Three weeks ago, when Imran Khan was still in office as the Prime Minister of Pakistan but was looking at the edifice of power beginning to crumble, he lashed out at the opposition in a rally in Islamabad. Imran claimed that the political crisis was the handiwork of the US because he had dared to go against them in trying to pursue an independent foreign policy by reaching out to Russia. Denouncing his political adversaries of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and the Pakistan Peoples’ Party, he accused them of “trying to devastate the country” through “foreign conspiracy” and branded them as Mir Jafars and Mir Sadiqs — two figures from 18th century India who have come to represent the ultimate sin of ghaddari (treason) in the subcontinent.
Mir Sadiq was the man Tipu Sultan left in charge of Sreerangapattanam fortress when he went for his last battle. Unknown to him, the British had already crossed Mir Sadiq’s palm with silver — so when Tipu, battle-scarred and exhausted, needed to beat a tactical retreat, he found the doors of the fortress barred. Unable to retreat, Tipu kept on fighting till he breathed his last in a rare example of valour against the British on the battlefield. In trying to convey the impression that he was fighting as valiantly as Tipu, Imran was somewhat inaccurate in comparing his adversaries to Mir Sadiq, because unlike Tipu, he was not really let down by someone he had placed his trust in.
Syed Mir Muhammad Jafar Ali Khan Bahadur was a Mughal warrior aristocrat in the Subah of Bengal, who, during the days of Nawab Alivardi Khan, rose as high as the Subehdar of Orissa before temporarily falling from grace for his failure to stem the Maratha raids. He was later rehabilitated, and when Alivardi was succeeded by his grandson Siraj al-Daulah, Mir Jafar was given a high military rank befitting his status, being a nephew of one of the wives of Murshid Quli Khan, the architect of the de facto independent Subah of Bengal.
In the nationalist lore, Siraj al-Daulah was the brave Nawab who dared to confront the increasingly ambitious and unscrupulous East India Company in mid-18th century. He even threw the Company out of its base in the burgeoning township of Calcutta because they dared not defer to his authority over the Subah of Bengal. The Company fought back, wrested Calcutta, and conspired to oust Siraj after defeating him at the Battle of Plassey in 1757.
From all accounts, Siraj was doing well in the battle before Mir Jafar advised him a retreat instead of pressing home the advantage, and that he advised him so because he was a part of a conspiracy to topple Siraj, and had been promised the gaddi of Bengal.
Ever since, Mir Jafar has been considered the personification of betrayal, without which — it is argued — British conquest of the Indian subcontinent may never have really begun. By invoking this particular trope of ghaddari, Imran was invoking not only the nationalist ire against the infamous “foreign hand” that has dogged the post-colonial political imagination of the subcontinent, he was also invoking the trope of a Muslim ruler being let down by ghaddars (who happened to be Muslims) in his struggle against non-Muslim foreign powers.
Of course, the nationalist lore never really bothered to explain why the British would want to commit their resources in a military adventure even as they had just embarked on the Seven Years War (1756-63). A large segment of people who have since studied the history of British India tend to turn the nationalist lore on its head. In their reckoning, Siraj was a tempestuous personality well set to become a tyrant, whom neither the bulk of Muslim aristocracy of Subah Bengal, nor the overwhelmingly Hindu banking fraternity (led by house of Jagat Seth), could accept. They were unable to oust Siraj by means of any palace coups, hence a conspiracy to topple Siraj was hatched in the Murshidabad court.
Upon the Company’s successful recapture of Calcutta from Siraj, the conspirators of Murshidabad decided to use the Company troops as guns-for-hire. The understanding was Mir Jafar was to replace Siraj, and the officials of the Company were to be rewarded with an unfettered access to the fabled Murshidabad treasury. So Siraj may not really have been victim of a grand “sell-out” to a foreign adversary, but a petulant tyrannical ruler who was overthrown by the political class of his own polity.
That Mir Jafar was himself ousted in 1760 when he tried to stand up to the British had not been originally factored into the conspiracy — an inconvenient detail that the nationalist lore conveniently overlooks.
Mir Jafar, in other words, has historically been the victim of bad press. What he had actually tried to do was pretty routine in politics (yes, even in the 21st century), and, historically speaking, the charge of ghaddari does not really stick. Nearly the same is true of those whom Imran charges with being like Mir Jafar and Mir Sadiq.
Kingshuk Chatterjee is a Professor in the Department of History, University of Calcutta
Last week, I said that the real victims of the bulldozers in Khargone were the rule of law and the Indian Constitution. Sadly, this has happened again. This time in a Delhi slum. It has also become clear that there is nothing random about where the bulldozers go. There is a pattern. So, the homes and businesses smashed to smithereens in Delhi were in a Muslim area from which stones were thrown at a Hindu religious procession. The BJP chose its most aggressive spokesmen to defend this policy on primetime. “Who are these secularist lawyers who manage to get to the Supreme Court so quickly?” screeched one particularly belligerent spokesman before asking “why is it always Azhar and Ahmed that violate the law and not Arjun or Ajay”. To name this spokesman would be to dignify the hate and venom he spewed. Suffice it to say that he is virtually the TV face of the Bharatiya Janata Party.
