest. The same media has never discussed it as a “caste contest”, when the candidates came from the upper castes. Kumar pointed this out in a press conference: “Presidential elections were held many times in the past and whenever two people from the so-called upper castes contested, the discussion would be about their (respective) achievements, their abilities, their qualities... But when I and Kovind-ji are contesting, nothing is being discussed beyond Dalit”.
The list of such instances is endless. An incumbent chief minister from the Dalit community would be questioned on his caste, but upper-caste politicians would not be asked if their caste would benefit in getting their caste vote-bank. A Dalit mass leader would still be portrayed as a “Dalit leader”, even if she has become elected head of government for several times. A professional from upper caste background writing on constitutional law would be considered as an “authority”, but a professional with equivalent credentials would still be labelled as a “Dalit scholar” or “Dalit thinker”. In fact, an Indian Administrative Service topper from the Dalit community, instead of being celebrated for her extraordinary achievement, was attacked for availing reservation at a preliminary stage.
The tendency to reduce a successful person from the Dalit community as a “Dalit scholar”, “first Dalit Chief Justice”, “first Dalit President”, “Dalit leader”, etc. and to insinuate that they came only through reservations or were mere tokens, has been a systematic effort to diminish and erase the contributions made by the Dalit community. This was done even to BR Ambedkar, who remains one of the most influential thinkers in global history, but several intellectuals still label him as a “Dalit icon”.
These portrayals also expose the political economy of narrative setting, knowledge production and gatekeeping. The individuals from upper castes occupying media and academic spaces pretend to be casteless, and present “caste” only as a Dalit issue. In doing so, they have been trying to hide their privileges and avoid their responsibility of eliminating caste, and further ghettoise and villainise Dalits and backwards, and dismiss the demands of power-sharing and due representation of these communities. For instance, while on one hand, Narayanan and Balakrishnan have been reduced to general knowledge questions of “first Dalit President” and “first Dalit Chief Justice”, on the other hand, their appointments are invoked to declare caste as a thing of the past. Furthermore, these reductions are done by the upper castes to retain their power and control in how they want to portray the Dalits and backward classes. This has been the modern “tool-kit” to undermine the agency and assertion of these marginalised communities, and to satisfy the feelings of caste superiority.
Thinkers from anti-caste traditions have been calling out this deliberate practice of denying the personhood of their communities, their contributions, their capabilities and excellence, and their icons. As late Rohith Vemula wrote, “The value of a man was reduced to his immediate identity... In every field, in studies, in streets, in politics, and in dying and living.”
India runs on the hard work of marginalised castes and communities, and no one can deny their contributions and assertion.
Anurag Bhaskar, an alumnus of Harvard Law School, is assistant professor at OP Jindal Global University, Sonipat.
The views expressed are personal
The decision of the Union home ministry to stop the operation of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA), 1958, from most districts of the Northeast signals to the government’s assessment of the improved law and order in the region as well as the increased opposition to it from people.
As per the ministry’s decision, the law, at present in force in all districts of Assam, Nagaland, Manipur and some districts of Arunachal Pradesh, will be lifted in 36 districts of the trouble-torn northeastern states. This includes 23 districts in Assam, six districts of Manipur and seven districts of Nagaland. Only three districts in Arunachal Pradesh will continue to remain under AFSPA.
The law has its origins in the British era: the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1942, was promulgated by then viceroy Linlithgow to suppress the Quit India movement. The ordinance was a virtual licence to kill. It had its rebirth in 1958 as a law to contain insurgency in Assam and Manipur; and was later extended to the other northeastern states as localised insurgencies gained strength. A version of the same law was introduced in Jammu and Kashmir in 1990 when Pakistan-backed terrorists made it a point to strike at will.
The law gives the Armed Forces the power to maintain public order in disturbed areas, which are declared so by the state or Union government. It empowers a non-commissioned officer or above to prohibit a gathering of five or more persons in an area and use force or even open fire causing death if warranted for the maintenance of public order. The Armed Forces personnel can also arrest a person or enter and search premises without a warrant.
