Editorials - 10-06-2022

It is ad hoc, hurts farmers’ incomes, and may not impact inflation much

Over the last month, the government has banned the export of wheat and imposed quantitative restrictions on outbound sugar shipments. The wheat export ban came within days of a push to enhance India’s wheat supplies to the rest of the world after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. This is a time of persistently high inflation, spurred by rising food and fuel prices, and there are concerns about a lower yield this year due to intensive heat waves. The government has argued that farmers have not lost out due to the ban as most had already sold their produce this season. In a discussion moderated byVikas Dhoot , S. Mahendra Dev and Himanshu consider the efficacy of these curbs. Edited excerpts:

What do the export curbs mean for reining in inflation and addressing India’s food security concerns?

Himanshu:I don’t think the export ban is going to help much with inflation as the procurement season for the wheat crop is more or less over. I don’t think it is going to keep the prices down or help the government to procure and prepare better for food security.

My objection to the ban has not been on the policy of export curbs per se — almost 30 countries have done the same, and countries should have a sovereign right to decide what is the right time to curb exports. My problem is with a kind of ad-hocism or muddled policy-making. And this is not the first time, which makes it more worrying. This has been going on for the last two decades — there is no planning on how to manage the trade policy for agriculture products or even other products. Look at it: on May 12, there was an official press release about sending delegations to nine countries to explore wheat export opportunities. And then on May 13, there was an export ban. That’s not the right way of looking at it. Through April, officials went to the U.S., talked to President Joe Biden, and the Finance and Commerce Ministers were saying, ‘If not for the WTO [World Trade Organization], we will be feeding the entire world’. And then suddenly within a month, the government says, ‘No, no, we don’t have enough for exports.’ This gives a wrong signal to domestic farmers as well as traders. It is certainly not good for food security because whatever damage was supposed to happen has already happened. The government has not been able to procure whatever is required for managing its food security apparatus.

Did circumstances change significantly between April and May with the wheat crop estimates being downgraded? Or even between May 12 and May 13, when India went from being an aspiring wheat exporter to the world to banning exports completely?

S. Mahendra Dev:Even before the Ukraine-Russia war, global food prices were increasing because of excess liquidity across the world. But the war gave India an opportunity to export more wheat. The global export market is around 200 million tonnes, of which 55 million tonnes are generally from Ukraine and Russia. India exported 7 million tonnes in 2021-22, and everybody thought we had a lot of opportunity this year. Open market prices were higher at Rs. 2,400 a quintal compared to the MSP [Minimum Support Price] of around Rs. 2,100. So, farmers were getting higher prices after a long time. The export ban has two effects. It impacts farmers’ incomes as well as the long-term credibility of the export policy. One reason given for the ban was the production estimates. In 2006 too, production was overestimated and India had to import as procurement was low. It’s the same now: many people thought production was over-estimated at 111 million tonnes; now we may have 99-100 million tonnes. The second reason was procurement. Last year, 44 million tonnes were procured; now we are expecting around 19 million tonnes. The third reason was the retail inflation, which was inching close to 8% in April, with food products even higher.

The government may have acted for these reasons, but it has hurt farmers’ incomes and the impact on inflation may not be very high because global food prices are still high. Instead of an export ban, it could have opted for a minimum export price and given a bonus of Rs. 250 to Rs. 300 to spur more procurement for food security goals. On sugar, of global exports of around 64 million tonnes, India was exporting 8 million tonnes last year. Now, there is no shortage of sugar production. We are expecting 35 million tonnes. Even with exports, we could have had a closing stock of around 6 million tonnes. So, there was no need — the government says it is because of global shortage and higher prices in India. It thinks that during the festival season, sugar prices should not go up and has restricted exports to 10 million tonnes.

Food and Consumer Affairs Minister Piyush Goyal has said local wheat prices have fallen by about Rs. 5 a kg, so the export ban is indeed working. The G7 nations and other countries have urged India to rethink the ban, though government-to-government procurements will be considered.

Himanshu:Global credibility is not as important as India has not been a regular wheat exporter except for the last two-three years when it had excess stocks. The more serious issue is the credibility of government policy for our biggest stakeholders — the millions of farmers who need a stable and consistent policy. This has not been provided. As far as domestic price measures are concerned, things get a little tricky — because for the last few years, farmers have been suffering through low prices domestically, due to the slowdown in the economy and the pandemic. Finally, when they had the chance to get slightly better incomes from the produce, the government imposed the export ban. So, the domestic outcomes of the export ban are worrying, because we had options like a bonus for procurement that could have helped farmers and food security concerns. Some kind of disincentives could have been built in rather than an outright ban on exports, which basically doesn’t help the farmers or even the consumers that much, whatever the government claims.

We have to see this in the context of the overall agricultural policy, not just for exports, but also incentives and market interventions. What we need is a more cohesive, consistent, stable and predictable agricultural policy, rather than an ad-hoc, unjustified manner of pressing the panic button.

In 2016-17, India had a good pulses crop. But procurement was bungled then and farmers, who were left high and dry, reduced sowing for pulses from the next year. Could we see a similar impact on sowing preferences this time?

Himanshu:This is an important question. Let’s look at oil seeds, another commodity which has seen a massive increase in prices. We have been importing roughly 60% of our seeds and must produce more. But as prices have gone up, the government reduced the import duty on palm oil, and while that is going to reduce market prices for consumers, it would be at the cost of the farmer who will not enjoy the benefits of higher price. So, in a sense, we are penalising the farmer who could have actually shifted production towards oil seeds, but can’t compete with cheaper imports. So, we have a policy that penalises farmers at the cost of the consumers, who always get the preference, whether it is pulses or oil seeds.

The 2016 episode with pulses is a good example — when farmers were able to get higher prices, the government dumped imports from Mozambique and other countries, which led to the collapse of prices. Since then, farmers have been hesitant to go into pulses production. The risks of a muddled policy can damage prospects across the spectrum. We have gone from self-sufficiency in edible oils at the beginning of the 1990s to complete dependency on imports — and trade policy had a large role in that.

S. Mahendra Dev:Since Independence, we have been favouring the consumers at the expense of the farmers. That has to change. The situation assessment survey of 2018-19 shows that farmers’ incomes are low, with only Rs. 127 a day from cultivation. We have to think of the farmers’ families because they also have expenses, such as health, education and agriculture inputs. For consumers, social protection programmes can act as a support rather than a reduction in farm prices.

Sowing preferences may not change that much, because rice and wheat get a lot of incentives and take up about 80% of the water of the entire agriculture sector. But this ad-hocism — one year we export, next year we ban it — has been happening with most commodities, from wheat to onions. Diversification is important not just for food security, but also nutrition security as many of the poor are not able to buy pulses or eggs and meat.

The government had talked of doubling farm incomes by 2022. How do these steps fit in with that goal?

S. Mahendra Dev:In 2013, farmers were getting Rs. 6,400 and in 2018-19, that was around Rs. 7,700 in real terms. That’s a 21% increase in six years, or 3.5% per annum. You need 10% growth per year to double farm incomes. Non-farm income is also needed because cultivation alone is not enough.

Himanshu:I think everybody knew when the announcement was made that this is impossible — when it had not happened in the past, it was unlikely to happen when the economy was in the middle of a slowdown. Also, farmer incomes are dependent on not just output prices but also input costs, which have been rising. So, you can have a weird situation where input prices grow faster than output prices, and farmers actually make losses rather than higher incomes. Even over the last six months of rising prices, I don’t think farmers gained much. A large part of the benefits went to traders and speculators, who hoarded stocks to sell at high prices later.

The whole premise of the three farm reform laws, now abandoned, was to give farmers the freedom to sell where and when they want…

Himanshu:I think the last three months have been a good example of the futility of the farm laws. The Government says the farmers have sold wheat at a higher price because the government was able to pick up less than 20 million tonnes, less than half the target. So, farmers obviously had avenues if they wanted to sell it to the private players. They managed to sell it without any change in the market infrastructure and without the farm laws. The problem is only when the prices are low as that is when you need the government to step in, and that is the point of MSP. This is a good example of how a bogey was created around the farm laws, that these were the only barriers to farmers not getting high prices. But now the government itself is saying farmers have got high prices, nullifying the entire premise on which the laws were formulated. The problem was not about the farmers, it’s the nature of agricultural markets and the vulnerability of farmers.

S. Mahendra Dev:We have been talking about farm reforms since 2003. My stand has been this: leave it to the States. In India, a large country, you cannot have one system for the entire country, which has so many variations in soil, climate. etc. So, each State can see what can be done rather than the Centre imposing farm laws.

The export ban impacts farmers’ incomes as well as the long-term credibility of the export policy.

S. Mahendra Dev



Read in source website

The State has rich resources to begin a conversation on co-operation and conflict, and syncretism and dogmatism

The battle for and about Karnataka’s pasts (and present) has eclipsed all other pressing issues related to the crippling learning deficit of the two COVID-19 years, the devastating effects on the economy, the urgency of dealing with the gravest health crisis of the recent past, and the looming threat of climate change. The battle is being fought on two levels: assorted groups of majoritarian mobs, religious heads, writers, and politicians are ‘reclaiming’ historical sites and structures. The principle that is emerging is an adaptation of ‘Show me the person, and I will show you the law’. It is “show me a Muslim structure and I will find you a ‘Hindu’ past”.

Claims and demands

Just as the word ‘encounter’ became synonymous with unlawful killings of suspects by police, the word ‘survey’ has entered our lexicon carrying the pernicious threat of demolition. Not only has a claim now been made on Masjid-e-Ala in Srirangapatnam, constructed by Tipu in 1786-87, but Lingayat mathadishas of northern Karnataka have now petitioned Karnataka Chief Minister B.S. Bommai to conduct a ‘survey’ of the Peer Pasha Bangla in Basavakalyan in Bidar district, claiming it is the seat of the original anubhava mantapa of the 12th century convened by Basaveshwara.

Likewise, a ‘survey’ has been demanded of the Assayed Adbullahil Madani mosque at Malali, Mangaluru, to establish its ‘Hindu’ origins. The Chief Minister has shown his willingness to concede these demands.

The second level of the battle has appeared in the form of the recently ‘rewritten’ textbooks, related to social sciences and Kannada. Here too, the principal goal is a control of the narrative of the Karnataka past, and an erasure of recent achievements (e.g. Karnataka’s hard fought and won struggles for social justice in the last five decades). It need not surprise us that the demand for textbook rewriting was first triggered by the ‘beleagured’ Brahmin (represented by the Karnataka State Brahmin Development Board). The Rohit Chakrathirtha committee has obliged by replacing certain texts and authors, and rewriting parts of the social science books to undo the ‘hurt sentiment’. But unlike the Muslim structures which have been targeted for attack, for which there can now only be an appeal to the law, the textbook revisions have seen an unanticipated range of responses that the Bommai government will not be able to so tidily resolve.

Eroding inclusivity

There is an anguished cry from writers such as Devanur Mahadeva, who represents the most innovative and complex in Kannada writing, that they be dropped from the new textbooks. Six other writers have followed suit. They will not resort to book burning or tearing to make their point, but have made dignified pleas to be dropped from a text which now features K.B. Hedgewar’s speech translated into Kannada as ‘Nijavada Adarsha Purusha Yaaragabeku? (Who should be an ideal role model’). What is their objection? Not just to the fact that a translation, of a rather preachy speech, has been chosen over other fine and thoughtful original pieces of Kannada literature. Their objection is also to the homogeneity of the newly included authors, which undoes the achievements of the more inclusive Kannada literary sphere over the last five decades.

Objections to the ‘rewriting’ of the history sections have also been rich and varied. For one, a leading mathadisha, Panditaradhya Swami of Sanehalli, well known for his own support of, and interest in, theatre and literature, has objected to the new portrayal of Basava as a ‘reformer’ of an existing Veersaivism, rather than as the founder of the Lingayat religion that represented opposition to the Brahminical order and its practices. The long-standing battle on Lingayat\Veerasaiva origins had culminated in the demand for a separate religion in 2017, a movement that was successfully snuffed out by the Union government. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the then Chief Minister B.S. Yediyurappa also began the parallel task of cohering Basava’s Anubhava Mantapa (which is being redeveloped) to ‘Sanatana Pragatipara’, a progressive Hinduism. There was only a weak outcry among Karnataka writers and intellectuals at the time. Do Panditaradhya Swami’s objections now represent possible fissures between orange and saffron in Karnataka?

Not quite. Perhaps as a balancing act, Education Minister B.C. Nagesh was seen respectfully presenting copies of the new textbooks to the head of the powerful Adi Chunchungiri (Vokkaliga) matha, Nirmalananda Swamiji, for his approval. This followed Vokkaliga outrage against Chakrtirtha’s disrespectful take on the State poet Kuvempu’s nada geethe (now the State song). Kuvempu, a Jnanpith Award winning litterateur, has been ‘owned’ by the Vokkaligas, for some time now.