Meanwhile, in the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, had this to say. “It is an ongoing demolition drive… No one can point a finger that a particular encroachment was removed just because the encroacher belonged to a particular community or participated in the communal riots.” To say that it was just a coincidence that bulldozers turned up at the exact spot where the Hindu procession was attacked is disingenuous. But personally, I have been disappointed more with what Opposition political leaders have said. Those who hotfooted it down to this neglected, relatively obscure slum concentrated on making the point that it was Muslim homes and businesses targeted. Not true. Among the saddest images from this bulldozer attack was of a small Hindu boy picking through the debris of his father’s juice shop to retrieve what little he could. The other was of a Bihari Hindu paanwala weeping over the wreckage of the frail handcart from which he sold his ware.
The bulldozers did not distinguish between Hindus and Muslims, nor did they distinguish between legal and illegal structures. There are clear rules that must be followed before demolition squads arrive, and these were not followed in Delhi, just as they were not followed in Khargone the week before. The message that the bulldozers hammer home is that the Indian State is prepared to disrespect the rule of law to instill fear and obedience. If the rules of the jungle are needed to silence those who oppose the might of the State, then so be it.
What sickened me most about the events of last week was the support that the demolition squads got from major TV anchors. One famous anchor tweeted jokingly about how there could soon be a shortage of bulldozers in the country. And another famous lady anchor declared in a panel discussion before a live audience that people should be careful not to defy the might of the State. These ladies showed a lack of empathy and servility that prove that the Indian media is now truly worthy of being called ‘godi media’.
If there was one pillar of democracy that stood tall, it was the Supreme Court. It has stopped the bulldozers for 15 days to examine what really happened and whether rules were broken. And it has said clearly that it will take very seriously any instances of the bulldozers continuing with their bulldozing after it issued orders to stop. Municipal officials in charge of the demolition squads did continue their activities in defiance of the Supreme Court until Brinda Karat, whom I am proud to have known from school, physically stood in front of a bulldozer with the order in her hand. As the heroine of the day when she was later interviewed on television, she said that what was truly distressing was that the victims of the bulldozers were among our poorest citizens.
This was something that disturbed me too, because it brought back horrific memories of Sanjay Gandhi’s ‘beautification drive’ during the Emergency. The poorest of Delhi’s citizens had their sad little homes bulldozed that time as well and they were ‘resettled’ across the Yamuna. They were thrown on to a wasteland on which tiny plots were marked out in chalk to indicate where they should build their new homes. The result was that slums like Jahangirpuri came into existence. Somehow, the resettled people managed to survive and even thrive despite not being given any of the utilities that municipalities provide, like water, electricity, and garbage collection.
Instead of slums on this side of the river, India’s Capital now has slums on the other side of the river where visiting prime ministers and presidents do not go. They stop as Boris Johnson did in Rajghat. Speaking of Boris, did nobody warn him that posing for pictures on a bulldozer was very bad timing? What does it matter, though, since the people whose homes and businesses have been bulldozed have no time to worry about visiting dignitaries.
What does matter to them is what the Supreme Court will decide. We must hope that it declares in the clearest possible terms that when the officers of the State start to violate the rule of law, they lose the right to uphold it. The Supreme Court cannot show weakness, or in India we could be in serious danger of having blindfolded Lady Justice replaced with a new symbol. The bulldozer.
In normal life, we keep a count of time; we count money; we count games, runs and goals; we count successes and failures; we count votes and seats, and so on.
There is no shame in counting accurately — except, it seems, in counting the dead. The coronavirus pandemic caused death every where. How many died because they were infected could be known accurately only if every sick person had been traced, tested and treated when alive or the body had been subjected to a post-mortem. That was possible in countries with a relatively small population or with advanced healthcare facilities. India in 2020 did not have either advantage.
Owing to the virus, people died all over India. Most certainly, not all of them were diagnosed or treated; and not all of them died in hospitals. We found that bodies were thrown into rivers or dumped on river banks. The bottom line was that there was no accurate count of the dead. Everybody accepted that fact — except the government which maintains that the number of persons who had died owing to the virus (as on the morning of April 22, 2022) was 5,22,065.
Study after study has debunked that number. The first expose was done in Gujarat. By collating the number of death certificates issued by government authorities, a newspaper proved that more people had died in the pandemic year(s) than in the pre-pandemic years and the difference could be attributed only to the virus. The ‘difference’ was larger than the official number of pandemic-related deaths. When the exercise was done in municipalities in other states — by comparing the number of death certificates or number of cremations — it was proved again and again that more people had died due to the pandemic than the government was willing to admit.
At this point, science stepped in. In a study published in January 2022 in Science, it was estimated that the number of pandemic-related deaths in India was over 30,00,000. A second study published in April in Lancet estimated the number as 40,00,000. A third, year-long study sponsored by the World Health Organization (WHO), yet unpublished, has also put the number at 40,00,000. (Globally, the number was estimated to be 90,00,000.)
If the number of pandemic-related deaths was between 30,00,000 and 40,00,000, the government of India can be accused of failure on a number of grounds. Despite six years at the Centre, and for many more years in the states, the BJP governments failed to invest adequately in healthcare. Despite early warnings, the government was totally unprepared to face the health disaster. Its decisions on banning travel, lockdown, creating temporary healthcare facilities, placing orders for the vaccines, etc. were hopelessly delayed.
