Editorials - 12-06-2022

India at bottom in EPI 2022 but environment survey confuses and stifles honest discussion on climate change - Indian Express

Navroz K Dubash and Sharachchandra Lele write: Methodology of Yale-Columbia Environmental Performance Index is indefensible, blind to ethics, ignorant of a body of literature on ecology, and inconsistent with broadly-accepted politics.

The 2022 Environmental Performance Index (EPI) released on World Environment Day (June 5) has triggered much consternation in India, as the country is ranked last (180th). While news reports have religiously, and largely uncritically, reported the finding, and environmentalists might be tempted to take an “I told you so” attitude, the government has issued a fierce rebuttal. How do we make sense of this debate?

Indexes are inherently problematic, especially when applied to something as multi-dimensional and complex as environmental performance. In trying to quantify, aggregate and rank, index makers have to make judgements about what issues count, how they are best measured individually, and how much importance to give to each issue and indicator in aggregating. For example, indicators may focus on current rates of increase or decrease in environmental pressures (flows) — as the EPI does for carbon dioxide emissions and tree cover gains — but under-state the accumulated effect (stocks) that relates to actual harm, thereby ignoring past effects. Moreover, when ranking countries, one is essentially applying the same standard across vastly different socio-ecological contexts – this involves difficult choices. For example, the EPI leaves out arsenic in water, which is a major threat in Bangladesh. Arsenic is not counted by the EPI because it is not as widely prevalent as lead, which is included.

We would argue that ranking countries is best done on some specific indicators such as urban air quality or domestic water pollution, for which metrics are relatively well-accepted and universal, and so comparisons are defensible. At best, aggregate indices give a coarse picture: Top 20, middle of pack, or bottom 20, nothing more. Unfortunately, the EPI 2022 produced by Yale and Columbia Universities is far from making even this modest contribution: The index is severely compromised by how it incorporates action on climate change mitigation.

Climate change is a global environmental problem, and because its effects depend on the accumulation of greenhouse gases over time, measuring progress in a given country is challenging. Unlike air quality, where absolute increases or decreases in emissions of air pollutants in that country signal progress, climate change mitigation has to be measured against what it is reasonable and fair to expect from different countries, taking into account their past emissions as well as national contexts. The problem, however, is that there has been an inconclusive 30-year debate on this question; any choice of benchmark involves major ethical choices. Giving climate change a high weight in the index (38 per cent ) – itself a questionable decision, given the development needs of poorer countries — means this thorny problem comes to the centre of the EPI.

The Yale-Columbia researchers thus set themselves a near-impossible methodological problem to solve, and then proceed to make things worse with a really poor—even biased— choice of benchmarks. Specifically, they rely heavily on the trend of greenhouse gas emissions by a country in the past decade as an indicator of progress. For climate change, 53 per cent of the weight is allocated to these trends, and another 36 per cent to whether the continuation of these trends brings a country close to zero emissions in 2050. They assume that the world must reach net zero emissions by 2050, and so the appropriate benchmark is whether all countries are reducing emissions and reaching zero by 2050. This approach is contrary to widely accepted ethical principles, especially the global political agreement on common-but-differentiated-responsibility (CBDR).

The Yale-Columbia approach ignores the fact that countries have different responsibilities for past accumulations and are at different levels of emissions and energy use. For example, India’s energy use and carbon dioxide emissions are about a tenth each of the US’s. So, while it is reasonable to expect the US to decrease emissions rapidly, the contribution of a country like India should lie in becoming ever more carbon-efficient with its development, or increasing emissions but at a decreasing rate and as little as possible. The inclusion of indicators on emissions intensity and emissions per capita partly addresses this issue, but these two account for 7 per cent of the weight, versus 89 per cent for indicators derived from current emission trends. This approach is guaranteed to make richer countries look good, because they have accumulated emissions in the past, but these have started declining in the last decade. Meanwhile, poorer countries that have emitted comparatively little in the past, look bad even as they are grappling with addressing poverty while trying to limit emissions. In brief, the methodology is indefensible, blind to ethics, ignorant of a body of literature on ecology, and inconsistent with broadly-accepted politics.

This is not to say that India’s overall environmental performance is very positive — far from it. But the EPI’s flawed and biased approach distracts from a much-needed honest conversation about the environment in India. India’s local environmental performance on air, water and forests is deeply problematic. Air quality in India is now the second largest risk factor for public health in India, behind only child and maternal nutrition. Rivers and lakes are increasingly polluted, rivers are drying, groundwater tables are rapidly declining, and gains in tree cover hide declining natural productivity and diversity of forests and grasslands. Solid waste mounts, and pesticide contamination is unabated. Despite these warning signs, we see a continued dilution of or inattention to environmental regulations, notwithstanding grand pronouncements and sporadic gains.