Questions and interpretation

What then is the future of Karnataka’s heritage? At a time when information is freely and abundantly available, can the textbook be a purveyor of information alone? At a time when chaos and disruption are our lot, should students not be taught the rudiments of a historical temper instead? That history is neither about celebrating the glory of (mostly) heroes, or avenging real and imagined ‘historical wounds’ but an argument about the past, based on thoughtful and critical interpretation of facts? At the same time, do those who have been denied a past — tribals, women, Dalits — not deserve to interpret a historical method that has excluded them?

I use the word interpretation deliberately since all arguments for textbook change have emphasised ‘true facts’. Thus, even those who vilify Tipu Sultan, Chakratirtha included, have to admit that he made donations to, and is remembered for, his protection of the Sringeri matha from Maratha marauders. Our children deserve to know how to interpret such facts, alongside the more troubling legacies of his reign. First, all of the Indian past is not about religious clashes between ‘Hinduism’ and Islam. A lot else was happening: our students need to know why Tipu is acknowledged as a restless moderniser, why he was considered among the most valiant of 18th century rulers who fought the British, but also when and how he was turned into a ‘tyrant’. What does the rich symbolism of Tipu’s court — his obsessive use of the tiger stripe for instance — and indeed his adoption of Persian as the official language tell us about the quest for legitimacy? What does his collection of books tell us? What do we make of the technological innovations of his time? They also need to know why he is remembered as responsible for conversions, and oppression, particularly of his enemies. Why did he support some non-Muslim religious people and institutions and not others? All this involves historical thinking, not imbibing of ‘facts’ that produce either pride or hatred.

Second, if we must talk about religious clashes in the past, let us be all inclusive, and talk about the bloody clashes between Saivas, Veerasaivas, and Jains, especially in the medieval period. For this, there is interesting material and literary evidence. Hero Stones (vira kallu) at Haveri, for example, and the reliefs and inscriptions on the Someshwara temple there, clearly depict the vanquishing of the Jains and destruction of Jain temples by the Veerasaivas. At other times, Jain temples were simply taken over and reused as Veerasaiva shrines. The countryside is replete with such examples.

Karnataka has valuable resources with which to begin this conversation among students, teaching them to think about both co-operation and conflict, syncretism and dogmatism, in the past, as much as in our present. And yes, religion is, as the well-known historian Ranajit Guha noted, among the richest archives in India. Should we squander these resources to uphold some impoverished idea of religious nationalism? Instead, we need to ask, like the educationist Krishna Kumar: is there a way of being Indian that is not nationalist, not producing pride, envy or hatred, but understanding and inclusivity, and tolerance for difference? I believe Karnataka’s rich heritage offers this unique opportunity for both truth and reconciliation.

Janaki Nair was Professor at the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University until retirement in 2020



Read in source website

Despite differences, the Indus Waters Treaty is one of most effective examples of water management in the world

The Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) is an established water-distribution treaty between India and Pakistan to use water in the Indus and its tributaries. In the words of former U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower, the treaty has since its existence in 1960, served as “one bright spot ... in a very depressing world picture that we see so often”, resolving the long-standing differences between India and Pakistan since Partition.

Following the 118th meeting of the Permanent Indus Commission (PIC) comprising the Indus Commissioners of India and Pakistan held on May 30-31, 2022 in New Delhi, it is important to reflect on the struggles and the high stakes that the two countries have experienced to ensure a long-lasting treaty on the one hand and the lessons that can be drawn to address multiple concerns pending in the region on the other.

Struggles and stakes

After years of arduous negotiations, the Indus Waters Treaty was signed in Karachi on September 19, 1960, by then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and then Pakistani President Ayub Khan, negotiated by the World Bank. The treaty establishes a cooperative mechanism for exchanging information between the two countries regarding the use of the western rivers (Indus, Jhelum, Chenab) allocated to Pakistan and the eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas, Sutlej) allocated to India. However, the treaty also underlines provisions allowing each country to use the rivers allocated to the other for certain purposes such as irrigation and hydroelectricity. The Permanent Indus Commission, which has a commissioner from each country, oversees the cooperative mechanism and ensures that the two countries meet annually (alternately in India and Pakistan) to discuss myriad issues emerging from the treaty. This year, the commission met twice, in March in Islamabad, Pakistan, and then in New Delhi, in May.

Some differences

India-Pakistan relations have most often been embroiled in the high politics of the region’s history resulting in a political stalemate between the two countries. It is a rare feat that despite the many lows in India-Pakistan relations, talks under the treaty have been held on a regular basis.

Nonetheless, throughout its existence, there have been many occasions during which differences between the two countries were discernible. For instance, both countries held different positions when Pakistan raised objections regarding the technical design features of the Kishanganga (330 megawatts) and Ratle (850 megawatts) hydroelectric power plants located on the tributaries of the Jhelum and the Chenab, respectively, designated as “Western Rivers”. However, under Articles III and VII of the treaty, India is permitted to construct hydroelectric power facilities on these rivers (subject to constraints specified in Annexures to the Treaty).

Differences were also discernible when Pakistan approached the World Bank to facilitate the setting up of a court of arbitration to address the concerns related to these two projects referred to in Article IX Clause 5 of the treaty, and when India requested the appointment of a Neutral Expert referent to Clause 2.1 of Article IX on the settlement of differences and dispute of the treaty, respectively. Disagreements continued on the issue with many meetings brokered by the World Bank to resolve their disagreements. But it was without any success.

Eventually, on March 31, 2022, the World Bank, in view of the differences, decided to resume two separate processes by appointing a neutral expert and a chairman for the court of arbitration. However, the two parties have not been able to find an acceptable solution. The appointment of a neutral expert will find precedence to address the differences since under Article IX Clause 6 of the treaty provisions, Arbitration ‘shall not apply to any difference while it is being dealt with by a Neutral Expert’. Therefore, the two separate processes are more likely to generate technical and legal repercussions.

Similarly, Pakistan, invoking Article VII Clause 2 on future cooperation, raised objections on the construction and technical designs of the Pakal Dul and Lower Kalnai hydropower plants located on Marusudar river, a tributary of the Chenab, in Kishtwar district of Jammu and Kashmir. The 117th and the 118th meetings of the Permanent Indus Commission held this year deliberated this issue. Here, India has assured Pakistan that all the concerned projects are treaty compliant.

Similarly, India has raised concerns on issues such as Pakistan’s blockade of the Fazilka drain, which resulted in water contamination in the border areas, referent to Article II Clause 3 and Article IV Clause 4 and 6 of the treaty. During the 117th bilateral meeting in March, Pakistan assured India of all possible actions to ensure the free flow of the Fazilka drain into the Sutlej.

Notwithstanding the differences, both countries have so far endeavoured to amicably address all such issues with both sides assuring to implement the treaty in letter and spirit.

Lessons from the treaty

Although there are many outstanding issues, the treaty is important and many lessons can be drawn. The treaty is an illustration of a long-standing engagement between the conflicting nations that has stood the vagaries of time. It has withstood tensions, including conflict, providing a framework for cooperation. The treaty, therefore, is considered one of the oldest and the most effective examples of water management cooperation in the region and the world. The 118th bilateral meeting corroborates its effectiveness.

With the exception of differences on a few pending issues, both countries have avoided any actions resulting in the aggravation of the conflict or acted in a manner causing conflict to resurface. The recent bilateral meeting points to mutual respect, communication and a sharing of information, despite differences.

Potential for cooperation

The treaty can serve as an edifice to address the challenges of climate change. Recognising common interests and mutual benefits, India and Pakistan can undertake joint research on the rivers to study the impact of climate change for ‘future cooperation’ (underlined in Article VII).

The Indus Waters Treaty also offers great potential for cooperation and development in the subcontinent which can go a long way in ensuring peace and stability. Given that both India and Pakistan have been committed to manage the rivers in a responsible manner, the Treaty can be a reference point to resolve other water-related issues in the region through regular dialogue and interaction.

Mukesh Kumar Srivastava is Senior Consultant, Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR), New Delhi. The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

In the world of global diplomacy, embarrassments, gaffes, and ‘diplomatic incidents’ are par for the course

I saw it. I fixed it. That’s the whole story”. It took me a few minutes to understand what the Minister was saying to me. I was in Islamabad to cover the SAARC Home Minister’s meeting in 2010, attended by the then Home Minister, P. Chidambaram, and I had received a summons from Indian Embassy officials who said the Minister wanted to speak to Indian journalists. Apparently “it” referred to the Indian tricolour that had been placed upside down, inadvertently or otherwise, on the table next to Mr. Chidambaram during the bilateral talks with the then Pakistani Interior Minister, Rehman Malik. The Minister had moved with some deftness once an official pointed out the error, and wanted to ensure that television channels back home would use the visuals of the Indian flag after it had been set right and not before. Although Malik swore it was an honest mistake, suspicions were high that the hosts had done this on purpose to upset the atmosphere, heightened by the memory that even as a guest in 2006, former Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf had flown into Jaipur with the tricolour flying upside down on his plane. At the SAARC Home Minister’s meeting in 2016 too, there was an incident: protesters in Pakistan were allowed close to the convoy of then Home Minister Rajnath Singh, and India officially protested this with the Pakistan government.

As host, India too has had to deal with some tense moments over protests during visits. In 2002, Tibetan youth leader Tenzin Tsundue scaled 14 floors of a Mumbai hotel during Chinese Prime Minister Zhu Rongji’s visit, and unfurled a Tibetan flag. In 2005, Mr. Tsundue unfurled a ‘Free Tibet’ banner from atop a water tower in Bengaluru when Premier Wen Jiabao visited the IISc campus. And in 2016, protesters were allowed close to Hyderabad House in New Delhi where President Xi Jinping met Prime Minister Narendra Modi. All these incidents, the Chinese delegations suspected, were “deliberately planned” rather than security breaches.

When it comes to flags, not all incidents are as serious. The Chief of Protocol of a neighbouring country once told me about a near-incident, when he asked his foreign ministry supplier to decorate the city’s roundabouts with national flags in honour of the Czech Republic leader’s arrival. To his horror, he found the main street of the capital decked in black-and-white chequered flags (like the ones found at F1 car races) instead, and had to move swiftly to have new flags in place. At an official banquet in Delhi a few years ago, I realised that the menus that had been placed in front of us had been mixed up with those for a previous visitor. The officials, once alerted, moved quickly to correct the mistake and through sign language and whispers, ensured that the Indian guests removed all the menus from the plates of the foreign guests sitting next to them.

In the complex and often arcane world of global diplomacy, gaffes, embarrassments and “diplomatic incidents” are par for the course. Some, like the Qatari decision to cancel a banquet in honour of Vice President Venkaiah Naidu, ostensibly due to his counterpart the Deputy Emir’s possible exposure to COVID-19, left officials wondering if there was a larger message being conveyed regarding the Qatar government’s unhappiness over the controversial comments made in India about Prophet Mohammad. Some of those suspicions were confirmed when the Qatar Foreign Ministry also summoned the Ambassador to protest. Nevertheless, the Vice President continued through the trip as is normally the case in such matters, making the point that bilateral ties transcend such incidents, and trying to ensure, mostly unsuccessfully, that we in the media follow suit. However, in the age of social media, it is that much harder to stop a story from getting out, and to do the “damage control” once it is published.

suhasini.h@thehindu.co.in



Read in source website

India and Iran need to rebuild their ties affected adversely by recent global events

Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian’s first visit to India this week has many implications for bilateral relations, but it is the multilateral context and timing that stand out. This is the first visit by a member of the 57-member Organisation for Islamic Cooperation, which took offence to comments made in India on the Prophet. The controversy has overshadowed India’s other diplomatic engagements. As a result, his visit was an opportunity for New Delhi to project that it has successfully assuaged the Islamic world with the actions of the ruling BJP against its spokespersons. For New Delhi, which always seeks to run a balance in ties between the two rivals, the Iranian visit comes a week after that of Israeli Defence Minister Benny Gantz. It also coincides with the meeting of the Board of Governors of the IAEA in Vienna, which has passed strictures against Iran for its nuclear programme. For Mr. Abollahaian, the visit would be portrayed as a show of support from a powerful country. In addition, Iran and India discussed the situation in Afghanistan under the Taliban, just days after an Indian envoy made the first outreach to Kabul. To this end, India and Iran have discussed further operationalising the Chabahar port, where goods to Afghanistan were sent before the government in Kabul fell last year. Finally, against the backdrop of the Russian war in Ukraine, and western sanctions, Iran has also been keen to convince New Delhi to restore its crude oil purchases, which it cancelled in 2019, after threats of U.S. sanctions. While there was no public statement on the matter during the official part of the visit, External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar’s statement was significant — he called for the U.S. and Europe to allow Iranian and Venezuelan oil back into the international market if they want India to lower Russian oil imports, accusing the West of “squeezing” all alternative sources for India.