Be that as it may, what is alarming is the unwillingness of the government to admit that the true number of pandemic-related deaths is 6-8 times more than the official number. Instead, the government is picking holes in the studies. The Ministry of Health has objected to the ‘methodology’ adopted by the WHO study that involved experts from around the world!
Leave the methodology aside, let’s go by common sense. There were 6,64,369 villages in India in 2019. Assuming that 20 per cent of these villages were too remote and therefore not affected by the pandemic (a wrong assumption), that leaves over 5,00,000 villages. Even if, on average, two persons in every village had died due to the virus (a gross underestimate), that will make the number 10,00,000. Add the number who had died in towns and cities (urban population is 35 per cent), we will arrive at a total of 15,00,000.
Another count has also kicked up a controversy, though the government is pleased with the outcome. A working paper of the World Bank said that extreme poverty in India declined by 12.3 per cent from 22.5 per cent (2011) to 10.2 per cent (2019), with rural areas showing a better result (decline of 14.7 per cent). I agree that poverty has declined, but there are many caveats. Firstly, the study stops in 2019 and does not take into account the devastation caused by the pandemic. Secondly, all the indicators since March 2020 have pointed downward and Azim Premji University has estimated that 23 crore people were, since 2020, pushed into poverty. Hence, the presumed gains made until 2019 have been wiped out. Thirdly, the negatives have not yet been overcome: the bulk of the lost jobs have not come back, the increase in household debt has not been reversed and new job opportunities are still scarce.
Yet another count is controversial. In Washington, the Finance Minister claimed that “Our revenue to rescue the economy was not going to come from taxing people. No ‘Covid tax’ was levied on anybody”. That’s a tall claim, considering that the Central government had collected during 2020-21 and 2021-22 through fuel taxes alone Rs 8,16,126 crore and through other contributions to the exchequer from oil companies (thanks to super profits) Rs 72,531 crore.
There is no shame in admitting that Covid deaths are understated, the reduction in poverty is overstated and crippling taxation is not stated at all.
When Priyanka Gandhi Vadra first suggested Prashant Kishor’s name as the right man to lead the Congress poll campaigns, there was general resistance. Even close lieutenants of Rahul Gandhi were opposed as it would clip their wings. But with Sonia Gandhi personally meeting Kishor and listening to his presentation of how to handle the 2024 Lok Sabha election, the Gandhi family seems to have come around. For the Gandhis, Kishor would serve as a convenient fall guy should the party fail yet again at the hustings. The blame will shift from Rahul to Kishor. Of course, any victory will still be ascribed to the Gandhis’ magnetism. A sticky point of difference between Kishor and the Congress remains as to how the partnership should be worked out. Kishor wants to focus only on the 2024 general election, liaising also with other Opposition parties, many of which have been his clients. The Congress feels he should first test his mettle by handling the difficult Gujarat Assembly elections due later this year. In fact, the Gujarat Congress leadership is still sitting idle, expecting Kishor to chalk out a plan.
But nothing is ever certain in the Congress. And party persons are already questioning just whose side Kishor is on. For instance, this week he congratulated Ripun Bora who quit the Congress to join the TMC in Assam, a move seen as exposing his divided loyalties. The buzz in the party is that when a senior Congress leader in a conversation with Kishor sought to compare his proposed role to that of the late Ahmed Patel, Kishor protested that Patel was a party minion while he saw himself as a stake holder. Kishor’s game plan for the Congress suggests he personally work out the seat-sharing numbers in states like Telangana, West Bengal, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Tamil Nadu and Jharkhand in 2024, a move acceptable neither to the regional parties nor to the Congress.
Vinay Mohan Kwatra was a surprise choice as Foreign Secretary. The low-profile Kwatra was posted in Nepal, a relative backwater in the pecking order of ambassadorial postings, and did not graduate from snobby St Stephen’s College, the preferred alma mater of our foreign secretaries. Actually, Kwatra’s qualifications suited the Prime Minister perfectly. After the 2014 polls, when Modi was new to the job, Kwatra as joint secretary had volunteered to act as Modi’s interpreter and his foreign policy background helped smoothen the flow of discussions with foreign heads of state. Kwatra’s strength is his fluency in Hindi, unlike many senior IFS officers who speak several foreign languages but falter in the use of Hindi. Modi is comfortable with Kwatra as he has served in the PMO. As India’s ambassador in Paris, he played a key role in the finalisation of the Rafael fighter jet deal. Kwatra was later posted to Nepal in 2020 because someone reliable was needed to stabilise what was then a shaky relationship with the neighbour.