While the security forces have been of immense help to the government in fighting insurgents in the Northeast, there have also been complaints of very serious nature about the gross misuse of this law. A public interest litigation filed in the Supreme Court in 2013 alleged that 1,528 people were killed in fake encounters and that the perpetrators had the cover of the AFSPA, forcing the Supreme Court to order an investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the killings. The recent incident in which six coal mine labourers were killed in an ambush by the security forces in Nagaland, and the death of another eight more civilians in firing by security forces in their bid to contain the violence that broke out in protest against the killings, reignited the call for revoking the law in the region.
The Armed Forces are trained to fight, and kill, the enemy, and, as the Supreme Court pointed out in 2016, the “indefinite deployment of Armed Forces in the name of restoring normalcy under AFSPA would mock at our democratic process” and “would symbolise a failure of the civil administration and the Armed Forces”. It must be appreciated that the Union government has realised the import of the observation and acted with alacrity. It must now extend the process to rest of the areas in the Northeast as well as in the Union territories of Jammu and Kashmir which, as per the government’s claims, have returned to complete normalcy.
Where there’s a Will, there’s a way… that’s exactly what Will Smith, the winner of the Best Actor award at the 94th Oscar awards’ ceremony, established unambiguously as he delivered a tight thappad to a cheeky presenter and grabbed global headlines. Ever since #Slapgate, a global debate on the rightness and wrongness of Will’s action has polarised society. Let me say it upfront: I am in Will Smith’s corner… it’s a tiny corner and shrinking. But you know what — that’s okay. A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. Like Smith said during a tearful acceptance speech: “Love will make you do crazy things…” The infamous slap incident has cost Will a great deal already (hope he’s not stripped of his precious Oscar). Nobody is talking about his stupendous performance in King Richard. Everyone’s fixated on his “bad behaviour”. Agreed, Smith behaved “badly” by walking up on stage and slapping Chris Rock for making fun of his wife who suffers from an auto-immune medical condition (alopecia), better understood as “balding”. All this nasty business in the name of “roasting” and comedy. Roasting as a genre is cruel and crude — there’s nothing humorous about making fun of a person’s disability or physical condition. It’s time to say “enough” when a presenter crosses the line… which Chris Rock most certainly did. The hard-to-condone part is this: Will Smith went back to his table after the slap and hurling abuses at Rock. That was pretty dumb of Smith. And Rock has aced the popularity polls, especially after he brazened it out later and declared it “the greatest night in the history of the Oscars”. His ratings have gone up considerably since the incident, while Smith has lost out on his moment of glory forever.
There are too many complex and twisted political and social issues at stake in this matter. Let me throw in a few hypothetical scenarios for you to judge. This was supposed to be the first Hollywood ceremony celebrating “inclusivity”. That attempt backfired badly with comments like: “Remember when Lefties and anti-Whites were spewing #OscarsSoWhite? Well, here’s your effing black Oscar ceremony that you wanted so bad…” Racism raised its ugly head instantly, making me wonder: look at what happened when a black guy slapped another black guy, and all hell broke loose. What if Will Smith had slapped a white presenter? Would riots have followed? What would have followed had Will Smith’s wife been white? Or if two white guys indulged in a slap fest, and one of the wives was black? The fallout would have been radically different, for sure.
Let’s transpose the scene to India, which is as racist and nasty as any other country, if not far worse. Throw in caste issues, and prejudices get further compounded. Visualise a similar incident happening at one of the high-profile Bollywood awards ceremonies. Imagine the consequences if a Hindu actor slapped a Muslim presenter. A Muslim actor slapped another Muslim. A Hindu slapped a Hindu. The Hindu’s wife is Muslim. The Muslim’s wife is Hindu. Come on… I can reel off many names that fit into these moulds in our film industry. So, it is no longer about a slap. It is the unspoken repercussions of the slap… all the dark subtexts which Smith’s thappad have brought to the surface… the many unspoken truths that define showbiz, and society at large.
The slap has touched countless chords, even in people who have nothing to do with the movie business. All sorts of conversations have begun, with groups taking sides and lauding/condemning Smith.