Unfortunately, intellectually weak and ethically suspect efforts such as the EPI 2022 do not add anything useful to the debate, but rather confuse and stifle honest discussion. While indices like these have a limited attention-grabbing purpose, they serve this purpose well only when they are focused, limited to easy-to-measure metrics, and consciously minimise value judgements. The EPI 2022 resoundingly fails this test. And as such, it risks setting back the cause of addressing local environmental problems. Ironically, through choices of biased and skewed benchmarks, it also hurts honest global conversation and much-needed progress on the global climate crisis that it purports to foreground.

Dubash is professor with the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi, and Lele is distinguished fellow with the ATREE, Bengaluru and adjunct professor at IISER Pune and SNU Greater Noida



Read in source website

Tavleen Singh writes: "If religion had not become part of our political discourse, none of this would have happened. But, because it has, we have a situation in which BJP spokespersons appear to have been encouraged to demean Islam."

The storm that two disgraced BJP spokesmen have caused because of their reckless comments about the Prophet of Islam has now begun to cause harm within India. Last week anger erupted outside mosques after Friday prayers in cities across the country. This is a fire that could burn down the edifice that Narendra Modi has so carefully constructed using the pillars of welfarism and nationalism. In the advertisements that promote his government’s achievements, he says that he has worked for the nation’s good like a ‘member of the family’. Did he not notice that there were almost no Muslims in this family and that his party spokesmen just made this brutally clear?

If religion had not become part of our political discourse, none of this would have happened. But, because it has, we have a situation in which BJP spokespersons appear to have been encouraged to demean Islam. Wiser spokespersons would have known that to mock the Prophet of Islam was opening the doors to a discourse that can only end badly because then why should Hindus mind if the response is for Muslims to start mocking Hindu religious practices and gods? We may not have books that ordain punishments for unbelievers, but we have a caste system that kept a huge swathe of Hindus outside temples because priests decided that they were ‘untouchable’.

What is essential as Nupur Sharma and Naveen Jindal may have discovered is for the official spokespersons of political parties to stay away from religious commentary. If this lesson has been learned from the shame and embarrassment their words have caused India, then some good may have come from this ugly incident. This seems unlikely, though, if you keep in mind that for months now, BJP spokespersons have been intentionally spreading hatred against Muslims and Islam. In achieving this end, they have been assisted by friendly, private news channels and by that vast theatre of absurdity and abuse that is offered by social media.

They have used it mostly to make the case that Indian Muslims are all traitors because they put religion above the nation. No opportunity has been missed to make this case. When COVID arrived in Delhi, preachers from Islamic countries were blamed for bringing it with them to a religious conference. Many spent months in jail. When the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) caused Muslims to protest a discriminatory amendment, they were called traitors.  When Article 370 was abrogated abruptly and without consulting the Kashmiri people, those who protested in the Valley were also called traitors. The list goes on and on.

The campaign against Muslims and Islam by BJP officials has been most effective on Twitter and has a pattern. As someone who routinely points out that gathering in a mob to lynch some middle-aged Muslim farmer shows despicable cowardice, I am routinely bombarded with pictures of Hindus who have been killed by Muslims. The first tweet will usually accuse me for not speaking up when the victims are Hindu and then will come a barrage of tweets that attack me personally. The message I get is that if I continue to say that targeting a huge minority ceaselessly will end up harming India more than the Muslim community, then I am a traitor. The harm that it has done to India is now apparent.

The attack on the Prophet by spokespersons of India’s ruling party has angered the leaders of Islamic countries with whom we do a great deal of business and from where Indian workers send half of our total remittances. These workers are among our poorest citizens. They already suffer discrimination and horrible working conditions but are forced to continue living their sad, lonely lives because it is not possible for them to earn that well in the home country in the jobs they do. After this episode, will they face more discrimination? Will some countries ban them from entering?

Clearly the Government of India was unprepared for the outrage that has come from nearly every Islamic country, or the fallout would have been more deftly handled. The Vice President of India was in Qatar when the insult to the Prophet started to cause a furore in the Islamic world. A banquet that was meant to honour him was also cancelled, ostensibly over a Covid incident. Surely, the poor man could have been given some advance warning. Then came that description of official spokesmen of the ruling party as ‘fringe elements’, which will go down as one of the silliest responses in diplomatic history.

The finale has been abject apologies from India on behalf of the BJP, but will the BJP learn any lessons from shaming Bharat Mata in this way? Will it tell its spokesmen to avoid attacking Islam in the manner they have so far? Will they turn down the hate campaign against Muslims that has now begun to create riots across the country? If these things happen it is possible that a small amount of good can come from this very unpleasant episode. But Nupur Sharma is on record saying that after she made her remarks about the Prophet, she was assured by senior BJP leaders that they would support her. This means that the campaign of hatred against Muslims will continue until it reaches a point when it causes another international embarrassment for India. What it will do to the fabric of Indian society is another story altogether.