On the bilateral front too, India and Iran have catching up to do, with many promises of the last summit in Delhi left unrealised. Instead of increasing Indian oil imports, investments in developing reserves, building up the Chabahar rail project and scaling up trade, India has drastically cut its Iranian engagement due to sanctions, while Iran has looked to China for more infrastructure investment. Bilateral trade dropped to just over $2 billion (2020-21) from $17 billion (2017-18). Ties also appeared to have been hit by New Delhi’s surprise decision to join the Israel-India-UAE-U.S. group, portrayed as an “anti-Iran” coalition, and by perceptions of Iranian support to Yemeni Houthis behind the drone attack on a UAE oil facility where an Indian was among those killed. Mr. Abdullohaian’s visit, and a possible visit by Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi, may be the start of a reset of traditionally strong ties even if it is one that is buffeted by developments in other parts of the world.



Read in source website

The tug of war between the L-G and the CM is a barrier to Delhi’s development ambitions

The turf battle between the Lieutenant-Governor (L-G) appointed by the Centre and the elected government of Delhi has a long and noisy history. The recently appointed L-G, Vinai Kumar Saxena, has, through his disruptive enthusiasm to meddle in the day-to-day governance in Delhi, set the cat among the pigeons. Unlike his predecessors, Najeeb Jung and Anil Baijal, who too were at loggerheads with the elected government of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Mr. Saxena is a politician close to the BJP top brass. AAP has accused the L-G of undermining “constitutional sanctity” by having called a meeting of Delhi Jal Board officials on May 30 and issuing directions bypassing the Council of Ministers and the Chief Minister. The constitutional design of governance in Delhi itself is a consuming dispute that is being litigated in the Supreme Court. The Constitution gives the Centre control over three subjects — land, public order, and police. However, over the years, the Narendra Modi government has expanded the L-G’s powers, including through an amendment to the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act that the AAP government challenged in court last year. Through these amendments, the Centre reorganised the powers and responsibilities of the Delhi Legislative Assembly and the L-G, in favour of the latter. In the new law, “government” referred to in any law made by the Legislative Assembly will imply Lieutenant Governor (L-G), curtailing the powers of the elected government.

AAP has emerged as a thorn in the side of the BJP that is the dominant pole of the country’s politics, barely challenged in many regions. The tussle between the Delhi government and the L-G has to be understood from this perspective. The Centre has been persistent in its attempts to rein in AAP that has been trying to propagate its governance model in the Capital as a propellant of its national ambitions. While the BJP appears to be willing to go to any length to clip the wings of AAP, the latter’s loud protests are less on questions of principle than its own political calculations. AAP had cheered the Centre’s unilateral move that robbed Jammu and Kashmir of its statehood and special status in 2019. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s grievances against the L-G are not unfounded, but he himself contributes to the stand-off as his politics compels him to be in constant combat with the BJP. Despite pronouncements by the L-G and the CM to work in tandem, their relationship has nosedived to new lows. Their long-drawn tug of war is a needless barrier to the capital city’s development ambitions. Until the Court brings clarity on all issues of division of powers between the L-G and the CM, both would be well advised to work with mutual respect and accommodation.



Read in source website

Johannesburg, June 9: More than 1,000 white university students defied a Government ban on public gathering yesterday by assembling on a pavement just outside their campus here. A barricade of motor vehicles, including a minibus carrying a banner “students representative council” was placed across the main entrance to the white University of the Witwatersrand. The only police in sight at the time were a small group of plainclothes officers on a traffic island in the road outside the entrance. These moves followed a general assembly of students, the university Senate and the council in a campus building. A resolution was passed affirming the right of university students and other citizens “to express peacefully by public assembly and procession their opinions on matters of public policy and their right thereby to seek public support for opinions thus expressed.” It was estimated that about 6,000 students were present at the general assembly. The resolution also expressed “extreme distress and indignation at the violent measures taken by the Government” against peaceful assemblies. South African University staff and Senate members have also joined the nation-wide Student-Government confrontation which has raged over the past two weeks.



Read in source website

Mathew McConaughey's message was simple, and powerful: In the aftermath of one of the most gruesome school shootings in the US, there is no excuse to delay reasonable gun control legislation.

These are the same green Converse, on her feet, that turned out to be the only clear evidence that could identify her after the shooting.” Maite Rodriguez, one of the children who was killed at Uvalde, Texas, last month wore those shoes every day as a sign of her love for nature. Her story, and many others, formed the core of an impassioned speech by Oscar-winning actor Mathew McConaughey at the White House on Tuesday. His message was simple, and powerful: In the aftermath of one of the most gruesome school shootings in the US, there is no excuse to delay reasonable gun control legislation.

Uvalde is McConaughey’s hometown. And, like many Texans and others in the American South, he is a proud gun owner. His plea, emotional to be certain, was also eminently reasonable. The ideological commitment that many in the US have to the Second Amendment — which guarantees the right to bear arms — must not be allowed to override the fact that children and teachers are routinely killed by young people with mental health issues and access to military-grade weapons. Background checks, counselling, reasonable restrictions — those are the contours of the non-partisan gun control law that McConaughey proposed.

Many of McConaughey’s most iconic roles — in A Time to Kill and The Lincoln Lawyer, for example — had him deliver impassioned closing arguments as a lawyer. He used that skill, and the raw emotion he felt after meeting the families of the 19 dead at Uvalde to do what politicians have been unable to: Be both reasonable and emotional on gun control debate. The US Congress has passed gun control legislation but the Senate, where the Republicans hold sway, will likely not ratify the law. Sometimes, even the most reasonable request cannot hold politics at the water’s edge. But by shining a spotlight on the children that died at Uvalde, he has done his bit to give some meaning to their lives.

This editorial first appeared in the print edition on June 10, 2022 under the title ‘Actor, truth-teller’.

class="viewmore-premium">More Premium Stories >>

Action on cyclist’s harassment complaint is an encouraging sign. Overlooking abusive behaviour can devastate those preyed upon - Indian Express

The case is a grim reminder of how vulnerable India’s young athletes remain to predators

Within days of a top woman cyclist accusing the national sprint team chief coach R K Sharma of “inappropriate behaviour”, the Sports Authority of India (SAI) swung into action and terminated his contract, noting that “prima facie, the case is established and the allegations of the athlete are found to be true”. The swift action on the cyclist’s complaint is a welcome departure from how similar cases have been dealt with in the past: In 2020, an investigation by this newspaper had found that over a 10-year period, there were 45 complaints of sexual harassment at the SAI — 29 against coaches — which had resulted in five coaches being penalised with pay reduction, the contracts of two being terminated and the suspension of one. Many of the accused were simply transferred or penalised with a small cut in pension and, in several cases, even as enquiries dragged on, the coaches were allowed to continue working with young sportspersons.

This most recent case is a grim reminder of how vulnerable India’s young athletes remain to predators — many of whom are trainers, physiotherapists etc. with whom they work in close physical proximity, often travelling and sharing hotel rooms with them. There is a dreary familiarity to the sordid episode: The cyclist, who was part of a team that travelled to Slovenia to train for the Asian Championship, has alleged that Sharma forced himself into her room, offered her a “post-training massage”, asked her to sleep with him and said he wanted her to “be his wife”. Any resistance, he allegedly warned her, would mean the end of her career. Similar tactics of intimidation were alleged to have been used by P Nagarajan to silence many young women athletes, who had accused the Chennai-based athletics coach last year of preying on them under the guise of holding training sessions. The harrowing details recounted by Nagarajan’s accusers — of relentless mental and emotional pressure, nervous breakdowns and anxiety — find an echo in the cyclist’s account.

Overlooking abusive behaviour can, as in the Larry Nassar episode in US gymnastics — where investigation into the hundreds of complaints of sexual abuse was botched, with over 90 survivors now suing the FBI — take a devastating toll on the mental, emotional and physical wellbeing of those who are preyed on. The revelations of sexual abuse in India’s sporting centres should also spur all stakeholders to come together and formulate better ways to protect athletes, many of whom are minors. The immediate response to the cyclist’s complaint and her removal to safety, and the fact that Sharma was punished are encouraging signs.

This editorial first appeared in the print edition on June 10, 2022 under the title ‘Foul play’.

class="viewmore-premium">More Premium Stories >>

MSP boost could bolster govt’s cereal stocks. But it must keep sight of crop diversification, the long-term reform measure - Indian Express

Weaning farmers away from water-guzzling paddy and sugarcane to growing oilseeds, pulses, fruits, vegetables and other high-value crops is what is necessary from a long-term nutritional as well as agro-ecological perspective.

The Narendra Modi government has hiked the minimum support price (MSP) for this year’s paddy crop by Rs 100 per quintal over 2021-22. It is higher than the Rs 72, Rs 53 and Rs 65 per quintal increase during the preceding three years, while below the Rs 180-200 of 2018-19, which was in the run up to the 2019 general election. This time’s MSP raise has less to do with politics. The Commission for Agricultural Costs & Prices (CACP) has estimated the average production cost of paddy (all paid-up expenses plus an imputed value of unpaid family labour) for 2022-23 at Rs 1,360 per quintal. The MSP of Rs 2,040 per quintal for common paddy, then, translates into a 50 per cent return over cost. Last year’s MSP of Rs 1,940 also delivered the same return over a projected cost of Rs 1,293 per quintal. Farmers, thus, are only being compensated for higher cultivation costs.

Production cost going up — probably more than the CACP’s 5.2 per cent estimate — is not the sole reason for the Modi government granting an above-trend MSP hike in paddy. A more pertinent factor has to do with public foodgrain stocks, which, at 311.42 lakh tonnes (lt) for wheat as on June 1, are the lowest in 14 years for this date. Although rice stocks, at 496.76 lt, are above last year’s corresponding level of 491.50 lt, the government clearly isn’t taking any chances. With the next wheat crop arriving only in April 2023, there will be that much added dependence on rice now to meet the requirements of the public distribution system. Hence, the need to ensure adequate stocks and procurement of paddy, whose plantings take off in June and marketing from October. Barely three months ago, the country had enough grain for free distribution through ration shops and also for exports. The post-March heat wave that took a toll on wheat crop yields and more than halved government procurement has made things a tad precarious.

There is a perverse side to the short-term imperative to bolster government cereal stocks. It undermines the cause of crop diversification. Weaning farmers — especially in states such as Punjab, Haryana, Telangana and Maharashtra — away from water-guzzling paddy and sugarcane to growing oilseeds, pulses, cotton, fruits, vegetables and other high-value crops is what is necessary from a long-term nutritional as well as agro-ecological perspective. The current system of assured MSP and open-ended procurement for only paddy, wheat and sugarcane cultivated in a handful of states is simply unsustainable, both fiscally and environmentally. Depleted public stocks and high global prices of cereals are a temporary phenomenon. The Modi government should not take its eye off the real reform road ahead.

This editorial first appeared in the print edition on June 10, 2022 under the title ‘MSP and more’.

class="viewmore-premium">More Premium Stories >>

Gajendra Singh Shekhawat writes: The Jal Jeevan and Swachh Bharat Missions are combining to improve people’s well-being - Indian Express

Gajendra Singh Shekhawat writes: Their success is a good example of convergence, one of the primary operating principles of the government.

Many have likely heard the parable about a bundle of sticks. Its premise is that one stick may break but when many sticks are bundled together, it’s impossible to break the stack. This story taught us the power of unity. Another word for unity is convergence — when ideas, projects and schemes merge, miracles happen. Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a flagbearer of this idea.

The late Arun Jaitley introduced convergence as one of the primary operating principles of the government in his first budget speech. At the Jal Shakti Ministry, we have tried to put this concept to the test. The best exhibition of this can be found in the ways in which the Jal Jeevan Mission and Swachh Bharat Mission work in tandem, one enabling the other.

During the first term of this government, the Swachh Bharat Mission was launched to stop the scourge of open defecation. More than 10 crore toilets, a record, were built, but this accomplishment could have been difficult had the government not had the foresight to build the toilets on a twin-pit design that has in-situ treatment of faecal sludge. Now, providing tap water connections through the Jal Jeevan Mission is among the government’s top priorities. Over 9.6 crore rural households get tap water supply; notably, more than 6.36 crore households have been provided tap water connections since PM Modi announced the programme in August 2019.

Also Read |K. Sujatha Rao writes: Healthcare in India is ailing. Here is how to fix it

The Jal Jeevan Mission faces a challenge similar to that faced by the Swachh Bharat Mission — managing grey water discharge. About 70 per cent of all household water turns into grey water, which if untreated leads to undesirable consequences. This is where the concept of convergence comes in.

class="viewmore-premium">More Premium Stories >>

The government has launched Swachh Bharat Mission Phase 2 with a focus on plastic waste management, biodegradable solid waste management, grey water management and faecal sludge management. It has been as nimble and innovative in its thinking as when twin-pit toilets were used in the Mission’s first phase. When household tap connections were provided, the Jal Jeevan Mission converged with the Swachh Bharat Mission to achieve holistic sanitation in which the treatment of grey water became a vital component.