During the last Assembly election, the young fiery Hardik Patel was the hero of the Patel agitation and Rahul Gandhi wooed him aggressively. Despite objections of old-time Congresspersons, he was later even appointed working president of the state unit. But Hardik, despite his impressive title, grumbles publicly that he has no say whatsoever in running the party. The Congress now has little use for Hardik and is instead keen to enlist Naresh Patel, who heads the Khodaldham complex near Rajkot, as its point person for the Patels. Naresh’s advantage is that he is a Leuva Patel, the dominant faction, while Hardik is a Kadva Patel. More importantly, Hardik like Narendra Modi, Amit Shah and Anandiben Patel is from North Gujarat. (In fact Modi, Shah and Anandiben’s home bases are in a 70-kilometre radius in the Gandhinagar-Mehsana belt). Since in the last 21 years no one from south and central Gujarat or Saurashtra has wielded real power in the state, Naresh’s biggest plus point is that he is from Saurashtra.
Most Punjab chief ministers had one thing in common: they all preferred to run the government from home rather that the Civil Secretariat. The new CM, Bhagwant Mann, is no exception. Even Mann’s videos are made from home. Initially a studio was set up for him at his secretariat office, but after the contents of the first video were leaked, a studio was organised at his residence. The AAP government is following the example of BJP governments in keeping the media at bay. Unlike the glasnost during Congress regimes, AAP’s ministers in Punjab are reluctant to speak to the media.
The European Union (EU) has moved closer to legislation that intends to regulate digital platforms on the principle that legality is the same in the real and virtual worlds. This makes eminent sense. EU legislators have agreed to the scope of the Digital Services Act (DSA) that is targeted at curbing a wide array of misuse from user profiling to fake news to illegal goods. Once the law is enacted, companies will have 15 months to become compliant with the new rules or face fines up to 6% of their global revenues. Bigger technology companies will have to comply sooner and pay fees for policing by the EU. Alongside the Digital Markets Act (DMA), legislation intended to curb monopolistic behaviour by Big Tech, the EU is pushing the jurisdictional envelope over large parts of the internet. Its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) laws have set the template for privacy protection, including for Indian data privacy legislation.
But extending jurisdiction is one thing, policing another. Stiff fines are not easily imposed on giant technology companies that operate from less intrusive jurisdictions like the US. The argument that it makes sense for technology companies to follow the stricter rules globally runs up against business models that depend on practices proscribed by the EU. Unless rules are harmonised worldwide, online businesses face the prospect of market fragmentation. This goes against the basic idea of the internet. As such, three distinct approaches to jurisdiction in the US, the EU and China are in play with little signs of reconciliation over something as fundamental as privacy. With most of the innovation emerging from the US, the EU or, for that matter, China, will always be behind the curve in regulation.
To the extent that the EU is putting out a view of how the internet should interact with society, its legislative vigour is commendable. But much like its other contributions to the world - democracy and capitalism - the rule of law on the internet will remain a matter of interpretation.
<
Read in source website
Yes, strategic projects critical to defence in border states must be executed on priority. But the environment ministry's plan to speed things up isn't helpful. The ministry has proposed exempting these projects from the environmental clearance process, instead requiring them to stick to standard environmental safeguards. Rather than an exemption and a boilerplate environmental safeguards checklist, GoI should put in place an expedited clearance process. Disregarding environmental impacts actually undermines security and reduces the resilience of these strategic projects, the very opposite of what the plan ostensibly sets out to do.
There is an urgent need to build and augment border infrastructure, particularly along the long border with China, especially with Beijing incrementally 'mainstreaming its peripheries'. It is, however, perilous to disregard the reality that India's longest border is in the ecologically fragile Himalayan region. Activities here have regional and global implications. Environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and climate change have security implications. Therefore, undertakings, including those related to strategic needs, must mitigate impacts.
GoI should set up a specialised committee comprising relevant multidisciplinary experts to review and set environmental norms for pipeline projects and undertake advance studies for future projects. The committee must explore ways to build required infrastructure with the smallest environmental footprint. A self-compliance system is acceptable as GoI is the project proponent. However, independent audits to assess a project's environmental viability and impact when in operation is critical. Environmental norms will strengthen, not impede, security.
<
Read in source website
On Saturday, a 40-year-old man died in Andhra Pradesh, after his new electric bike’s battery exploded while charging. In the last few weeks, there has been a string of incidents of battery explosions, putting the sector, especially the growing electric scooter segment, under the scanner and forcing at least three leading electric vehicle (EV) startups to recall batches of their products. Recently, Union minister Nitin Gadkari tweeted that the government will crack down on any company found negligent in selling faulty EVs. An expert panel has also been set up to look into these incidents, develop standard operating procedures, formulate safety guidelines, and possibly come up with regulations on batteries, battery management systems (BMS), and cells used in electric two-wheelers.
While most companies involved are yet to clarify what caused the accidents, the government’s step is crucial because these mishaps could force a shift in consumer sentiment away from the growing electric scooters and motorcycles segment, and dent the image of the manufacturing startups, and the larger EV sector. Experts say the fires could be due to one or several factors, but that the key is BMS. The most critical variables are the quality of the battery cells, their packaging, thermal management through BMS, and the tech used in rapid charging. In addition, many startups may well be cutting corners.
The transport sector, the world over, is one of the worst polluters. Decarbonising it is critical to meet climate goals. However, these incidents are a setback. The government and industry must find a way to ensure a safe ecosystem that can produce good quality and safe EVs.
Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi’s first visit to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) after the nullification of Article 370, which gave the erstwhile state special status, and its bifurcation into two Union Territories comes at an interesting time. On Sunday, during his visit to launch a clutch of projects, which came almost three years after the region’s reorganisation, Mr Modi spoke of development and democracy.