The very public act has been converted into a personal test. I am asking myself what I would have done had someone publicly attacked one of my children, husband or a family member for a physical “handicap” (I use “handicap” for want of a better word to describe Jada’s alopecia). I may not have stopped with one tight thappad in that moment of rage and hurt. People are accusing Smith of hyper-masculinity and reminding him he’s a public figure and role model. But hey… more than any of these other roles, remember he’s a human being and husband. And you expect him to laugh when a presenter mocks his wife seated next to him! Come on! Would you sit tight and smile through such a vicious, personal attack? How would you respond? Be honest.
Cynics are calling it a perfectly staged PR stunt, paid for by a pharma company that’s about to announce a breakthrough treatment for alopecia, which affects millions of people globally. Avid watchers of signs and signals are talking about a conspiracy theory in which Rock, Smith and Pinkett are complicit. Smith doesn’t need to stoop to this low level to make a few extra bucks. He’s already worth $350 million.
Rock is no broke comedian himself, with a net worth of a cool $97 million, who is paid a salary of $10 million for movies. That leaves Jada, who is a celebrity in her own right, worth $60 million and the mother of Will’s two children. Why would these three sell their honour to a pharma firm by disgracing themselves, in what would surely have been Smith’s hour of shining glory? Sorry… not buying.
Violence must be condemned. Like they’re chorusing, there’s no justification when someone lifts a hand to strike another. In an ideal world, we should all behave like Mahatma Gandhi and turn the other cheek. Which makes Chris Rock a true-blue Gandhian for not retaliating or showing his outrage as the slap went live and was beamed to over a billion viewers. That’s a pretty cool response under extreme provocation. Both men were out of line. But had the slap not happened, it would have been one more night at the Oscars, with everyone on their best behaviour.
The slap made this edition memorable indeed. Will Smith did receive a standing ovation from his colleagues when his name was announced as the Best Actor 2022 — and this was after the slap. What does that say? The after-thoughts and critical comments came later. But human nature being what it is… viewers will soon forget Lady Gaga’s act of graciousness when she helped her co-presenter — a frail, confused, wheelchair-bound Liza Minneli — and won countless hearts for her kindness. Would Chris Rock have dared to make fun of Liza Minnelli’s failing health and got away with it? I think not! I rest my case.
“I said I was sorry
I shed crocodile tears
I’ve made the same apology
All through my years.
O Bachchoo, then tell us
What is it you regret?
That shall remain secret
So, remember to forget? --
Not yet, not yet…!”
— From Chembur Music, by Bachchoo
I have just read a brilliant and diligent essay by eminent Indian historian Romila Thapar. It’s a mini-thesis on the interaction of the pre-historic civilisations of India and contradicts the new orthodoxy which insists that the Aryan “civilisation” didn’t originate in Central Asia and was exported to Persia and Europe from the Indo-Gangetic plain. However disconcerted that may make some people in India feel, Thapar demolishes the theory quoting the very texts which the Hindutva lobby claims as their own.
There is never conclusive evidence in any pre-historical argument. Ancient history is by definition progressive and things come to light as archaeology digs deeper — so to speak.
There is mounting evidence that Hinduism was born of an interaction of various beliefs over the centuries, pre-historic and recorded, from the gods of natural phenomena to the Trinity to Shankaracharya’s Advaita Vedanta and further. Thapar’s essay traces the founding influences.
Though she doesn’t quote them in this particular instance, the great epics, the Ramayan, for one, is clear evidence of distinct races making alliances or combating each other. Perhaps one can’t conclusively label Ram’s people as Aryans, Ravan’s as Dravidians, displaced from the north and ruling the south, and Hanuman’s as Adivasis, but still!
Religion has defined cultures through the centuries in every tribe and nation, with very few exceptions — the Greek city-states perhaps? — and has governed or influenced its politics.
As is evident in Europe, if not absolutely in America, capitalism has eroded the hold that religion has over politics. One may even contend that Lenin’s revolution in Russia and Mao’s in China had abolished the institutions of religious belief, declaring their respective states to be atheistic. But one may equally consider that they replaced God with the Vanguard Party and the medieval Popes with the likes of Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Xi. The popes with their papal bulls and Xi with his “thoughts”, both rigorous and infallible.