Under Swachh Bharat Mission Phase-2, arrangements for solid and liquid waste management have been made in 41,450 villages; nearly 4 lakh villages have minimal stagnant water. Nearly 22,000 villages have been named “model village” under the ODF Plus scheme, and another 51,000 villages are on their way to achieving this tag.

Also Read |Yashwant Sinha writes: India had won global respect. The Nupur Sharma row has dented it

Another notable aspect of our approach has been the continuous pursuit of perfection, the will to cover loose ends, plug gaps in delivery and take the benefits to the last man in line. Before the government embarked on Swachh Bharat Mission, nearly 1,20,000 tonnes of faecal sludge was left untreated as two-thirds of all toilets were not connected to the main sewer lines. The scale of India’s plastic waste pollution is staggering. Both these problems find themselves on the agenda of Swachh Bharat Mission’s Phase 2. In a short time, 3.5 lakh villages have become plastic dump free and nearly 4.23 lakh villages have minimal litter. Nearly 178 faecal sludge treatment plants and nearly 90,000 km of drains have been constructed.

The Jal Jeevan mission intends to relieve women of the drudgery of travelling long distances to fetch water. The Swachh Bharat Mission too is centred around the dignity of women. A joint study by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and UNICEF revealed that an overwhelming number (80 per cent) of the respondents stated that safety and security were the main drivers of their decision to construct toilets; 93 per cent of women reported feeling safe and said that they had found dignity in using household toilets.

The Jal Jeevan Mission is catalysing change at the grass roots level by reserving 50 per cent seats for women in village and water sanitation committees. They are encouraged to get involved in every aspect of planning, implementation, management and operation of village drinking-water supply schemes. In every village, at least five women have been entrusted with water quality surveillance and many of them have been trained as plumbers, mechanics and pump operators. These pioneering women are sure to influence others who could take over jobs generally monopolised by men.

The impact of these schemes on the nation’s GDP is often overlooked. In 2006, a joint study by WSP, Asian Development Bank and UKAID revealed that inadequate sanitation cost India Rs 2.4 trillion — 6 per cent of India’s GDP at that time. Scarcely any corrective measures were taken till the present government assumed office. The Swachh Bharat Mission, apart from preventing GDP loss, provides annual benefits worth Rs 53,000 per household.

Any other government would have found it prudent to rest on all these laurels. But this government doesn’t believe in getting carried away by its successes. It regards them as stepping stones to taking on tougher challenges. PM Modi believes at striking at the root of social problems and convergence is one of the tools he emphasises for that purpose. It is a lesson that we have taken to heart.

This article first appeared in the print edition on June 10, 2022 under the title ‘Two missions for change’.

The writer is Union Jal Shakti minister

Somit Dasgupta writes: Avoiding the coal scarcity trap - Indian Express

Somit Dasgupta writes: While the government is taking steps to increase coal imports, it must ensure that domestic production does not dip during monsoon season.

In 2021, the Indian government gave instructions to generators to import coal while we were already in the midst of a power crisis. However, this time around, the government was more careful. It directed the power stations in December 2021 itself to import coal to the extent of 4 per cent of their requirement and blend it with domestic coal.

However, as luck would have it, the measure was not enough. With the sudden early onset of summer in 2022, power demand spiked, riding on the back of the post-Covid economic recovery. The matter was further exacerbated by the Ukraine conflict, which led to a sharp increase in the price of imported coal. Even today, the average price of imported coal is about $140 per tonne against about $60 per tonne a year ago.

Consequently, power stations designed on imported coal stopped importing because it was no longer economical for them to generate, given their contract price with the distribution companies. About 17 GW of generating capacity dependent on imported coal was affected. Some of these units started hunting for domestic coal as a substitute, thus putting pressure on domestic coal. It’s not that domestic coal was not available since enough stock had been built in the mines. The issue was of availability of railway rakes for transportation.

There has been a flurry of activity in April and May to deal with the situation. First, all generators have been asked to import coal to the extent of 10 per cent (as against 4 per cent earlier) and that half of this should be physically available by the end of June. This would involve importing about 38 million tonnes of coal. The earlier instruction that each generator will import on its own has now been replaced with the direction that Coal India will function as the aggregator on behalf of the generators. CIL functioning as the aggregator is a better idea and it may be able to import at a cheaper cost by accumulating demand as well as standardising the coal grade to be procured. Moreover, it would be easier for regulators to calculate the revised energy charge since the price at which coal was imported would be well-documented.

class="viewmore-premium">More Premium Stories >>

Second, the government invoked Section 11 of the Electricity Act 2003 (Act) and directed imported coal-based plants to run at full capacity with the assurance that their enhanced cost of operation would be compensated. Penalties have also been announced if power plants fail to import coal, including curtailment of domestic coal entitlements.
Third, the government invoked the concept of tolling, which allowed states to transfer their allotted coal to private generators located near the mines instead of transporting it to far away state generators. This move would ease the burden on the availability of railway rakes.

Fourth, the government issued policy directions to the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (CERC) overriding CERC’s regulations that made it mandatory to seek the consent of beneficiaries if the tariff went up by more than 30 per cent, if some alternate fuel is used. Fifth, a committee of officials was set up to rework the energy charge for imported coal-based generators. Sixth, the government is cognisant of the fact that there is a need for additional working capital and has advised REC/PFC as well as commercial banks to arrange for this.

When the government invoked Section 11 of the Act, the question being asked was whether it can really give a direction to private generators to import coal at a higher cost. For the benefit of readers, Section 11 is reproduced below verbatim: “(1) The Appropriate government may specify that a generating company shall, in extraordinary circumstances operate and maintain any generating station in accordance with the directions of that Government. (2) The Appropriate Commission may offset the adverse financial impact of the directions referred to in sub-section (1) on any generating company in such manner as it considers appropriate.”

Going by Section 11(2), the government should have left the job of working out the energy charge to the regulator instead of setting up a committee of officials to do so though, of course, the CERC was represented in the committee. Section 11(2) of the Act clearly mentions that the adverse financial impact would be offset by the regulator. The committee, therefore, has no locus standi. It also gives the impression that there is an element of trust deficit between the government and the regulator and this is something we have seen on several occasions in the past as well.

Second, the committee has already worked out the revised energy costs for six of the plants but there is no transparency regarding the coal cost assumed, its calorific value, transportation cost, etc. It is no surprise, therefore, that a major generator has contested the energy charge, saying that it has been underestimated by about 33 per cent and has now approached the CERC. It is learnt that some other generators may also follow suit.

Third, we have to bear in mind that the coal problem arose because of the non-availability of rakes. With 38 MT of coal to be imported by October this year, and half of that by end of June, the need for rakes will not only go up but would be front-loaded. Back of the envelope calculations indicate that each rake can carry about 38,000 tons of coal. This means that we need 1,000 additional rakes to ferry 38 MT of coal over five months. One sincerely hopes that the requisite number of rakes would be available because otherwise, we are back to where we began. What is most important, however, is that we ensure that there is no dip in the production of domestic coal during the monsoon season.

This article first appeared in the print edition on June 10, 2022 under the title ‘The scarcity trap’.

The writer is Senior Visiting Fellow, ICRIER and former, Member (Economic & Commercial), CEA

Why so fractious? Rajya Sabha elections shouldn’t lead to so much contestation - Times of India

The Rajya Sabha elections in four states have led to massive contestation. This is unfortunate. At the time of publication, only results for Rajasthan have come out. The counting was slated to begin at 5 pm and should have been over quickly. Instead, political parties are mobbing returning officers with pleas to disqualify votes of rival MLAs and then heading to the Election Commission with their appeals.

With years of parliamentary experience behind them, political parties should be conducting themselves better. Making puerile reasons for junking votes ends up vitiating the process. Now the elections have been clouded in uncertainty and doubt. Extreme political polarisation is the culprit. The spirit of bipartisanship has receded. This is why even EVMs are now called into question.

Read also: Why Rajya Sabha elections are important

Rajya Sabha elections are the easiest to conduct but even here the waters have been muddied. Irrespective of which party wins, democracy has lost some of its sheen.



Read in source website

Rajya Sabha polls and results are today. But yesterday, with EC announcing the schedule for electing the republic’s next president, the stage is set for interesting politics. BJP-led NDA is just short of the 50% threshold in the electoral college (all MLAs, MPs vote, and each vote has a value, with bigger states’ votes being more valuable, all MPs’ votes have equal value). This time, of course, J&K, which has no assembly as of now, won’t have MLA votes, and the electoral college will be marginally smaller. If parties like BJD and YSR Congress vote with NDA, it’s odds-on that the governing party at the Centre should be able to get its nominee elected. But that doesn’t make the July 18 contest insipid.

Who BJP’s leadership picks as its nominee will be a study in the party’s political strategy. Picking Ram Nath Kovind in 2017 was a Dalit outreach. There are social groups and regions that need BJP’s attention. They will be possible factors in the decision. Also, interesting is whether NDA allies, JD(U) and AIADMK, will need cosseting, and whether YSR Congress and BJD will become targets of Opposition wooing. Perhaps, the Opposition game will be even more interesting. A weakened Congress’s word may not be the most important one in picking a combined Opposition candidate – a reality Nehru-Gandhis may have to accept. KCR has been leading Opposition efforts on this so far. But there’s Mamata, Pawar, Stalin and Kejriwal. This may turn out to be a dress rehearsal for 2024 Opposition efforts.

Kovind will demit office after an uneventful tenure, unsurprising since he was the nominee of a party whose hold at the Centre is unchallenged. Presidencies usually become potentially interesting when the Rashtrapati comes from a political stable different from that of the governing party or combine. That’s why KR Narayanan’s term, when it coincided with part of Vajpayee’s PMship, had its moments, as did Pranab Mukherjee’s during part of Modi’s first stint as PM. Pratibha Patil’s term during Congress-led UPA was as smooth as Kovind’s. The two exceptions are Abdul Kalam, who managed to turn a staid office to a popular one by dint of his charisma and energy, and Zail Singh, who, despite being a Congressman while in politics, created anxious moments for Rajiv Gandhi.

But even when quiet, the President’s office remains important, because it potentially is an institution of appeal in a hotly contested federal system. The incoming president will be in office when 2024 polls happen – and depending on how those results pan out, the republic’s first office may become interesting.



Read in source website

Ahead of the second anniversary of the Galwan clashes between Indian and Chinese troops in eastern Ladakh, visiting US Army’s Pacific Commanding General Charles A Flynn has once again drawn attention to China’s rapid build-up of military infrastructure along the LAC. There’s no denying that China is rapidly building dual-use border infrastructure. From troop shelters, gun positions, helipads and jetties in disputed areas in eastern Ladakh to border villages along Arunachal Pradesh, China has been solidifying its position all across the 3,488 km LAC. Add to this, two new Chinese bridges across the Pangong Tso.

Clearly, China is in no mood to disengage from its border standoff with India. And with Chinese President Xi Jinping looking to secure an unconventional third term at the helm of the Chinese party-state at the 20th Chinese Communist Party Congress later this year, he is unlikely to compromise on his aggressive foreign policy posture. The only way India can counter this is by ramping up its own border infrastructure development. In the last Union Budget, GoI increased the capital outlay for the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) by 40%, which included a six-fold hike in allocation for Arunachal Pradesh’s Border Area Development Programme.

In fact, India has quickened the pace of its border infrastructure development since the Galwan clashes, inaugurating multiple bridges and border roads along the LAC. It is also planning to enhance rail connectivity in the Northeast and in May 2020 increased the BRO’s procurement powers from Rs 7.5 crore to Rs 100 crore, allowing it to acquire critical equipment for speedier laying of border roads and other construction. But given that Beijing still outguns us in terms of resources, New Delhi needs to simultaneously engage in tactical collaboration with the US and other countries concerned about Chinese belligerence. The upcoming Yudh Abhyas joint exercise with Americans in the Himalayas and the finalising of a logistics support pact with Vietnam are steps in the right direction.



Read in source website

India must ensure that information on its efforts and outcomes is accessible and verifiable. This will help provide a better picture of the country's environmental performance.

India is ranked 180th among 180 countries in the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) 2022 that was released on June 6. The index is a composite of 40 data-driven performance indicators by Yale and Columbia University researchers that ranks countries on their national efforts to protect environmental health, enhance ecosystem vitality and mitigate climate change. GoI has responded, stating that some indicators are extrapolated and based on surmises and unscientific methods.

India's critique of EPI is not without basis. Many such indices become the basis of assumptions and arguments and are often used as inputs by investors. Sometimes, it is about countering efforts to normalise certain viewpoints, such as the level of responsibility of different countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. GoI has raised the absence or low weightage given to the principle of equity, which is the basis of the global effort to tackle climate change. Taken on board, the outcome on climate mitigation in the index would have been different. But the real question before the government must be the merit of undertaking this critique. Does it help India's cause to take on every index or report that casts it in a poor light? Would it not be better served by making public its efforts, plans, policies as well as the reasons for these gaps, which could range from access to finance, technology and capacity to take action?