The visit comes with a report of the delimitation commission — it has recommended an increase in seats to 90 from 83, with six of the new seats in the Jammu region — before the Union government, which is expected to approve it in the coming months. That should pave the way for elections, as promised by both the PM and the home minister, and the eventual restoration of J&K’s statehood. It comes with an increased focus on infrastructure projects, including many related to connectivity. Looking beyond strategic imperatives, and the usual hype, there does seem to be a real effort to better connect J&K with the rest of the country. It comes with the PM’s Bharatiya Janata Party on a high — having won four of five recent state elections, including the all-important one in Uttar Pradesh, and with its strength in the Upper House of Parliament crossing the 100 mark. It comes at a time when the government has withdrawn the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act in some parts of the country, raising expectations that it could do so in at least some parts of J&K (although this is unlikely). And it comes with a new regime in Pakistan, and the cautious optimism that this could reopen a window for talks, and for discussions on terror which has plagued the region, although bitter experience has shown that Islamabad’s script rarely changes.
On the flip side, it comes even as terror attacks in the Valley continue, with targeted attacks on civilians, including those from other parts of the country, remaining a matter of concern. And it comes at a time when regional political outfits are becoming impatient, and would like to see elections held at the earliest. All of this sets the stage for what should be the government’s next big step in J&K — an even more concerted effort to push development; a focus on making the region safe and secure, including for migrant workers who are, unfortunately, soft targets; and an accelerated effort towards electoral democracy in the region. It is time.
Today is the 61st day of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. From all accounts, the world seems helpless when it comes to dealing with a situation in which an aggressor army is raping women, kidnapping, and reportedly trafficking people and killing minors. Whatever happened to the global village?
The question is: For how long will the world’s powerful and wealthy countries confine themselves to paying only lip service to human rights and rules of international law? To deter any external intervention in Ukraine, Russian President Vladimir Putin has warned that any such effort could trigger a nuclear war. To make sure he is taken seriously, he has even activated the nuclear command. Are we standing at the precipice of World War III? Even if that does not come to pass, the world will never be the same again.
The main reason for this paradigm shift in international equations is that Europe is witnessing an unprecedented mobilisation against Russia. The continent’s concerns have multiple dimensions.
A prominent German leader said, soon after the war began, that so far his country had been importing security from America, energy from Russia and essential goods from China. All this appears to be falling apart literally overnight. Not just Germany, Afro-Asian countries, along with other European countries are now being forced to adopt alternative measures. The availability of Russian oil at cheap prices is indeed keeping Putin’s spirits high. But strenuous diplomatic measures are being used to corner him. In the coming days, Russian oil and other products are likely to suffer a hit.
Let us look at developments so far. Around 600 major international brands have deserted the Russian market; top shipping companies are staying away from the country. Newsprint is one of the products that has suffered the maximum impact. Russia is the world’s largest exporter of paper and the price of newsprint has risen by as much as 175% due to supply cuts. Newspapers across the world may be forced to reduce pages and increase prices in the coming days. Not only this, some companies used to import their entire steel, crude oil requirements and edible oil from Ukraine; this has now been disrupted. A world economy battered by the pandemic is going into a further tailspin.
With fears of the war spreading beyond Ukraine’s borders, many countries have been compelled to raise their defence budgets by as much as 200%. They will be forced to drastically cut other expenses for the purchase of defence products. Its adverse impact will be most seen in programmes for poverty alleviation, prevention of deadly diseases, and environmental degradation. The last three decades were a time of relative peace, prosperity and progress, but this brazen invasion of a sovereign country has put paid to all that.
Sociologists are anxious that fear, hunger, poverty, and environmental degradation will lead to widespread anarchy. Remember, when Russia bombed Syria, militia groups began knocking at the gates of Europe, fuelling the risk of social unrest. Uncertainty and fear play a big role in fanning Right-wing ideologies. The fundamentalists may not win elections in these countries, but the fires of fanaticism cannot be stopped from spreading.
For India, these circumstances have brought both challenges and opportunities. Amid all this drama, there are signs that along with Russia, China, too, is feeling isolated. The United States and the West were already apprehensive, indeed fearful, of Beijing’s expanding power. The cooperation that Moscow is getting from Beijing has only emboldened Putin. China, too, may have to face restrictions or boycotts in the coming days. In such a situation, India can emerge as a viable alternative. The results of last week’s talks between British Prime Minister (PM) Boris Johnson and PM Narendra Modi are testimony to this.
Some positive indicators are already visible.
For instance, this year, farmers in India didn’t have to face too many procurement problems. Compared to previous years, private traders are buying more wheat from farmers at better prices. Wheat purchases by private traders in Punjab have been the highest in eight years.
In view of rising prices across the world, private traders are exploring opportunities to export food grains. Indian pharmaceutical companies have established contact with Europe. If the theatre of war widens, many countries will look for new sources for various drugs and medical equipment.
Overdependence on China has hit many sectors. Several European nations will soon be faced with a shortage of skilled craftsmen and engineers as proposals to set up steel, textiles and other industrial units in Europe have gathered momentum. India has the largest number of graduates in the world, including engineers and doctors. The days ahead could witness the coming of age of Indian skills and enterprise.