It is arguable that Lenin in his last years had realised that Russia under the heel of the vanguard party would turn into the dictatorship which resulted in the tyranny and holocaust of the Stalin era. The evidence that he did may be the late Leninist essays entitled “On Education” and “On the Peasant and Workers’ Inspection”. Lenin had never admitted that attempting to bring about a “Communist” revolution in a country which was 90 per cent peasantry and feudal was a deeply anti-Marxist ambition. Mao probably didn’t even think of it. Both their revolutions were nationalistic and against the tyranny of the czarist class and the Chinese nationalist aristocracy. The new religions, demanding absolute obedience, were born and suppressed their predecessors.
Once upon a time, Christianity wouldn’t even allow scientific endeavour to assert that the earth moved round the sun. Poor Galileo was prosecuted for mentioning it, retracted what he knew to be true in open court, but muttered “epur si muove” under his breath as he left it.
Christianity burnt supposed heretics at the stake. But the hold of dictatorial Christian doctrine over public policy and legal punishments is long gone. The Christian nations, uniformly capitalist, are democracies and don’t poison their opponents with Novochok injections or throw them into jail or into mass concentration camps.
The new-religious and non-democratic states do just those things. And labelling themselves or being labelled “Communist” states is just as plausible as my declaring myself to be the Queen of Sheba.
And, of course, theocracy is not dead. Very many nations label themselves officially “Islamic” and some implement Sharia law in its severest interpretation and still have heresy on the statue books as punishable by death.
But take the strange case of the nations of the subcontinent. The founders of India and Pakistan were certainly not theocrats. Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru and Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah were professed democrats and, whatever their own religious affiliations, insistently secular.
Jinnah sought the foundation of Pakistan not because he wanted an Islamic nation, but because he believed that a perpetual Hindu majority in a united India could turn to oppressing its minorities through legislation and despite it. On achieving Pakistan’s nationhood, he declared its secularity. It is reported that every now and then when some military dictator pulls a coup in Pakistan and declares some oppressive measure, or when some poor Christian is accused and punished for heresy, a distinct rumble can be heard under a tomb in a famous Karachi mausoleum.
A paradoxical question occurs. Did Jinnah Saheb actually foresee the possibility of India’s pronounced secular democracy turning into a not-so-secular, intolerant nation with, albeit a minority of rabidly primitive theocratic politicians? Or did his victory in partitioning India cause or eventually lead to that state of affairs and that viciousness? Err… discuss!
And yes, gentle reader, I am aware that in the Western democracies, and specifically in the United States of America, there are considerable lobbies of people dedicated to bringing back Biblical enforcement — not quite burning witches at the stake or stoning adulteresses to death, but still inspired by Jeremiah or Leviticus. Still, they don’t demand the beheading of gay people and women accused of some sexual transgression or the chopping off of hands.
The Supreme Court striking down the 10.5 per cent internal reservation for Vanniyakula Kshatriya community within the 20 per cent earmarked for Most Backward Communities (MBC) in Tamil Nadu is a classic case of a political misadventure blowing up in the face of those who venture into it. The Vanniyars, who were part of the bouquet of 115 odd castes enjoying the MBC reservation benefits, suddenly wanted to have all the 20 per cent to themselves at the behest of Dr S. Ramadoss, the founder of PMK who identifies himself as the champion of the community. He called for an agitation by Vanniyars when the AIADMK was on the last lap of its regime and when it evoked poor response, Dr Ramadoss struck a deal with the government led by Edappadi K. Palaniswami to provide for 10.5 per cent exclusive reservation to Vanniyars as a face-saving measure.
So the legislation to give shape to that deal was brought in haste, exposing it to legal scrutiny. The Supreme Court on Thursday said that the legislation violated the fundamental rights of equality, non-discrimination and equal opportunity of the 115 other MBC and de-notified communities. That might not have diminished the bravado of Mr Ramadoss as he hopes to get back the exclusive reservation somehow. But it could be only a pyrrhic victory. Since he had called for that agitation in 2020 on the lines of the one that he spearheaded in 1987 that actually led to the creation of the MBC quota itself, the carving out of 10.5 per cent for Vanniyars from the 20 per cent could be attributed to him. But now, if the quota is to be restored through the efforts of the present government, which alone can do it by passing another law providing updated data unlike the “antiquated data” of the AIADMK government, the credit for it may be snatched away by the DMK. And it may not be to the liking of Mr Ramadoss.