In the final analysis, the only real and meaningful response is facts. India must ensure that information on its efforts and outcomes is accessible and verifiable. This will help provide a better picture of the country's environmental performance. The country needs to make a self-assessment of whether its environmental performance is where it should be. It must determine whether it is taking enough right measures and putting in policy focused on improving human well-being, reducing environmental degradation and growing the economy sustainably. Otherwise, its critiques become indistinguishable from petulance.

<

Read in source website

India clearly needs to increase its pool of qualified doctors. The admission system must be such that it maximises admission of qualified applicants to ensure the shortfall of well-trained doctors is met.

The Supreme Court's concern about vacant postgraduate medical college seats given the perpetual shortage of doctors is timely. It is not just that seats for PG education catering to specialities are going unfilled. Even undergraduate, or MBBS, seats, including in the 19 centres of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (Aiims), remain unfilled. The Medical Counselling Committee (MCC) under the health ministry, the National Medical Commission (NMC) and GoI must formulate a plan to avoid this situation of concern.

India has one doctor for every 1,511 persons. The World Health Organisation's norm is 1:1000. One option is for the MCC to keep undertaking new rounds of counselling and lowering the cut-off mark till all vacant seats are filled. Some colleges say that the centralisation of admissions by using the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) rankings results in students being assigned the college rather than being given a choice. Applicants can indicate their preference, but are assigned a college as per the MCC list, quite often one other than their preference. Another factor is that applicants may not get their choice of specialisation. One more option is for colleges to indicate and constantly review their cut-off NEET score according to institution and speciality. This would give students the freedom to apply to a college of their choice as long as they make the cut. The MCC, on its part, could maintain oversight to ensure that colleges are not subverting the system and those qualified are being admitted.

India clearly needs to increase its pool of qualified doctors. The admission system must be such that it maximises admission of qualified applicants to ensure the shortfall of well-trained doctors is met.

<

Read in source website

A standoff on the matter of allotted spectrum should not be allowed to push back 5G auctions further. The government is losing revenue on account of a tardy 5G rollout so far. A solution acceptable to both sides has to emerge soon.

Cellular service providers are contesting a demand by a clutch of companies that they be allotted airwaves to build captive networks. Telecom companies argue they have the expertise to roll out the networks enterprises need, and blocking frequency for industry would eat into almost 40% of the revenue that they are expecting from 5G services. This could affect pricing and utilisation of spectrum, and delay the rollout of nationwide 5G networks. India is already behind in this respect, and a deterioration in the business case for public 5G networks could seriously affect the country's ambitions for its digital economy. The argument for sequestering spectrum for captive networks rests on the speed of rollout. Companies claim their use cases may not countenance the pace at which telecom companies are likely to build their grids.

Improving price discovery and ensuring efficient utilisation of spectrum are regulatory concerns, guided by the judicially settled position that the market is the better judge of value than the state for a limited resource like radio frequency. A marketplace for trade in spectrum would address both issues. Till then, the 'price' of allotted airwaves could administratively be brought to bear a correlation to that discovered through bidding. With the right pricing, utilisation of spectrum becomes a subordinate policing issue. The question of quality is, again, not insurmountable. Enterprise needs for reliable, secure networks can be ensured either by themselves or by cellular service providers. Both are served by a common pool of vendors.

The government's decision on the matter will be influenced by rollout timelines. The Internet of Things (IoT) is a profound transformation for industry that India cannot afford to drag its feet on. A standoff on the matter of allotted spectrum should not be allowed to push back 5G auctions further. The government is losing revenue on account of a tardy 5G rollout so far. A solution acceptable to both sides has to emerge soon.

<

Read in source website

freemiumText">

Events around West Asian countries registering their strong diplomatic protest against inappropriate remarks by two Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokespersons – the BJP has taken disciplinary action against them and they are also facing police cases now – dominated the news cycle this week.

Ironic as it is, among the most profound political economy aspects related to this issue was brought to the fore by a fake news video where a man posing as the CEO of Qatar Airways was seen making fun of an Indian’s tweet calling for the boycott of the airline. The boycott call was meant to “settle scores” against Qatar’s “anti-India” behaviour (it was one of the countries which registered the protest). The “fringe-element” driven call for a boycott of Qatar Airways is not the first episode of vocal supporters of the Hindu Right, whether or not directly associated with the BJP, asking for an economic boycott of companies which have been deemed to be against what is considered “national” or “cultural” interest.

There are various such episodes including intermittent calls for the boycott of Chinese goods — these were particularly strong after tensions started between India and China on the Line of Actual Control in 2020 — to targeted campaigns against companies such as Snapdeal, Titan and Fab India for a particular advertising campaign or acts of important personalities associated with these brands.

If one were to step aside from the usual noise that such episodes trigger on both sides of the political spectrum, an argument can be made that there is nothing wrong in using a strategy of economic boycott as long as laws are not being broken and persuasion is the only tactic being deployed. In fact, the use of Swadeshi as a political tactic, which called for a boycott of imported goods, had been an integral part of the political praxis deployed in the Indian freedom struggle even before the arrival of Mahatma Gandhi on the scene.

Lest one takes offence to a comparison of what was an integral component of the freedom movement to what critics of the Hindu Right think is sheer bigotry, which is being reflected through such calls today, it is useful to remind them that in both pre and post-Gandhi phase, deployment of Swadeshi as a political tactic was an extremely controversial one.

In many instances, it led to violent conflicts including communal riots. The validity of swadeshi as a political tactic also features prominently in the debates between Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore, where the latter was sharply critical of the former investing his political capital in a cause from which Tagore saw no benefits whatsoever.

What this week’s column will argue, based on debates and academic work on swadeshi in the pre-independence era, is the following — even though there is nothing wrong with deploying calls for economic boycott as a political tactic, the case for doing this today in India is far weaker than it was during the freedom struggle. The biggest reason for this difference is the vast progress India has made on the path of capitalist development. Not only has this made the deployment of swadeshi tactics incompatible with national economic goals, but it also betrays a fundamental sense of economic hypocrisy on part of the voices, especially within the ranks of the elite, who advocate such tactics. However, none of this means that such politics is likely to disappear anytime soon.

The impact of early 20th century swadeshi politics

Historian Tariq Omar Ali’s book A Local History of Global Capital: Jute and Peasant Life in the Bengal Delta offers a very interesting account of the possible reasons for conflict around the deployment of Swadeshi as a political tactic.

Ali’s book traces the sudden prosperity, which the (predominantly) Muslim peasantry in the Bengal delta came to enjoy after the cultivation of jute in the region was followed by an international price boom in the jute. The enhanced incomes, Ali shows in his book, led to a large increase in consumption of imported goods and conspicuous consumption of all varieties, which included cloth made in Lancashire to Swedish match-sticks and even West-inspired food items such as confectionaries and sweetmeats.

The sudden prosperity of the jute-cultivating Muslim peasant made him more assertive and economically strong against the hitherto powerful Hindu landlords and the newly emerged Hindu urban Bengali middle class; Ali’s book discusses how the cash-rich jute peasantry was outbidding the Hilsa (a fish considered a delicacy in Bengal) from the urban salaried professional. The latter played a key role in the evolution of the economic doctrine of imperialism-driven drain of wealth in India and the use of Swadeshi as a tactic to turn the tables on the Raj.

However, for the Muslim peasant, the deployment of Swadeshi was seen as an effort to not just force him to consume far more expensive locally made items but also an attack on the continuation of what Ali has described as “rural markets as spaces of pleasurable and indulgent consumption”. The book discusses instances of violence between pro and anti-Swadeshi groups in fairs and local markets over issues such as forcing a small boy to return a small box labelled “Made in Germany” or vandalising a Muslim trader’s shop which was selling Liverpool salt. The same Muslim peasantry, which was willing to take to violence to defend its right to consume imported goods in local markets, would take to widespread looting of markets when jute prices crashed in the later period, the book says.

The early Swadeshi movement lessons should serve as a good historical lesson against any attempts to interfere with consumer preferences, especially where they concern a majority, to achieve political goals.

On this count at least, the BJP and its fellow travellers seem to be more pragmatic than the swadeshi enthusiasts of the early 20th century. One such example is the BJP’s relatively conciliatory approach to the issue of beef-eating in Kerala and Northeastern states where a large number of non-Muslims including Hindus also consume beef. As far as the question of the BJP’s opposition to beef-eating in large parts of the country is concerned, it might only be a reiteration of an overwhelming majority’s view, as opposition of Hindus to beef-eating in most parts of India is a largely bipartisan political value.

Swadeshi was driven by an economic agenda during the freedom movement

While Ali’s book argues that the conflict around Swadeshi is best seen in terms of Muslim peasants protecting their freedom as consumers rather than on communal lines, other historians have argued that communal divisions did get worse because of it.

“Hindu-Muslim relations posed the greatest challenge before the swadeshi movement, and ultimately proved its greatest failure. The campaign against an arbitrary administrative partition (of Bengal), launched in the name of the essential unity of the Bengali-speaking people, ended with the two socio-religious groups into which that community was almost equally divided further apart from each other and more conscious of their mutual hostility than ever before”, Sumit Sarkar writes in his book The Swadeshi Movement in Bengal.

This conclusion notwithstanding, it would be unfair to say that the pre-independence Swadeshi movement was motivated solely by a desire of Hindus to settle scores with Muslims. In fact, the drive, even though it was harmful from the communal harmony viewpoint, was part of a larger nationalist vision to seek out a path independent of imperial subjugation. New York University historian Manu Goswami has articulated this argument well in her 1998 paper From Swadeshi to Swaraj: Nation, Economy, Territory in Colonial South Asia, 1870 to 1907.

“In order to combat the hegemony of British capital, nationalists proposed the protection and delimitation of indigenous capital within a national space. Condensed in Surendranath Banerjee's rhetorical question was a core ideological impulse of swadeshi: "If protection by legislative enactment is impossible, may we not, by fiat of the national will, afford industries such protection as may lie in our powers?" Goswami writes, while adding that “The swadeshi movement spurred the establishment, for instance, of the Tata Industrial Steel Company (TISCO) in 1907, the Bank of India and Canara Bank in 1906, the Bank of Baroda and Punjab and Sind Bank in 1908, and the Central Bank of India in 1911. Despite Gandhi's later conceptually radical reformulation, swadeshi was a movement for the nationalization of capital, not its abolition”.

Why today is different

Indian capital’s urge to break out of and protect itself from foreign domination was an important factor in the ideological consensus between it and the Indian state on adopting a state-led economic model. The willingness to live with a state-led model, which had strong elements of protectionism (something Swadeshi always demanded), gradually lost traction after the state was seen as an impediment to the growth of markets and hence profits, both in domestic and foreign markets. This change in the nature of the Indian capitalist class was discussed in detail in an earlier column.

To be sure, the support for discarding swadeshi in favour of a more outward-looking economic approach is not limited to capitalists alone in today’s India. The Indian diaspora is among the biggest in the world today and it sends a huge amount of money in remittances from incomes in many parts of the world, a large part of which comes from the oil-rich West Asian countries, which, unlike Indian Americans, also employ a large number of blue-collar workers. In fact, this must have been an important consideration in the BJP’s action on its spokespersons after protests by West Asian countries.

The lack of a widespread material basis for preaching economic boycott means that this tactic, when it is employed today, is basically aimed at creating political polarisation through the act or appeal of inflicting economic pain on the political rather than economic adversary. This is best seen in growing calls for economic boycotts of even small Muslim shopkeepers in places such as Karnataka.

What remains relevant

Many commentators have been rightly pointing out the threat to India’s economic prospects if divisive politics focusing on economic disruption of the kind described above, continues to gain in strength. These assertions, however correct they might be, however, do not explain why such politics continues to gain ground in India.

Among the most plausible explanations given is that Narendra Modi, arguably India’s biggest mass leader today, has not been forthcoming in criticising such politics and disapprovals, when they have come have been few and far between. Another argument believes that such acts provide a useful diversionary tactic to the present regime which has not been able to offer much in terms of economic advancement to the people at large.

If it is of any solace to people looking to answer such questions, one of India’s biggest intellectuals also made similar charges against the country’s biggest ever mass leader. While Rabindranath Tagore and Gandhi were great friends, their intellectual disagreements, which were expressed freely in public debates, were quite unsparing even if entirely cordial.

Among the most important debates between Gandhiji and Tagore is the former’s insistence that spinning the Charkha would help India realise the goal of Swaraj. Not only did Tagore think it was a baseless idea, he also saw it as a diversionary tactic from larger challenges at hand.

“In Bengal, we have a nursery rhyme which soothes the infant with the assurance that it will get the lollipop if only it twirls its hands. But is it a likely policy to reassure grown up people by telling them that they will get their swaraj – that is to say, get rid of all poverty, in spite of their social habits that are a perpetual impediment and mental habits producing inertia of intellect and will – by simply twirling away with their hands?”, Tagore wrote in 1925 essay The Cult of the Charkha.