Read in source website

P Chidambaram writes: The sad truth is that the Prime Minister has not uttered a word of condemnation. He thinks that he can ride this storm too. And life will go on. Truth is, political life will not go on in India to the exclusion of 202 million Muslims.

Francis Barraud, a native of Liverpool and a painter, had a brother named Mark. Mark died. Francis inherited a cylinder phonograph player, recordings of Mark’s voice and Mark’s fox terrier named Nipper. When Francis played the records, the dog would run over to the phonograph and listen intently with a confused look about where the voice came from. Francis painted the scene and called it “His Master’s Voice”. The Gramophone Company bought the painting in 1899 for £100. The logo became so popular that, eight years later, the company changed its name to HMV. Nipper was immortalised with his own blue plaque in London in 2014.

Not Fringe

Last week, when I read that two spokespersons of the BJP had been subjected to disciplinary action (Ms Nupur Sharma was suspended and Mr Naveen Kumar was expelled from the party), I remembered the story of Nipper. Without meaning any disrespect, let me refer to the duo hereafter as Nupur and Naveen. On June 5, Nupur received a letter that began with the words, “You have expressed views contrary to the party’s position on various matters”. It left me wondering what is the BJP’s position on matters concerning Muslims and Christians who are citizens of India?

Nupur and Naveen are loyal foot soldiers of the BJP and they listen to their leaders intently. Like many of you, Nupur and Naveen observe, read and listen. For example, in the 2012 election campaign in Gujarat, they heard Mr Narendra Modi say, “If we raise the self-respect and morale of 50 million Gujaratis, the schemes of Alis, Malis and Jamalis will not be able to do us any harm.” They would have wondered who were the Alis, Malis and Jamalis, who are the “us” and why would the Alis, Malis and Jamalis draw up schemes that would harm “us”?

Memorable Words

In the 2017 elections to the UP state legislature, the Prime Minister summed up his view of sabka saath, sabka viswas in a memorable speech: “If you create a kabristan (burial ground) in a village, then a shamsan (cremation ground) should be created. There should be no discrimination.” The words must have left a deep impression on Nupur and Naveen.

They heard the words of Mr Amit Shah on 11 April 2019. He said: “We will ensure implementation of NRC in the entire country. We will remove every single infiltrator from the country, except the Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs… The BJP’s pledge is to get rid of the infiltrators… The illegal immigrants are like termites. They are eating the grain that should go to the poor, they are taking our jobs.” Nupur and Nareen must have been convinced that these were the right words uttered by the right person in the right place.

On 15 December 2019, at an election rally in Jharkhand, the Prime Minister said that the people “creating trouble” were “identifiable by their clothes”. Nupur and Naveen probably listened to that speech; and may have resolved to identify people by their clothes.

During the campaign in the elections to the UP legislative assembly, Mr Adityanath, the Chief Minister, repeatedly said, “The contest has moved much ahead. The fight is now 80 versus 20.” Nupur and Naveen must have heard these words and it must have been burnt into their consciousness that the “20 per cent” was the enemy.

No one is in doubt about the BJP’s position on Muslims that can be traced to M S Golwalkar (‘Guruji’ in the RSS). Muslims are not wanted in India or in India’s Parliament and legislatures. Of the 375 BJP MPs in both Houses of Parliament, there will not be a single Muslim MP by the end of this month. The BJP did not field a single Muslim candidate in the elections to the 403-member UP assembly or the 182-member Gujarat assembly. In 11 states with a BJP chief minister, there is one Muslim minister. There has not been a Muslim as election commissioner in the ECI since Mr S Y Quaraishi retired in June 2012. The list is long.

In my view, Ms Nupur Sharma and Mr Naveen Kumar faithfully reflected the positions of the BJP on various matters. They listened to the Master’s voice and spoke in their own way. The BJP is modern India’s The Gramophone Company.

Deaf Ear won’t work

The Opposition, including the Congress, had repeatedly warned the BJP and the government of the consequences of its anti-minority policies and phobia. They had warned the government on the anti-Romeo squads, the love jihad campaign, CAA, NRC, the abrogation of Article 370, the anti-conversion Bills in state legislatures, the raking up of non-issues like hijab, halal and aazaan, the Uniform Civil Code and many other issues that are clearly Islamophobic. The government turned a deaf ear. Now, when UAE and 15 other countries condemned the utterances of the BJP’s spokespersons, the government is scrambling its defences. The heavy artillery of the Foreign Minister has been withdrawn and the deft draftsmanship of the Foreign Secretary brought into play.

The sad truth is that the Prime Minister has not uttered a word of condemnation. He thinks that he can ride this storm too. And life will go on. Truth is, political life will not go on in India to the exclusion of 202 million Muslims. This time, it is not the Opposition, but the world that has forewarned Mr Modi.



Read in source website

Leher Kala writes: Bindu’s bold wedding deserves newsprint space only because too many women wait around for grand, sweeping gestures by men: the bended knee proposal with the ubiquitous diamond ring, drilled into our psyche by cheesy Hollywood films.