It can only be hoped that New Delhi remains both aware and alert in the days to come. This could be the time when India takes its rightful place in a new world order.
Shashi Shekhar is editor-in-chief, Hindustan
The views expressed are personal
What do you all day, I get asked by well-wishers every now and again. I’ll be honest. Right now, I’m playing spider solitaire. After a good number of years, I might add virtuously, when I was quite addicted to it. I do not play that word game. I may be one of the few people in the word, sorry world, who doesn’t wait until midnight for the new puzzle. I did almost play once by which I mean that I sat next to a woman on a plane the other day who kept writing “falce” and then was quite sad when it got rejected. I don’t know the protocol so I didn’t suggest another spelling.
Part of the reason for asking me this is that I’m a curiosity. I have no husband and I have no children. This apparently automatically means that I have a lot of time to spare because they are the main causes of time-filling. I had until recently parents, to whose care I was bound or was it the other way around? I also have no 9 to 5 job.
I am not an obvious “society” type of person. I have no diamonds, no vast collection of chiffons and pearls and party invitations.
I am not an obvious stay-at-home female watching soaps and immersing myself in the lives of other people.
Or that’s what they think anyway. I could spend all day popping peeled grapes into my mouth, for all they might assume.
I almost never ask people what they do all day. Largely because I do not care. I am not necessarily uncaring but I find details very tedious. It’s bad enough deciding what I or anyone else around me wants for lunch tomorrow without having to be burdened with someone else’s tinda (praecitrullusfistulosis, according to that know-everything crowd-sourced don’t depend on it website) or bhindi (slime-oozing green thing) dilemmas. I can reveal that I almost never chose to eat either.
I also have a terrible FORPTM issue. Like why tinda has a fistulosis issue although I have, I think, eaten it once and I do see the connection. But then the beautiful Indian Laburnum is called a “cassia fistula” which basically means that the main taxonomy experts have a serious issue with piles.
I am not discussing piles at all, by the way. Not now, not later so I hope you are not terribly disappointed. TAC or there are creams. Eventually old people will capture urban slang and distort it to hell. DITH.
I do have Fear Of Rubbish People Tell Me, because I just know you’re dying to know what this absurd acronym I made up stands for.(Are they still called acronyms or does that date me as a person who has heard of crossword puzzles?) If old people pretending to be trendy young people can make up things like “vibe out and listen to music” to sell some a music app to some dope who doesn’t know how to use a CD, I don’t see why I can’t provide entertainment for some young person who might want to laugh in embarrassed horror: you know what my great aunt did? She tried to make up internet slang and failed miserably. OMG. DAE?
Yes, I am qualified in the great-aunt aspect although I do not babysit all day. Or at all if it comes to that.
I still haven’t answered the question.
I do not spend all day trying to undermine young people.
But, have you heard their music?
Well, ’nuff said and enough of random capital letters which mean nothing to some and everything to others.
I lost the game of spider solitaire, by the way, and now my win-loss record is 1 zillion to 0. Obviously not 1 zillion I must explain because I do find that I spend of the day explaining that I’m being sarcastic to people. Well-wishers are kind if a bit over-curious. The well-meaning who want to explain everything you say to you in case you misunderstood yourself? Unconscionable. I suppose one should laugh at them. That must be a stage in the 7 levels to dealing with idiots: Explosion, Rage, Anger, Annoyance, Simmer, Sigh, Laugh?
The adjunct to the “what do you do all day” question is the “what do you do” question. I watched someone who does a good many things all day struggle to answer recently. I suppose on the scale, “what do you do” is less judgmental than “do you do anything”!
In the inimitable words of Bertrand Russell: “Work is of two kinds: first, altering the position of matter at or near the earth’s surface relatively to other such matter; second, telling other people to do so.”
I might honestly say that I do both in the course of a day.
A lot depends on my state of mind. Sometimes it is convenient to substitute activity for action. Sometimes, winning at spider spider solitaire is a goal. It relieves a multi-millionaire sportsperson from having to consistently perform to the highest level so that I can have something to do to answer someone else’s question: I watch x or y.
How easily us humans forget though. Two years ago at this time, we were locked into a most bizarre battle with a virus which ended civilisation as we thought we had moulded it. We were locked into our homes. We were out on the streets trying to get home. We shunned each other out of fear. Our facilities were stretched to their limits and a few of us had to work at least three times as much as the rest of us to keep us alive.
What did we do in those lockdowns and over the last two years? Some of us but not all could “work from home”. Those who could not went through hell. And even when we worked, there were hours to be filled because of enforced confinement.
And yet, how quickly we forget and ask: what do you do all day.
I think I shall indeed re-read Bertrand Russell’s In Praise of Idleness. Its rich thought will give me much more than a few pat answers. Maybe even solve the world’s problems?
Yes, that’s what I’ll do all day for now.