For Gandhi, the spinning wheel or Charkha was the first step to realising his ideal of a self-sufficient exploitation-free society, as articulated in Gram Swaraj. “Just as, if we are to live, we must breathe not air imported from England, nor eat food so imported, so may we not import cloth made in England. I do not hesitate to carry the doctrine to its logical limit and say that Bengal dare not import her cloth from Bombay or Banga Lakshmi. If Bengal will live her natural and free life without exploiting the rest of India or the world outside, she must manufacture her cloth in her own villages as she grows her corn there”, Gandhi wrote in his essay called The Poet and the Charkha which was a response to Tagore’s essay quoted above.

Gandhi’s idea of India as a village-based economy was shunned by his biggest follower Jawaharlal Nehru, and rightly so, when India opted for a plan-based model to build a modern economy after gaining independence. However, some of the problems which had moved Gandhi towards his swadeshi Gram-Swaraj thesis are as relevant today as they were then.

“Machinery has its place; it has come to stay. But it must not be allowed to displace the necessary human labour… I would welcome every improvement in the cottage machine but I know that it is criminal to displace the hand labour by the introduction of power-driven spindles unless one is at the same time ready to give millions of farmers some other occupation in their homes”, he wrote further in The Poet and the Charkha.

The biggest reason the politics of schadenfreude, as described above, resonates with a large number of poor people in India today is that they have been left far behind in the onward march of economic prosperity which has also been accompanied by a large increase in inequality. It is in this disappointment and anger that they are willing to be convinced about perceived villains who are responsible for their plight. As long as this economic dualism persists, politics cannot be expected to show maturity in the larger interest of the nation-state. This also means that the international embarrassment which India has had to face for its shrill domestic political polemics, might not be the last such incident.

Every Friday, HT’s data and political economy editor, Roshan Kishore, combines his commitment to data and passion for qualitative analysis in a 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

An ominous prelude for India’s democratic health - Hindustan Times
freemiumText">

The Rajya Sabha (RS) election often slips below the radar for many Indians. Of the 57 open RS seats in this round of elections, 41 were filled unopposed. RS members are elected on the basis of votes from Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) rather than a direct vote from Indian citizens. It seems confusing, then, that the competition between political parties turned so ugly for just four competitive RS seats.

Parties locked their MLAs into resorts to prevent them from defecting to another party, and there was an accusation that two lawmakers — who were also senior ministers — from Maharashtra were denied bail (and thus the right to vote) in the RS election with the aim of altering the outcome for Maharashtra’s RS seats. The importance of the election was in the fact that an otherwise politically dominant Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) does not control a majority of seats in the RS. And, it is thus one of the main formal political institutions that works against the political consolidation and centralisation of the BJP.

Because RS members are not directly voted to the office by citizens, there is a view that somehow the decisions of the Upper House have less democratic legitimacy. And yet, a mathematical quirk often means that the composition of the RS mirrors the preferences of the Indian population more closely. If we consider the most recent Lok Sabha (LS) election, we see that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by the ruling BJP, received approximately 45% of the vote share, but won 353 (65%) of the 542 seats that went to the polls in 2019. By contrast, of the 233 non-vacant and non-nominated seats in RS, the NDA controls 108 (46%) of the seats.

To understand why this happens, it is useful to understand something about India’s first-past-the-post electoral system. In the 2019 LS election, a state such as Rajasthan gave the NDA all of its 25 seats on 61% vote share. Instead of proportionally getting about 3/5 of seats — consistent with its vote share — the disproportionality in the electoral system rewarded the NDA with every seat. But the MLAs vote, with a single transferable vote, for the RS. And, in a state such as Rajasthan, in which the BJP is in opposition, it will certainly fail to get 100% of the state’s allotted RS members. Insofar as the distribution of MLAs across India more closely mirrors the overall preferences of the Indian electorate, the RS may actually more closely represent the preferences of citizens.

But this also has political consequences. While we have observed significant political centralisation since Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, through decrees such as demonetisation to ramming through controversial bills such as the now-scrapped farm laws, controlling the RS is important to the BJP. While the Upper House cannot block money bills passed by the LS, it can block constitutional amendments and ordinary bills, and it is no secret that many BJP supporters would like to see significant changes to the Constitution. Yet, it is clear that despite an overwhelming majority in the LS, any attempt at modifying or amending the Constitution will require the BJP to negotiate with parties outside its coalition.

To put this another way, most political systems make it difficult to change constitutions, requiring broad agreement across political actors for such a change. India, on the other hand, has seen sweeping changes when a minority of voters has voted for the government in power. (Not that this is unfair; this is how the first-past-the-post systems work.)

India also has among the most liberal amendment policies in the world, with a high rate of amending the Constitution (At last count, 105 amendments in 74 years, in contrast with 27 amendments to the United States’ Constitution in 230-odd years). But it is certainly undesirable if the preferences of a minority of the population can change the Indian Constitution willy-nilly, and it is for this reason that we must see the RS as playing a “legitimate” role in the Indian democratic system.

The uncomfortable truth is that the defenders of this legitimacy are the MLAs in India. It is their votes that determine the outcome. And neither the public nor the political parties that nominate them trust MLAs to prioritise their job in representing their constituents over selling their RS votes to the highest bidder. This is why they need to be sequestered in resorts before votes.

The last several decades have ravaged the representational link between MLAs and citizens. In most cases, MLAs are not allowed to vote against their party due to anti-defection laws, and the rapidly growing “pay for play culture” in which wealthy candidates are expected to finance electoral campaigns has raised questions about who can really serve as a legislator.

As the BJP looks to further consolidate its power in India, it is no longer a matter of what citizens want. The democratic health of the country is in the hands of fickle politicians who, it appears, can easily be enticed by money and intimidated by government machinery. The RS election this time will not change the fundamental balance of political power in the country, but all of the ugliness around selecting new Upper House members may serve as an ominous prelude for what is to come.

Neelanjan Sircar is senior fellow, Centre for Policy Research

The views expressed are personal

Prophet row: India must learn to self-correct - Hindustan Times
freemiumText">

Cancelled meetings in Indonesia, enhanced security in Pakistan, protests in Turkey, as a team of Indian bureaucrats arrived for different meetings, and a rising crescendo of protests from 20 Muslim nations and counting.

Let no one underestimate the impossible situation Indian diplomats find themselves in, all because of the coarse insensitivity of now-suspended Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokeswoman Nupur Sharma (and now-expelled spokesperson Naveen Jindal) and the television news media that enables this kind of hate-mongering night after embarrassing night.

For Indian Foreign Service officers who are trained to manage crises and proudly play the big league of nuance and sophistry — for instance, explaining India’s complex position to the world on Russia and Ukraine — to now have to handle this scale of blowback over piffling TV mudslinging must feel so egregious.

Despite the fact that TV channels birthed this tamasha, they have continued to embarrass themselves — and India — with invitations to random saffronites and mullahs (clerics) to “analyse” the fracas. Worse, they are now peddling the narrative that this is a giant conspiracy puppeteered by our adversaries.

Of course, hostile countries will fish in troubled waters and try to milk this kerfuffle to their advantage. But to suggest that this is all smoke and mirrors, with a hidden force directing an anti-India campaign, is ludicrous, especially when what was said has been caught on camera for all time to come. So, frothing at the mouth in faux-outrage at an imaginary foreign hand is ridiculous.

Yet, I agree with the discomfort that so many have expressed at being lectured to by nations that don’t have the best record on either democratic rights or religious diversity. It is also true that their outrage is theological, not political. In other words, what Sharma and Jindal did, as the representatives of the world’s most prominent political party, in the world’s largest democracy, was incredibly tone-deaf, bigoted, and frankly, shortsighted. And the geostrategic consequences are real.

But if you think this outrage will change the deep sense of marginalisation that Indian Muslims are going through, think again. This was also the week where we now know unequivocally that by July 7, the BJP will have no Muslim representative in Parliament after the terms of three incumbent Rajya Sabha members — Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi, Syed Zafar Islam and MJ Akbar — end in June and July. The party has 301 Members of Parliament (MPs) in the Lok Sabha, but none are Muslim, and there are no elected Muslim Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) from the party in the assemblies. Protests by Islamic nations over the insult to Prophet Mohammed will not change this worrying gap in representation. Not even if there is a Muslim president, as the whispers have suggested about the governor of Kerala, Arif Mohammed Khan, who is, of course, known for taking on former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi on the question of alimony for Muslim women in the 1980s.

The challenge with the Gulf nations apart — and it cannot be wished away given the billions of dollars in trade, dependency for oil and energy and strategic imperatives at stake — the questions we must ask of the government is this: Given how much the BJP prides itself on muscular nationalism and given how quick its Twitter armies are to use the phrase “anti-national” for anyone who disagrees with them, how on earth did 10 days pass without any action against Sharma and Jindal? Why did it take the Arab world to nudge us into a response? How is it nationalistic to respond only to foreign countries, but dismiss the hurt expressed by your own Muslim citizens? And how does a proud nation place its vice-president in a situation where the host country issues a statement of protest only as his plane touches down in Qatar? I am told the potential fallout was flagged within the government, but perhaps hate-mongering on TV is now so normalised that no person of significance stepped in to shut it down before an external force could call it out. Simply put, India would not have been in this place if Sharma and Jindal had been removed immediately after what they said.

No proud Indian likes being told off by another country. Whether that criticism is coming from open societies or theocracies is honestly academic. Our instinct is to want to handle our issues on our terms. But then you would hope that India will always remain, to borrow the words of veteran diplomat KP Fabian, “a self-correcting democracy.” That we failed to self-correct in this instance before being admonished by other nations is what should make us pause.

Barkha Dutt is an award-winning journalist and authorThe views expressed are personal

Mithali Raj’s impact went beyond cricket - Hindustan Times
freemiumText">

When Mithali Raj made her debut in cricket in 1999, women role models in any field were hard to find. There was Indira Gandhi who remains an icon for political achievement, despite her tainted record for the Emergency. In the arts, Sonal Mansingh, the Mangeshkar sisters, Mira Nair. And then there was PT Usha, the golden girl who launched a million dreams, and Ashwini Nachappa, who continues to advocate for sport in schools.

I do not watch cricket, and I’m sorry that I have never seen Raj play. Yet, even I felt a sense of loss when she announced her retirement. She had carved out her identity; not a “Lady Sachin”, as she once told sports journalist Sharda Ugra, but her own person, with her own achievements and her own fan following.

Raj was lucky to play in a post-liberalised India where satellite TV beamed live sport into homes. Both Karnam Malleswari and Anju Bobby George played on the wings of that era. Television didn’t just make them stars. It made them role models for girls to distill their message of possibility and hope. It was heady and empowering. In the years that Raj played, many of the traditional bumps were flattened. In 2015, the Board of Control for Cricket in India drew up its first contracts for the women’s team. Two years later, when the team returned home after the ICC World Cup, they were mobbed at Mumbai airport. India had lost to England by nine runs, but Raj had become the first woman anywhere to make over 6,000 runs in one-day internationals.

She was the first modern superstar in Indian women’s cricket. Social media ensured her relevance. She was on the cover of Vogue and her autobiography was published by Penguin in 2018. Raj is a brand ambassador for Usha International and Jacob’s Creek (she has clarified that she will never endorse a sexist product).

But more than any other brand, Raj, and later Sania Mirza and Saina Nehwal, have been India’s best ambassadors for women’s sport. Today, if the daughter of a cart-puller or daily wage earner can and does play elite sport, they know who to thank.

She has had an “incredible impact”, says Deepthi Bopiah, CEO of Go Sports Foundation which nurtures young athletic talent. “She became the face not just of women’s cricket but sport in general.”

Raj normalised the idea of girls at play in a deeply patriarchal society where the sight of girls on the field is still rare. Kitted out or not, she told these girls and their parents that it was ok for them to kick a ball or twirl a racket.

In a slum in outer Delhi, I once met a cricket team of the daughters of daily wage earners and rickshaw pullers. Between schoolwork and household chores, they found the time to play, some barefoot, in a nearby park. Who inspires you, I asked one of them. Without hesitating, she replied, Mithali Raj.

Namita Bhandare writes on genderThe views expressed are personal

Terms of Trade | A century apart, the story of the politics of swadeshi - Hindustan Times
freemiumText">

Events around West Asian countries registering their strong diplomatic protest against inappropriate remarks by two Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokespersons – the BJP has taken disciplinary action against them and they are also facing police cases now – dominated the news cycle this week.

Ironic as it is, among the most profound political economy aspects related to this issue was brought to the fore by a fake news video where a man posing as the CEO of Qatar Airways was seen making fun of an Indian’s tweet calling for the boycott of the airline. The boycott call was meant to “settle scores” against Qatar’s “anti-India” behaviour (it was one of the countries which registered the protest). The “fringe-element” driven call for a boycott of Qatar Airways is not the first episode of vocal supporters of the Hindu Right, whether or not directly associated with the BJP, asking for an economic boycott of companies which have been deemed to be against what is considered “national” or “cultural” interest.