The only time I’ve heard the word “sologamy” was when I came across articles on Kshama Bindu, the 24-year-old from Vadodara, who created a bit of a stir by announcing that she plans to marry herself. The groomless wedding on June 8 featured the full nine yards, from pheras and sindoor. She is also allegedly heading on a solo honeymoon. Bindu, who identifies as bisexual, says she is motivated to inspire those who are tired of being made to feel incomplete, if not married. According to the Hindu Marriage Act, there have to be two people in a marriage and “sologamy” does not pass legal scrutiny. In reports published in several newspapers, the Vadodara BJP city chief Sunita Shukla has called Bindu “mentally ill”, saying they will not permit her to perform her wedding in a temple.

It’s easy to dismiss Bindu’s gimmicky idea as an attention-seeking tactic — there are monetary benefits to growing her 25,000+ Instagram followers and getting talked about on Twitter. Except, her fantasy to be a bride in a fairy tale ceremony (minus the painful pitfalls of commitment) is one secretly shared by many of this generation, who view the concept of lifelong wedded bliss a tad suspiciously. Till Death Do Us Part. Really? Worldwide, marriage is on a downward trajectory.

But should that mean one is denied a magical Cinderella moment, of being the centre of attraction in the greatest celebration of love ever invented – a wedding? To the bemused reactions flooding the Internet, Bindu stated, “I don’t require a Prince Charming because I am my own queen. I want the wedding day, not the next day”.

Bindu’s bold wedding deserves newsprint space only because too many women wait around for grand, sweeping gestures by men: the bended knee proposal with the ubiquitous diamond ring, drilled into our psyche by cheesy Hollywood films. India hasn’t escaped the cultural contagion of over-the-top nuptials — a man has proposed during an important cricket match, the girl’s reaction aired on live television. (It’s not enough to show you’re rich, you need to be creative too.)

The theatrics around modern Indian weddings feel contrived since everything is about documenting perfection for the world. Along comes a girl who acknowledges the lure of the phoney circus, conveniently disposes of (arguably) the biggest challenge a marriage brings – a forever fixture, the partner. From a cynical perspective, Bindu’s is a unique case of having your cake and eating it too.

More power to someone for channeling their inner Oscar Wilde, who observed that learning to love oneself is the beginning of a lifelong romance. It’s true that people come and go, so best be your own companion. Besides, is it really so terrible to suspend reality and indulge in drama for one day, knowing fully well that fundamentally, nothing’s changing? Perhaps what people find most offensive about Bindu’s radical act of self love (disregarding a significant other) is her confident assertion that there can be several ways to live — and that they are all correct. One has to wonder, however, if cherry picking the good out of matrimony, the clothes, the ceremony and traditions, and avoiding risk at all costs, is an even more profound delusion than the long and happy monogamous marriage.

Acting on principles of self-preservation works if one is trapped in a war zone but to feel the full adrenaline impact of romance requires relinquishing control. The most meaningful moments in our lives involve the lovely surprise of rationality being swept away by feelings. To love another, there is a risk of humiliation but to marry yourself because the alternative is fraught with danger means not really living at all. As a concept, “sologamy” is bittersweet, in keeping with these times where indestructibility is valued over vulnerability. It makes for a good chuckle, if it was not so sad that some will never know what the world looks like from a place of enthrallment.



Read in source website

Mrudul Nile writes: Communities with a history of resistance and struggle celebrate the scars of such struggle which inspires its people. These scars often become the symbols of culture.

While Dalits in Maharashtra and particularly Mumbai observe the golden jubilee of the Dalit Panthers, the current generation, who are not a witness to the movement, are gasping in the dark to identify who and which party represents their political aspirations.

Dalit politics in Maharashtra has largely been revolving around the Republican Party of India, which was established by the post-Ambedkar leadership. Dr Ambedkar had indicated his desire to form such a party. But immediately after the establishment of the party, it was broken into factions that continue even today. On the other hand, another popular faction, Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi, too, could not send its representatives to Lok Sabha or the state Assembly in recent elections.

Keeping this background in mind, a study was conducted by me and Shweta Ahire, doctoral scholar at the Department of Civics and Politics, University of Mumbai, to assess political assertion in the Dalit ghettos of Matunga Labour Camp, Ramabai Ambedkar Nagar, P L Lokhande Marg and Shell Colony in Mumbai, alongside pilot work in Marathwada’s Aurangabad.

The objective of the study was to largely assess and understand if political assertion depends on socio-economic and cultural factors. The study revealed that political assertion of Dalits in Mumbai is quite low. Scales were developed to assess socio-economic assertion with urban migration, cultural assertion with Ambedkarism, and political assertion with participating in Dalit movements and creating an alliance between the Left and Ambedkarites.

It was revealed that Dalits perceive electoral politics in isolation and do not link it to socio-economic and cultural development of the community. As a result, organising as a political bloc remains absent in the Dalit ghettos. This remains one of the most important factors responsible for the lack of manifestation of culturalisation.