As one of the proponents of the Rule 193 discussion in the Lok Sabha on Ukraine, I had stated in the presence of external affairs minister Dr Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, “On December 26, 1991, when the erstwhile Soviet Union ceased to exist or when it was dissolved, Ukraine was the third largest nuclear nation in the world. It had the third largest nuclear arsenal in the world. In 1994, in terms of the Budapest Memorandum which was midwifed by the United States and Great Britain, Ukraine was stripped off its nuclear arsenal in return for amorphous security guarantees that if its peace or sovereignty was ever transgressed upon or trifled with, it would have their backing, but unfortunately, when the push came to the shove, these political commitments evaporated into thin air. We have a saying in Punjabi, it goes as such, “Rab nede ke ghasun?” which means, “Is God closer or is the punch?”, and unfortunately Ukraine traded amorphous security guarantees for what was a substantive tangible security guarantee it had in terms of its nuclear weapons and its nuclear arsenals. This is a cruel thing to say, but unfortunately given the times that we live in, I think it needs to be said.
So why did Ukraine give up its nuclear arsenal? Was Ukraine ever in operational control of the erstwhile Soviet Union’s nuclear inventory physically stationed on its soil? Even if it was not, could Ukraine not have reconfigured the command and control system of this arsenal? Could it not have maintained a credible minimum deterrent that was capable of being physically delivered from airplanes rather than having to be missile launched? What message does the lack of operationalisation of security guarantees qua Ukraine send to other states who have powerful and hostile neighbours to contend with? These are some very germane questions that need to be answered for they have a material bearing both on the iniquitous Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the entire architecture of nuclear non-proliferation constructed by the P-5 or N-5 post India’s first peaceful nuclear explosion in 1974.
In tranquil moments post the Cold War, when even the clock of history had ostensibly been stilled and American power was at its zenith, there were still stationed 1,800 nuclear weapons on Ukrainian territory. They encompassed short-range tactical weapons and air-launched cruise missiles. These weapons were an anathema to the ayatollahs of the non-proliferation community in the United States and other Western capitals. They wanted these weapons to be swept off Ukrainian soil and for some bizarre reason handed back to Russia of all the nations, rather than being destroyed or at least defanged and demobilised.
The Clinton administration following the quintessential carrot and stick policy was successful in armtwisting a recently liberated Ukraine that was struggling to function as a nation state with a devastated Soviet era economy to contend with to sign on the dotted line in Budapest.
The now-infamous Budapest Memorandum delineated that Ukraine would commit itself “to eliminate all nuclear weapons from its territory within a specified period of time”. In return, the US, the UK and Russia undertook to fulfil a whole range of assurances to Ukraine.
The most significant of these was was to “reaffirm their obligation to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of Ukraine”. They also undertook to “refrain from economic coercion” against Ukraine and further to “seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine” in the event of an “act of aggression” against the country.
Based upon these unambiguous security assurances, Ukraine fulfilled its end of the bargain and delivered its entire nuclear arsenal to Russia by 1996. However, in return, Russia converted the Budapest Memorandum into the proverbial dead letter by invading Ukraine in 2014 and now again in 2022 as the other two guarantors of Ukraine’s security did precious little to pre-empt or prevent this aggression and, worse, put no boots on the ground to come to Ukraine’s aid.
Could Ukraine have retained its nuclear arsenal? While the non-proliferation pundits would argue otherwise, there was really nothing stopping Ukraine from making a serious attempt at crafting a minimum credible deterrent way back in 1992, given the fact that if you take the broad civilisational sweep into consideration there was just no way that Ukrainians should have been so naïve to believe that one day the Russians would not try and resuscitate the dream of recreating either the Tsarist utopia or Soviet hegemony.
What would be the implications of the Ukrainian conflict on the second age nuclear powers as well as those nations that are a screw turn away from achieving nuclear weaponisation? The message is both portentous and crisp –those Westphalian entities who make the cardinal error of giving up their nuclear arsenals do so at their own peril. That was precisely the lesson North Korea internalised after Libya fell in 2011. Even Iran, notwithstanding the decades of negotiations with the West, is still in no mood to give up on the nuclear option.
The incapacity of the US to implement its Budapest guarantees would also reverberate in allied capitals that rely on America’s military assurances for their safety. It should come as no surprise now if Japan, South Korea, Australia or many other nations in Europe itself pursue their own nuclear deterrent. If Americans want to know why they should come out their current inertia of Jeffersonianism nuclear proliferation is the six hundred pound gorilla in the room.
In the past, South Africa had developed its own atomic weapon and had a neat stockpile of nuclear weapons but got rid of its arsenal voluntarily as it made its tryst with destiny to end apartheid. Brazil and Argentina, from the 1960s to the 1980s, scurried to build their own atomic weapons, but both eventually proscribed their programmes. Libya ended its efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in the early 2000s and, ultimately, the Gaddafi regime paid for it with their lives.
Whatever may be the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it has delivered a clear message to all countries who had recessed their nuclear aspirations that, if you forsake your nuclear programmes and make your security hostage to tenuous agreements and conventional deterrence, you wager your future. This inescapable cold reality of life will reorder the entire nuclear non-proliferation architecture in the months ahead.
Summer used to be a languid period, of taking time off from the hectic activity of the fiscal year closing, schools shutting down for long vacations, job relocations and new beginnings. No longer. And it is not just because the BJP works all year around at remaining the number one political entity. Annual ministerial jaunts to cool foreign locations seem to have been drastically curtailed, keeping the bureaucracy too glued to their offices.