There are various such episodes including intermittent calls for the boycott of Chinese goods — these were particularly strong after tensions started between India and China on the Line of Actual Control in 2020 — to targeted campaigns against companies such as Snapdeal, Titan and Fab India for a particular advertising campaign or acts of important personalities associated with these brands.

If one were to step aside from the usual noise that such episodes trigger on both sides of the political spectrum, an argument can be made that there is nothing wrong in using a strategy of economic boycott as long as laws are not being broken and persuasion is the only tactic being deployed. In fact, the use of Swadeshi as a political tactic, which called for a boycott of imported goods, had been an integral part of the political praxis deployed in the Indian freedom struggle even before the arrival of Mahatma Gandhi on the scene.

Lest one takes offence to a comparison of what was an integral component of the freedom movement to what critics of the Hindu Right think is sheer bigotry, which is being reflected through such calls today, it is useful to remind them that in both pre and post-Gandhi phase, deployment of Swadeshi as a political tactic was an extremely controversial one.

In many instances, it led to violent conflicts including communal riots. The validity of swadeshi as a political tactic also features prominently in the debates between Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore, where the latter was sharply critical of the former investing his political capital in a cause from which Tagore saw no benefits whatsoever.

What this week’s column will argue, based on debates and academic work on swadeshi in the pre-independence era, is the following — even though there is nothing wrong with deploying calls for economic boycott as a political tactic, the case for doing this today in India is far weaker than it was during the freedom struggle. The biggest reason for this difference is the vast progress India has made on the path of capitalist development. Not only has this made the deployment of swadeshi tactics incompatible with national economic goals, but it also betrays a fundamental sense of economic hypocrisy on part of the voices, especially within the ranks of the elite, who advocate such tactics. However, none of this means that such politics is likely to disappear anytime soon.

The impact of early 20th century swadeshi politics

Historian Tariq Omar Ali’s book A Local History of Global Capital: Jute and Peasant Life in the Bengal Delta offers a very interesting account of the possible reasons for conflict around the deployment of Swadeshi as a political tactic.

Ali’s book traces the sudden prosperity, which the (predominantly) Muslim peasantry in the Bengal delta came to enjoy after the cultivation of jute in the region was followed by an international price boom in the jute. The enhanced incomes, Ali shows in his book, led to a large increase in consumption of imported goods and conspicuous consumption of all varieties, which included cloth made in Lancashire to Swedish match-sticks and even West-inspired food items such as confectionaries and sweetmeats.

The sudden prosperity of the jute-cultivating Muslim peasant made him more assertive and economically strong against the hitherto powerful Hindu landlords and the newly emerged Hindu urban Bengali middle class; Ali’s book discusses how the cash-rich jute peasantry was outbidding the Hilsa (a fish considered a delicacy in Bengal) from the urban salaried professional. The latter played a key role in the evolution of the economic doctrine of imperialism-driven drain of wealth in India and the use of Swadeshi as a tactic to turn the tables on the Raj.

However, for the Muslim peasant, the deployment of Swadeshi was seen as an effort to not just force him to consume far more expensive locally made items but also an attack on the continuation of what Ali has described as “rural markets as spaces of pleasurable and indulgent consumption”. The book discusses instances of violence between pro and anti-Swadeshi groups in fairs and local markets over issues such as forcing a small boy to return a small box labelled “Made in Germany” or vandalising a Muslim trader’s shop which was selling Liverpool salt. The same Muslim peasantry, which was willing to take to violence to defend its right to consume imported goods in local markets, would take to widespread looting of markets when jute prices crashed in the later period, the book says.

The early Swadeshi movement lessons should serve as a good historical lesson against any attempts to interfere with consumer preferences, especially where they concern a majority, to achieve political goals.

On this count at least, the BJP and its fellow travellers seem to be more pragmatic than the swadeshi enthusiasts of the early 20th century. One such example is the BJP’s relatively conciliatory approach to the issue of beef-eating in Kerala and Northeastern states where a large number of non-Muslims including Hindus also consume beef. As far as the question of the BJP’s opposition to beef-eating in large parts of the country is concerned, it might only be a reiteration of an overwhelming majority’s view, as opposition of Hindus to beef-eating in most parts of India is a largely bipartisan political value.

Swadeshi was driven by an economic agenda during the freedom movement

While Ali’s book argues that the conflict around Swadeshi is best seen in terms of Muslim peasants protecting their freedom as consumers rather than on communal lines, other historians have argued that communal divisions did get worse because of it.

“Hindu-Muslim relations posed the greatest challenge before the swadeshi movement, and ultimately proved its greatest failure. The campaign against an arbitrary administrative partition (of Bengal), launched in the name of the essential unity of the Bengali-speaking people, ended with the two socio-religious groups into which that community was almost equally divided further apart from each other and more conscious of their mutual hostility than ever before”, Sumit Sarkar writes in his book The Swadeshi Movement in Bengal.

This conclusion notwithstanding, it would be unfair to say that the pre-independence Swadeshi movement was motivated solely by a desire of Hindus to settle scores with Muslims. In fact, the drive, even though it was harmful from the communal harmony viewpoint, was part of a larger nationalist vision to seek out a path independent of imperial subjugation. New York University historian Manu Goswami has articulated this argument well in her 1998 paper From Swadeshi to Swaraj: Nation, Economy, Territory in Colonial South Asia, 1870 to 1907.

“In order to combat the hegemony of British capital, nationalists proposed the protection and delimitation of indigenous capital within a national space. Condensed in Surendranath Banerjee's rhetorical question was a core ideological impulse of swadeshi: "If protection by legislative enactment is impossible, may we not, by fiat of the national will, afford industries such protection as may lie in our powers?" Goswami writes, while adding that “The swadeshi movement spurred the establishment, for instance, of the Tata Industrial Steel Company (TISCO) in 1907, the Bank of India and Canara Bank in 1906, the Bank of Baroda and Punjab and Sind Bank in 1908, and the Central Bank of India in 1911. Despite Gandhi's later conceptually radical reformulation, swadeshi was a movement for the nationalization of capital, not its abolition”.

Why today is different

Indian capital’s urge to break out of and protect itself from foreign domination was an important factor in the ideological consensus between it and the Indian state on adopting a state-led economic model. The willingness to live with a state-led model, which had strong elements of protectionism (something Swadeshi always demanded), gradually lost traction after the state was seen as an impediment to the growth of markets and hence profits, both in domestic and foreign markets. This change in the nature of the Indian capitalist class was discussed in detail in an earlier column.

To be sure, the support for discarding swadeshi in favour of a more outward-looking economic approach is not limited to capitalists alone in today’s India. The Indian diaspora is among the biggest in the world today and it sends a huge amount of money in remittances from incomes in many parts of the world, a large part of which comes from the oil-rich West Asian countries, which, unlike Indian Americans, also employ a large number of blue-collar workers. In fact, this must have been an important consideration in the BJP’s action on its spokespersons after protests by West Asian countries.

The lack of a widespread material basis for preaching economic boycott means that this tactic, when it is employed today, is basically aimed at creating political polarisation through the act or appeal of inflicting economic pain on the political rather than economic adversary. This is best seen in growing calls for economic boycotts of even small Muslim shopkeepers in places such as Karnataka.

What remains relevant

Many commentators have been rightly pointing out the threat to India’s economic prospects if divisive politics focusing on economic disruption of the kind described above, continues to gain in strength. These assertions, however correct they might be, however, do not explain why such politics continues to gain ground in India.

Among the most plausible explanations given is that Narendra Modi, arguably India’s biggest mass leader today, has not been forthcoming in criticising such politics and disapprovals, when they have come have been few and far between. Another argument believes that such acts provide a useful diversionary tactic to the present regime which has not been able to offer much in terms of economic advancement to the people at large.

If it is of any solace to people looking to answer such questions, one of India’s biggest intellectuals also made similar charges against the country’s biggest ever mass leader. While Rabindranath Tagore and Gandhi were great friends, their intellectual disagreements, which were expressed freely in public debates, were quite unsparing even if entirely cordial.

Among the most important debates between Gandhiji and Tagore is the former’s insistence that spinning the Charkha would help India realise the goal of Swaraj. Not only did Tagore think it was a baseless idea, he also saw it as a diversionary tactic from larger challenges at hand.

“In Bengal, we have a nursery rhyme which soothes the infant with the assurance that it will get the lollipop if only it twirls its hands. But is it a likely policy to reassure grown up people by telling them that they will get their swaraj – that is to say, get rid of all poverty, in spite of their social habits that are a perpetual impediment and mental habits producing inertia of intellect and will – by simply twirling away with their hands?”, Tagore wrote in 1925 essay The Cult of the Charkha.

For Gandhi, the spinning wheel or Charkha was the first step to realising his ideal of a self-sufficient exploitation-free society, as articulated in Gram Swaraj. “Just as, if we are to live, we must breathe not air imported from England, nor eat food so imported, so may we not import cloth made in England. I do not hesitate to carry the doctrine to its logical limit and say that Bengal dare not import her cloth from Bombay or Banga Lakshmi. If Bengal will live her natural and free life without exploiting the rest of India or the world outside, she must manufacture her cloth in her own villages as she grows her corn there”, Gandhi wrote in his essay called The Poet and the Charkha which was a response to Tagore’s essay quoted above.

Gandhi’s idea of India as a village-based economy was shunned by his biggest follower Jawaharlal Nehru, and rightly so, when India opted for a plan-based model to build a modern economy after gaining independence. However, some of the problems which had moved Gandhi towards his swadeshi Gram-Swaraj thesis are as relevant today as they were then.

“Machinery has its place; it has come to stay. But it must not be allowed to displace the necessary human labour… I would welcome every improvement in the cottage machine but I know that it is criminal to displace the hand labour by the introduction of power-driven spindles unless one is at the same time ready to give millions of farmers some other occupation in their homes”, he wrote further in The Poet and the Charkha.

The biggest reason the politics of schadenfreude, as described above, resonates with a large number of poor people in India today is that they have been left far behind in the onward march of economic prosperity which has also been accompanied by a large increase in inequality. It is in this disappointment and anger that they are willing to be convinced about perceived villains who are responsible for their plight. As long as this economic dualism persists, politics cannot be expected to show maturity in the larger interest of the nation-state. This also means that the international embarrassment which India has had to face for its shrill domestic political polemics, might not be the last such incident.

Every Friday, HT’s data and political economy editor, Roshan Kishore, combines his commitment to data and passion for qualitative analysis in a 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

Patralekha Chatterjee | India’s infant mortality rate isn’t a fringe issue - Deccan Chronicle

In a week when the word “fringe” is a headline-grabber, let me start by saying that updates about the country’s infant mortality rate (IMR) is not a fringe issue. It is central to a country’s future and its present.

Here’s why: The infant mortality rate, or the number of infant deaths out of every 1,000 live births, is a telling marker of the overall health and well-being of a population. Iniquitous access to medicine, skilled healthcare providers, clean water and nutritious food affect everyone’s health, but together they can dramatically impact infant mortality rates.

 

The latest data from the Registrar-General of India shows that India’s infant mortality rate is 28 (28 infant deaths per 1,000 live births). The reference year is 2020. The good news: we are saving more babies. Overall, the IMR at the all-India level has come down from 44 to 28 in the past decade. The corresponding dip in rural areas is 48 to 31; for urban areas, the figure is down from 29 to 19.
The grim news: the national average masks stark disparities between different states, and between the city and the village. Progress is slow in those states where infants have been dying in large numbers.

 

“Despite the decline in IMR over the last decades, one in every 36 infants die within the first year of their life at the national level (irrespective of rural or urban),” says the May 2022 SRS Bulletin from the Registrar- General’s Office.
India has made progress on the IMR front, but many of our neighbours and peers have done even better. Bangladesh’s IMR is down to 24. The corresponding figures for Nepal and Bhutan are 24 and 23 respectively. Sri Lanka is leagues ahead, with an IMR pegged at six. Pakistan is worse off, with an IMR of 56.

 

Should special allowances be made for India because it is a large and diverse country? Here’s the catch — Brazil and China — both large countries, and fellow members of BRICS — have much lower IMRs than India.

Among India’s big states/Union territories, only Kerala has a single digit IMR — six infant deaths per 1,000 live births).  Mizoram, which leads the IMR charts with three infant deaths per 1,000 live births, is in the list of smaller states. Interestingly, many states in India’s Northeast — Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, Manipur — do well on saving babies. Ditto with Goa.

 

Who are the laggards? Unsurprisingly, those states which have habitually trailed in human development, are also showing slow progress in arresting infant deaths.

Uttar Pradesh’s IMR is 38. Arguably, many more babies in the state now live to see their first birthday due to the rise in institutional deliveries and availability of sick new-born care units, but UP has to invest a lot more political energy into improving its IMR. Madhya Pradesh’s IMR score (43) is also worse than the national average.  Once again, there is a big gap between cities and
villages.