Culturalisation for the purpose of this study means translation of symbols (for instance, the Bhima Koregoan war memorial or the Chaudar lake in Mahad) into a constructed cultural identity. A better substantiation would be that one observes a large gathering of the Dalit community on the Mahaparinirvan Day on December 6 every year at Chaityabhoomi. However, this emotive element fails to get translated into political outcomes.

Culturalisation is often linked to consciousness. The Dalit community which is considered to be one of the most literate communities, but with no social capital does not have enough opportunities in the current economic system. The common Dalit struggles for his two square meals; the time to develop consciousness and then to translate it into culturalisation remains a slow process.

When Dr Ambedkar converted to Buddhism, he also gave a separate identity (out of the Hindu fold) to the erstwhile untouchables or Dalits. Religion generally generates a separate culture or a community creates new symbols of culture, thus a constructed cultural identity is formed. Moreover, as current politics anchors itself on religion, Buddhism emerges not only as a religious identity but also a political alternative to which the political aspirations are anchored. This cultural identity must be manifested in the modern state at different times, especially during elections.

It was precisely this that the Dalit Panthers achieved. Then young leaders of the Dalit Panthers, Namdeo Dhasal, Arjun Dangle, Raja Dhale and J V Pawar penned the miseries of the Dalit community through their writings, poetry etc, and thus attempted to fill the cultural vacuum that was much needed for the Dalit solidarity. The movement, though, was short lived; its inspiration continues to inspire.

Communities with a history of resistance and struggle celebrate the scars of such struggle which inspires its people. These scars often become the symbols of culture.

Therefore, it is important for the Dalit political parties and candidates to recalibrate political strategy for immediate gains in the elections. But at the same time, it is essential that the cultural movement and the consciousness towards cultural objects (memorials and sites of history of resistance) be manufactured for the Dalit solidarity and consolidation of votes.

A rational political community must be developed in the society so that the Dalit issues are not neglected by the ruling dispensations.

The writer is a professor of civics & politics at the University of Mumbai



Read in source website

Nirupama Subramanian writes: Vidanagama, who passed away on June 6, at the age of 76, was a staff photographer at the Sri Lankan government-owned Lake House publications whose stable of newspapers include the Daily News. He and Amal Jayasinghe, then a Daily News reporter,

Few photographs can claim to have captured the exact moment. Even Henri Cartier-Bresson, the master, said finally it was all down to luck. And luck was with Sena Vidanagama on July 30, 1987.

Vidanagama, who passed away on June 6, at the age of 76, was a staff photographer at the Sri Lankan government-owned Lake House publications whose stable of newspapers include the Daily News. He and Amal Jayasinghe, then a Daily News reporter, were assigned to cover Rajiv Gandhi’s departure from Sri Lanka a day after the signing of the India-Sri Lanka Accord. Vidanagama’s black-and-white photograph of what happened that day, taken with an Asahi Pentax, would earn it — and Vidanagama — a place in the pantheon of journalism’s greatest moments.

The portents around the Accord were hardly propitious. The news that Indian soldiers were to be stationed in the Tamil-dominated Northeast had already created an uproar in Sri Lanka’s Sinhala-dominated south. Nationalist anger against the Indian intervention — the training of Sri Lankan militants by India, an IAF food drop over Jaffna in June 1987 at a time Sri Lankan forces had laid siege to the northern peninsula and believed they were on the verge of victory, the culmination in the landing of Indian troops – would lead to a full-scale insurgency over the next three years.

On July 28, a day before the Accord was signed, 19 people were killed in Colombo as police opened fire at protestors. In Delhi, there was uncertainty about Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi’s two-day visit to sign the agreement. But it was decided that the agreement must be signed as scheduled.

On July 29, Colombo was under curfew. A contingent of 10,000 Buddhist monks gathered to march to the airport to protest when Gandhi arrived. As they broke the security cordon, the police fired on them, killing five. Gandhi was accompanied by wife Sonia. They arrived with their own bullet-proof car and a large security contingent, as well as a pack of Delhi journalists, and drove straight to a ceremonial welcome at the Galle Face Green. Prime Minister Ranasinghe Premadasa was conspicuous by his absence. The agreement was signed later in the day at the ornate presidential palace, further up the road.

On July 30, as Gandhi prepared to fly back to Delhi, he would leave behind an angry nation — in the north, the LTTE had rejected the agreement.

At the Daily News, Jayasinghe and Vidanagama were assigned to cover the departure ceremony. “It was not a high-priority assignment, just a ceremonial event,” Jayasinghe, who later headed the Colombo bureau of the AFP, recalled. The duo were hardly expecting an attempted assassination of the Indian prime minister as he inspected a guard of honour on the road outside the presidential palace.