Business too has changed. The time of day and seasons no longer define anyone’s work schedules. Work happens ceaselessly and you are forced to take calculated risks while seeking time off, lest you find a “bot” or a less demanding humanoid in your chair, and your access to the office intranet blocked on your return.
This change, terrible as it is for the privileged, professional, middle class, which traditionally enjoyed a summer work-lull with the family, is necessary for the economy, where efficiency levels remain abysmally low — although the jury is still out on whether 24X7 work results in higher productivity. Even machines need annual rehabs. But work frenzy is catching. Just ask the high command of the Grand Old Party, which instead of holidaying in cool climes this summer, will be tutored on “how to win elections” at Udaipur (40 degrees Celsius). The only other option was Raipur, Chhattisgarh (42 degree Celsius).
It does not help that electricity utilities are the first to collapse under the heat, as creaky distribution systems overheat, distribution transformers go up in smoke and King Coal revels in increased demand from thermal generators, far exceeding the production in coal mines. The latter might have taken the Glasgow COP 26 declaration last year about the “End of Coal” too readily to heart. With electricity demand peaking to beat the heat and coal stocks steadily dwindling in the generator’s coal yards (55 per cent of normative stock levels on April 4, according to the Central Electricity Authority), the early demise of coal fails a reality check.
And not just in India. Global coal-fired generation could be higher in 2022 than the earlier (pre-pandemic) peak in 2018. The Ukraine imbroglio has punched a hole through the European complacence on how “civilised” nations settle disputes and the continued usefulness of the United Nations architecture where consensus eludes even the Big Five “entitled” nations. Curiously, the prospect of a one percentage point drop in growth in 2022 (IMF, April 2022), is all that it took for energy strategies to be reopened in Europe. Compare this with the cost which developing countries would be forced to bear to green their energy systems over the next two decades, with no compensating aid in sight, to clean up the detritus of industrial growth enjoyed, principally, by the advanced economies.
The parallel drop in growth prospects for India in 2022 is 0.8 per cent. What hope then for the carefully curated consensus around Net Zero concluded just some months earlier? Faced with an eleven-fold increase in gas prices, even the advanced economies are quietly reworking their energy strategies to keep coal as a fallback for volatile natural gas. Across the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, Portugal and Germany, mothballed plants are being revived and the targeted decommissioning postponed. (Energymonitor, April 20, 2022).
India is enmeshed in the throes of deep political discord which becomes shriller by the day. The shambolic, accommodative Indian State is fast evolving into a big, efficient, coercive State. There is fairly wide support for this makeover.
Cynicism about whom the Big State works for is deeply embedded in the average citizen, induced by having to wait far too long, for the trappings of democracy to translate into real-life benefits for those at the bottom of the heap.
And yet extreme poverty (those living below $1.90 per day level on purchasing power parity basis) has declined in a secular manner from 22.15 per cent in 2011 to 10.2 per cent in 2019 (Sinha Roy and Van Der Weide, World Bank, April 2022). Note that even the demonetisation in late 2016 and the introduction of the disruptively transformative Goods and Services Tax soon thereafter in 2017 induced only a marginal temporary uptick in urban poverty, whilst rural poverty declined faster through this period.
Another working paper of the IMF (Bhalla, Bhasin and Virmani, April 2022) adopts the unorthodox approach of adding back to surveyed consumption the difference between the market price and the much lower (or free) issue price of food aid provided since 2013 to 75 per cent of the rural population and 50 per cent of the urban population. It finally concludes that the proportion of population below the level of extreme poverty fell from 10.8 per cent in 2011 to 0.8 per cent in 2019, increasing thereafter just marginally to 0.9 per cent in 2020-21.
The activists are vocal against this allegedly “statistical” end to poverty, unrelated to reality. They should ponder instead, on a second finding of this paper, that if the targeted poverty level is increased to $3.20 per day, as is appropriate for middle-income countries like India, poverty remains visible, albeit reducing from 52.2 per cent in 2011 to 14.8 per cent in 2019, but increasing sharply to 18.1 per cent in the pandemic year 2020-21.
The massive food aid programme which the government had unleashed during the Covid-19 pandemic succeeded in insulating the poorest from income erosion, but the next above “aspiring classes” were hit hard by lost jobs and disrupted livelihoods. Pulling this set of 200 million people out of relative poverty through direct transfers is beyond the already stretched fiscal capacity of the State. It remains a challenge, which only expanded infrastructure development, enhanced public services, higher agricultural productivity and rapid private investment can address sustainably.
How well we navigate the immediate future in the face of all these global headwinds — higher inflation, higher interest rates and reduced demand for exports — will depend crucially on the ability of the government to target expenditure surgically to where it gives the biggest bang for the buck without, of course, political economy considerations or shock and awe-inducing, big, new “expensive” programmes along with the adoption of a participative, decentralised strategy for enlarging the national revenue pie. The BJP has the numbers in Parliament, it has the expertise and the political energy. The real question is: does it really have the intent to look beyond winning elections? That is not a bad strategy in itself, but it can be severely debilitating economically.