 

Whether a baby survives still depends on where it is born.

What is the big picture behind the numbers? Why do so many Indian children continue to die before their first birthday?

Having followed the IMR story for years, and talking to public health experts, some key issues leap out.

Infant mortality is the end-result of a whole chain of interlinked ground-level challenges. A high IMR exposes structural fault lines. It can’t be addressed by thinking in silos.

One key issue is nutrition, points out Dr Pavitra Mohan, a community health physician, paediatrician, and co-founder of Basic HealthCare Services, a Rajasthan-based NGO.

 

India continues to have a large pool of malnourished children. The World Health Organisation says that malnourished children, particularly those with severe acute malnutrition, have a higher risk of death from common childhood illnesses like diarrhoea, pneumonia, and malaria.

Malnourishment reduces immunity. In India, children suffering from Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) justifiably get attention. But then there is a larger pool of children suffering from moderate malnutrition (MAM). The latter are also at risk. Add to that another piece of stark reality — India has a large number of low-birthweight children. These children are at risk if they continue to be undernourished.

 

The second issue, says Dr Mohan, is the overall low quality of childcare during childbirth and after. In India, while the number of institutional deliveries has gone up, all health centres or hospitals are not the same. Every hospital does not have a labour room that is clean or well-staffed or well-resourced. The quality of care after a child comes home also varies.

Another key factor is maternal nutrition. The latest National Family Health Survey tells us that 52 per cent of pregnant women between the ages of 15 and 49 in the country are anaemic. This is higher than what it was during the previous NFHS (2015-2016).

 

When you look at the state-level data, the disparities leap out once again. What is really worrying is that in many states, anaemia is rising for both women and children. Maternal anaemia affects child survival and health.

There are other challenges: Infants in remote areas remain at risk. Highways and arterial roads help but roads alone can’t save babies if health centres are inaccessible or understaffed or under-resourced.

Finally, as Dr Mohan stresses, there is the core issue of underspending on public health. India still spends far too little on public health as a percentage of its gross domestic product (GDP). The annual health budget has hovered just above one per cent of GDP for the past decade. Some states allocate more resources on healthcare — Delhi and Tripura, for example, allocate nearly 10 per cent of their budget on healthcare. Unsurprisingly, when the overall spending on healthcare is low in most states, problems persist. All these issues are inter-connected and they cumulatively affect infant deaths.

 

One promising sign: Smaller states (carved out of bigger ones) are doing a better job of saving infants. For example, Uttarakhand has an IMR of 24 while the figure for Uttar Pradesh is 38. Chhattisgarh’s IMR is 38 while the figure for Madhya Pradesh is 43. Jharkhand’s IMR is 25; the corresponding figure for Bihar is 27. Telangana’s IMR is 21 while the figure for Andhra Pradesh is 24.

The bottom line — infants are our future. They must survive and thrive if India is to thrive. This can happen only if infant mortality is catapulted from the periphery to the centre of the political and societal priorities in the country.

 

...


Read in source website

The decision of the BJP’s most popular leader with high approval ratings from the RSS, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to stay silent, for a week, on the deliberately provocative and obviously incendiary remarks about Prophet Mohammad by a party national spokesperson on television is a signal. India and the world, especially the Islamic world, are interpreting it in ways that suggest that he, as head of the current government, is choosing inaction.

Maintaining silence is always an option and law enforcers warn suspects on their right to do so. The caution is good advice; it protects a suspect from the crime of perjury, which in India carries a maximum seven-year sentence. Inaction, when action is called for, is also an option; it is sometimes considered, always by hindsight, to be masterly and more often, an elemental reaction of fear or freeze in a dicey situation.

 

There are consequences for crying havoc and unleashing the dogs of war, as Mark Antony discovered in Shakespeare’s play. The world and India is astounded by the apparently sincere avowals of the Narendra Modi government’s commitment to the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom that is wrapped in the larger principles of tolerance, diversity, secularism, equality and justice as part of the allegedly stupendous efforts at “damage control”. The government’s apologists and the spokespersons of the external affairs ministry seem to have forgotten that Mr Modi and his ministers are oath-bound to defend the rights and values enshrined in India’s Constitution. No particular faked and fervent avowals of the “fringe element” kind and the “civilisational heritage and strong cultural traditions of unity in diversity” and the 75-year tradition of the “highest respect to all religions” variety is acceptable.

 

The Islamic world, spearheaded by Qatar’s protest and the expectation of “a public apology and immediate condemnation of these remarks from the Government of India”, are signs that the free pass that Mr Modi got after becoming Prime Minister in 2014 is being withdrawn. His failure to stop the 2002 pogrom of Muslims in Gujarat, when he was chief minister, had put him on the blacklist of several influential countries of the international community, including the United States. His efforts to retrieve his reputation were effective in that the world did business with him. That approval seems to be on the verge of being rescinded. And his silence and inaction are the problem.

 

There is no way in which a national spokesperson of the ruling party, who was also a candidate in the 2015 Delhi polls against the Aam Aadmi Party chief minister Arvind Kejriwal, can be described as a “fringe element”. The BJP certainly cannot. The suspension of Nupur Sharma was an empty gesture. The expulsion of Naveen Kumar Jindal, who headed the BJP’s media cell in Delhi, for amplifying her entirely reprehensible and deliberately provocative comment on television on behalf of her party, was a pointless exercise in shooting the messenger.

 

Neither has been booked for incendiary activities as the law provides under Section 295A IPC that penalises “deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs”. The only state that seems to be actively working on Ms Sharma’s hate speech is Maharashtra.

Complaints have been lodged across India, including in Delhi by Trinamul Congress leader Saket Gokhale, against Ms Sharma. As the Delhi police is under the home ministry and controlled by Amit Shah, it is obvious that there is a special dispensation protecting Ms Sharma from police action. In contrast, 54 persons were arrested by the Kanpur police over communal clashes that erupted after Ms Sharma’s comment and its social media amplification. The Kanpur police predictably identified the key conspirator behind the riots as one Hayat Zafar Hashmi and sundry alleged members of the Popular Front of India, a favourite target of the BJP government and establishment.

 

Jignesh Mevani, an MLA, was arrested from Gujarat and flown to Kokrajhar in Assam for his tweet on Mr Modi. Cartoonists, stand-up comedians and harmless individuals have been arrested and jailed for being critical of Mr Modi and calling out the BJP for its Hindutva politics. India’s Election Commission was compelled to act against hate speeches by the likes of Yogi Adityanath after intervention by the Supreme Court, but has refrained from gagging Mr Modi, who has used kabrasitan-shamshaan (Muslim graveyard-Hindu cremation ground) in political campaigns.

 

Narendra Modi and the BJP have got away with a great deal in India, where the police and the judiciary have shown an amazing capacity to recognise the obvious. The call for a public apology by the Government of India by Islamic nations is a message that Mr Modi is accountable for intensifying religious persecution and violence.

Mr Modi is free to imagine that his magnetic personality and right-wing Hindutva polarising politics made him a respected member of the top end of the global fraternity. If he thought so, it was delusional. India’s hard-earned goodwill as a secular, tolerant state in the years up to 2014 got him entry into places where he was earlier barred. He has to decide between pandering to his domestic constituency of bhakts, who are incidentally angry and are trolling him for his caving in to Islamic pressure, and the world that is beyond our borders.

 

The world is home to 60-80 lakh migrant Indians, who remit around $5 billion every year. The world is also an investor in India and a trading partner. Narendra Modi has to choose between silence and inaction that encourages the bhakt vote bank and the world that has India on a leash.

...


Read in source website

Years ago, I had enraged my mother by getting a “fringe cut”, like the one popularised by a movie star named Sadhana. In fact, across India, the “Sadhana cut” was a craze, and frankly, it looked gross. This week has been dominated by a different sort of “fringe” -- the one that has “elements” in it. Suspended BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma and expelled head of the party’s Delhi media unit, Naveen Kumar Jindal, were disingenuously described as “fringe elements” by the BJP’s top guns, after both committed epic boo-boos that India will be forced to deal with for a while to come. At the moment, we are in the khachra ka dabba, with countries like Libya, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Bahrain and Afghanistan joining Qatar, Kuwait and Iran in condemning the culprits (Nupur Sharma and Naveen Jindal) who have landed the nation in one of the most embarrassing diplomatic debacles in recent memory. Rahul Baba, pretty “fringe” himself, has added his two bits worth to the debate saying that “Fringe is the BJP’s core”.

Merely dismissing off the two loudmouths with that snooty put down (“fringe elements”) is like ticking off juvenile sex offenders by calling them “over active”.  It means nothing, given the gravity of the crisis. “Fringe elements” have no business to be in such sensitive positions to begin with. Photographs of Nupur Sharma with all the BJP top brass went viral right after her gaffe in a television debate. BJP netas follow Ms Sharma on Twitter. Call that “fringe”? Come on, damage control wing of the BJP -- you can do better.  One assumes the party had nominated Ms Sharma and Mr Jindal to these key posts after conducting due diligence. Were they unaware of their hateful anti-Muslim leanings? Or were they picked BECAUSE of them? This is where the problem lies. Did they get their posts by default or by design? Their rabid, anti-Muslim utterings have taken them places in the past. Perhaps they were even “rewarded” for crossing all lines of civility. But this time, their unspeakably awful comments backfired -- and how! Did they expect to be shielded yet again after shooting their mouths off and triggering an avalanche of global condemnation and criticism? For the first few days after making those outrageous remarks claiming that they were “provoked”, there was radio silence from the bosses.

 

History has demonstrated over and over again that all it takes for mighty empires to crumble and fall is one fatal mistake. Is this that mistake? The carefully constructed BJP narrative seems to be on shaky grounds after this major international faux pas. All the official rhetoric has crumbled, after the duo shot themselves (and the country) in the foot. Maybe a pat on the back was privately given -- we’ll never know.

Such demonic grand standing is not unique. Every political party recruits, trains and richly rewards barking canines who spout hatred and cause irreparable rifts. Some favourite canines are given important designations with matching perks, while others do it gratis in order to suck up to the bosses and show them how far they’re willing to go to curry favour. Chamchagiri and exceeding the brief comes easily to desis. Toadies move up much faster in the food chain, than those who play safe. However, in this instance, the BJP has a gigantic omlette on its face, given the open snub India had to deal with, when the Deputy Emir of Qatar cancelled a scheduled dinner with India’s vice-president (M. Venkaiah Naidu) who was on a state visit. “Health grounds” were cited for the cancellation. Clumsy apologies did nothing to mollify the miffed Middle East rulers, who did not mince words when condemning the comments and accusing the Indian authorities of a slow response. Irony: some of these rulers are guilty of far worse transgressions.
But must we follow the bad example of “illiberal countries” to justify our insults to other religions?

 

Frankly, who can blame Ms Sharma and Mr Jindal for their total lack of decency?

They must’ve genuinely believed they were doing their jobs and putting the Muslims in their place. It’s a terrible and common stance taken by flunkies out to impress their bigoted netas. But the scary thing is that they do what they do at someone’s bidding! But wait -- the real problem is with the original tune -- not the chorus! If officially appointed spokespersons can be suspended and called “fringe elements”, what does that say about those who had appointed them?

 

I put out a tweet about the “fringe” but tagged the wrong Sharma. Within seconds the other Sharma had hit back, calling me a “botoxed floozie” and worse. I think she was upset I didn’t know who she was! Oh well… that’s the pathetic ego level we are dealing with on a daily basis. At the time of writing, some sort of a truce has been brokered with our allies in the Middle East. We are interdependent after all, and can hardly afford a long standoff given the precarious global situation right now. Kissing and making up this time around is not going to be a cakewalk… too many self-goals have made India vulnerable at a time when we were holding our own pretty smartly, and scoring big on foreign policy. Try as we might, sweeping this diplomatic disaster under the carpet is going to take a lot of doing. We have literally played into the hands of India-baiters and given the critics enough ammo to gun for us globally. Meanwhile, the disgraced “fringe elements” may have been advised to lie low and wait for this nasty imbroglio to end. I’m taking a small bet… they will soon be accommodated and welcomed back into the fold, once the heat is turned off. Let’s not make a vamp out of Nupur Sharma nor call Naveen Kumar Jindal a villain -- they are mere puppets and mouthpieces, and were not speaking in their personal capacity. Sacking them will not solve a thing. It only deflects attention from the real culprits, and lets them off the hook.

 

The international community is watching what happens next. Meticulously curated hate has raised its ugly head once again, and civil society in India is mortified. Has the nation’s mood made a paradigm shift? Will the suppliant desi press prostrate still further and keep groveling? Will at least a few independent voices speak up and openly condemn those who insult religious sentiments? How long will we pretend that we have nothing to do with this obnoxious “Fringe Festival of Hate”?

Has India finally reached the tipping point?

 

...


Read in source website