As a band played, Gandhi inspected the navy line up. A junior sailor stepped out just after Gandhi had passed him and brought his rifle butt down on the prime minister. Gandhi ducked just in time, looking back as he did, and took the hit on his shoulder. Within minutes, he was back beaming on the ceremonial dais with Sonia, President J R Jayewardene and the First Lady. The 22-year-old sailor, Wijemuni Vijitha Rohana de Silva, was caught and jailed and eventually sentenced to seven years in prison. He was released after a couple of years following a pardon by Premadasa who had become President by then.

Vidanagama was the only photographer on the scene to capture the exact instant of the attack in a still shot, remarkably full of movement – Gandhi’s ducking action and his backward glance, Wijemuni’s rifle butt swinging down on his shoulder, the navy guardsman by Gandhi’s side leaning to one side, shock on his face.

Remember, that this was years before the first digital camera made its appearance. Back then, cameras had to be loaded with film, and after every shot, a lever cranked to move the film to the next frame. A photographer could not be sure of the image he had captured before the film was developed and the negatives were hung up to dry.

Thulasi Muttulingam, an ex-Daily News staffer, has recounted in a blog post an interview of Sena in which he details how he took the shot from a six-foot-high media dais on which all the vantage points had been taken up by international photographers and the Indian and Sri Lankan official TV cameras. But everyone thought the assignment was done after clicking photos of Gandhi’s first few steps at the guard of honour, and had let their cameras down.

“I too had finished clicking Rajiv Gandhi inspecting the Guard of Honour but kept watching him as he moved down the line of sailors. I acted reflexively when I saw one of the men move from the orderly line of sailors that Gandhi was inspecting. I really had no time to understand or process what was happening. I simply raised my camera and clicked. At the back of my mind, I had a vague notion that the sailor was fainting but after all, even that was news. I had no idea at that point that I was clicking an assault. It all happened very fast… If I had had a camera with today’s technology, I could have taken all these shots but I had to crank my Asahi Pentax before each new shot, to focus properly and thus lost out on quite a few [moments]. In those days you couldn’t click pictures one after the other like you can now.”

With the reel pushed into his socks, Vidanagama ran with Amal all the way to Lake House. But it was hardly certain that the photograph would see the light of day. There was a standoff between the editor and the Lake House boss, who was also an adviser to the President.

The President had already told the media that it was an accident — Wijemuni, the attacking sailor, had fallen from a heatstroke. This was the story the Sri Lankan government wanted to retain. Vidanagama’s photographs showed otherwise.

The Indian side too wanted to play down the incident, writes ANI chairman Prem Prakash in his book, Reporting India. He ran a pre-ANI agency that supplied footage to foreign wires, and had filmed the entire incident. No other Indian journalist was present at the guard of honour. On the plane back to Delhi, as he was telling the rest of the hack pack about the incident, the Prime Minister’s media adviser, H Y Sharada Prasad, told him not to spread “misinformation” and that “there was no such incident”.

Amid protests from the journalists, Gandhi watched the tape on the flight. Prakash told him the entire international press corps was present and was also certain to have captured the incident. Both sides realised quickly it was pointless to hide the facts.

Sena’s photo was on the front page of not just the Daily News but in papers across the world as the French newswire service AFP bought the image from Lake House. In the Daily News, it was captioned Sri Lanka’s “Hour of Shame”. The newspaper reported that the Indian Prime Minister had transmitted a special message thanking J R Jayewardene for his warmth and graciousness. The Sri Lankan president apologised to Gandhi for the assault. He later said on Sri Lankan state TV that he had apologised to Gandhi, his wife and their children, as well to the government and people of India for the incident.

As for Wijemuni, in an interview with the Sri Lankan newspaper Daily Mirror some years ago, he said: “I was thinking how India was helping the LTTE with money, arms and military training. The idea to attack with the rifle struck my mind when Rajiv Gandhi was about two or three feet away from me”. He tried his hand at politics, turned astrologer and was arrested once again in 2018 for a prediction that there would be an attempt on the life of then President Maithripala Sirisena.

Vidanagama’s photograph became the definitive image of the attack. I treasure a copy given to me by the photographer as a piece of journalistic excellence.



Read in source website

The election for the next President of India heralds the next round of the political battle between the government and the Opposition. At one level, despite the symbolic importance of the position and the prestige associated with it, the outcome of the exercise is largely predictable. In the electoral college – which comprises parliamentarians and members of state assemblies whose votes are weighed in accordance with the strengths of the population they represent – the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) begins with a decisive numerical and psychological edge. Numerical, because it is within striking distance of the majority mark and a number of regional parties are likely to back with the ruling coalition (as they have done while passing key pieces of legislation in the past) that almost certainly ensures that its nominee will be the next occupant of Rashtrapati Bhavan. And psychological because of its astute manoeuvres in the recently concluded Rajya Sabha elections that helped it effectively snatch three extra seats and leave the Opposition dispirited on its own turf.

Yet, there are two big unknowns in this election. From the government’s side, it will be interesting to see the kind of political messaging the NDA prefers to send through its nominee. In 2017, the Bharatiya Janata Party signalled to India’s 200 million Scheduled Castes that it was not inimical to their interests by nominating the country’s second Dalit president, Ram Nath Kovind. The ruling coalition is certain to use this platform, the biggest until the 2024 general election, to underline its political preferences. And from the Opposition’s side, it will be interesting to see if there is consensus on a candidate, and whether the Congress – despite having the largest chunk of votes in the bloc – continues to act as the fulcrum of the camp or whether its diminishing appeal even among other political parties hurts its ability to push its preferences through. In the interplay of these dynamics, and their eventual culmination, we will get the first glimpse of where the next general election is headed.



Read in source website

A controversy over ill-advised remarks by two Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) spokespersons on Prophet Mohammed has kept the country on the boil for two weeks now, sparked a wave of condemnation from Muslim-majority nations and resulted in sweeping protests across major Indian cities, some violent clashes and the loss of two lives. The political, diplomatic and social ramifications of the remarks, and their aftermath, have been far-reaching and deepened a sense of alienation among sections of Muslims. Regrettable as the incident was, this newspaper believes it is now time to turn the page. The government, political parties and community leaders need to come together to appeal for calm, repair fraying communal relations and ensure administrative responses, while being tough and quick, are also fair (and seen as such). To this end, a three-pronged response is required.

First, political parties must invest energy and capital in ensuring that any form of hate speech or extremist rhetoric is not incentivised or seen as a way to get noticed among the ranks. In a multi-cultural society such as India, divisive words will always carry short-term political rewards but as the external fallout has shown, threaten to strike at the foundations of India’s democratic project and tarnish the country’s standing in the world. This also drives a wedge among communities, creating hurdles for economic and social progress and distractions at a time the country faces formidable economic, health, education and foreign policy challenges. Two, community leaders must appeal to their more impressionable constituents to not be swayed by rhetoric that seeks to sow seeds of discord and rancour, or issue open or barely disguised calls to violence. Faith leaders, particularly, must be alert to forestall such attempts by demagogues to radicalise young minds and see people with different beliefs as a dangerous other.

And three, the administration must be tough but reasonable in its response to the fury unleashed by the row. Destruction of property or violence cannot be condoned, nor can be the loss of life or death threats, but all action against such incidents must be in accordance with the law and established procedure. Bypassing deliberative processes that are designed to ensure fairness and opportunity to the accused are not only dangerous for the health of India’s criminal justice system but also create a perception of selective action and arbitrariness that germinate further resentment and strife. Public spectacles such as demolishing houses may have popular support but will ultimately hurt the pursuit of lasting peace. To ensure the life of dignity and respect promised in the Constitution, the country has to urgently come together.



Read in source website

French traveller Barthélemy Carré’s wonderful accounts of Maratha ruler Chhatrapati Shivaji compel us to rethink the king’s true place in Indian history. Carre, who visited India twice during Shivaji’s tenure, compared the Maratha king to one of the greatest mediaeval heroes of Europe, Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden.

Carré’s account of what the governor of the Chaul port on the Konkan coast said about Shivaji gives an insight into the Maratha ruler’s incomparable traits as a ruler and a conqueror. Carre wrote: “He [the viceroy] told me that his master Shivaji intended to push his conquests from the river Indus to Ganges, far beyond the provinces of Bengal. He said Shivaji’s vision was unbounded and his capacity superior to his vision and that he was a great warrior, a great politician capable of undertaking everything and achieving everything, inured to fatigue and more laborious than the bravest soldier. The governor told me that difficulties stirred up Shivaji’s courage and that he had undertaken conquests because they seemed to present insurmountable difficulties.” This was the extent of Shivaji’s vision when his kingdom was only restricted to a few districts of Maharashtra and Karnataka. However, in less than 10 years, Shivaji extended his kingdom to the South beyond present day Chennai.

There is little doubt that the freedom movement (swarajya or independent Hindu rule) of Shivaji influenced the country in the Mughal period, triggering similar movements for swarajya across India. It is not wrong to say that the revolts of the Sikhs, the Bundelas, and the Rajputs of central India were inspired by Shivaji’s movement.

The fanaticism of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb and some of his predecessors also played a role in this. But what is less documented is that the idea of swarajya also impacted the revolutionary period of India’s freedom struggle against the British. Many revolutionaries, including Veer Savarkar, Rash Behari Bose, Subhas Chandra Bose, Bhagat Singh, and Chandra Shekhar Azad, and strong leaders such as Bal Gangadhar Tilak, were inspired by Shivaji’s guerrilla warfare technique based on stealth.

Most historians have also failed to evaluate the true extent of Shivaji’s kingdom when he died in 1680. At that time, Shivaji’s empire stretched from Valsad district on the west coast in south Gujarat and ended beyond Jinji fort, well beyond Chennai on the east coast (1,600 kms in length). The width of his kingdom was narrow, but it touched today’s Gujarat, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu. This was no mean achievement.

Many historians have praised the enterprising spirit of the Turkish and Pathan invaders from Central Asia. Unfortunately, they are unaware that the length of Shivaji’s kingdom was more than the road distance between Kabul-Ghur and Delhi. Ghur, from where Shahab-ud-din Ghori came and defeated Prithviraj to herald Islamic rule in India, is less than 1,600 kms from Delhi. Kabul is around 1,300 kms from Delhi.

Another measure to evaluate Shivaji’s greatness is his impact on the succeeding period. Within 40 years of his death, the Marathas reached Delhi. In another 30 years, aided by the dynamism of Peshwa Bajirao and his son, Balaji Bajirao, they became kingmakers in the Mughal court in Delhi. Finally, in 1758, the Marathas captured Peshawar. It remained with them for only six months, but it was a great achievement in Indian history because Peshawar, once ruled by the Hindu Shahi dynasty, returned to the Hindus after a gap of more than 700 years of Muslim rule.

Shivaji also revived Chanakya niti (policy) in the mediaeval period, which was lost due to a combination of factors, including the impact of foreign rule. This was in ample display when Shivaji killed the cruel Bijapuri general Afzal Khan at Pratapgarh in 1659 before that general could kill him; the way he fooled Aurangzeb and fled from his captivity in Agra in 1666; and the treaties he signed with the Mughals, only to break them when he thought these were coming in the way of realising his goal of swarajya.

The Maratha ruler also revived the naval tradition of India, which was lost after the Chola dynasty in the 13th century. Shivaji, the greatest builder of forts in the mediaeval period, built or repaired around 100 forts. He was also a social reformer; he co-opted members of all Hindu castes, including Dalits, into his army. Today, the Indian Army’s Mahar Regiment owes a lot to Shivaji’s reformist vision. He started the practice of reconversion of Hindus who had converted to Islam.

Shivaji’s just administrative model, including his revenue collection system, is admirable. It offered seed loans to cultivators and collected revenue from farmers after evaluating the impact of the rains. His robust justice system was focussed on the needy and was for people of all religions. Historian Jadunath Sarkar called Shivaji the great constructive genius of mediaeval India. There is a need to reevaluate such heroes and give them their true place in history.

Uday Mahurkar is a central information commissioner, journalist and author

The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

It was Ganga Dussehra, a Hindu festival. I was on the bridge at Brijghat, and I could see the Ganges on both sides. A large crowd had gathered on both the banks of the river. Everyone was taking a holy dip. No uproar, skirmish, or haste, it was all about flow and continuity.

And that reminds me of an old saying, “Dharayati iti dharmaah” (that which upholds is Dharma). This emotion, I could see, had been passed down generations of devotees now taking their holy dip. Note that these folks from western Uttar Pradesh (UP) adhere to their rituals without cursing others, and abide by their religion. During the invasion of the country by Muslim rulers, some of their people were converted to Islam, but they did not renounce the names of their caste. So, Chauhan, Tyagi, Malik, Patel, and more surnames can be found in both religions. These are people who have shaped almost 1,300 years of Indian history with religious harmony.

However, for several years now, attempts have been made to influence societal discourse with ideas that were previously considered taboo. The scramble for TRPs by TV channels further helped certain self-proclaimed historians to spread these ideas. Nupur Sharma, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s spokeswoman, and Naveen Kumar Jindal, the party’s Delhi unit media chief, recently crossed every limit of decency in their over-enthusiasm. They forgot that, despite the fact that Islamic society is divided into Shias, Sunnis, Deobandis, Barelvis, etc., the community is unanimous on two issues: The Prophet and the holy Koran.

After Salman Rushdie wrote his novel, The Satanic Verses, the entire Islamic world had rallied against him. As a result, Rushdie to this day remains almost imprisoned, confined to the shadows by his security. All of his publishers and fans had almost abandoned him.

Jindal and Sharma are now on the same page. They have landed on a slippery slope in their endeavour to climb the power ladder quickly. But they have been rejected by the party. The Union government and the government of Maharashtra have filed cases against them. They are already facing threats to their lives and that of their families, and must now also contend with a lengthy legal battle.

This is a lesson for everyone who tries to be “more loyal than the king” by taking needless risks.

The issue of blasphemy has also caused many problems for the Indian government. Almost all Islamic countries have registered their strong objections. It’s worth recalling here that when the Modi government not only repealed Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir but also partitioned the state, effectively ending its entire statehood, none of the Islamic countries questioned it despite Pakistan’s best efforts. This was at a time when the Imran Khan government had begun to crumble.

Prime Minister Modi had, in the past, managed to develop very respectable and friendly connections with these countries. Now, such irresponsible speeches have not only harmed this friendship but has also put the ministry of external affairs in a quandary. It has also raised concerns among other minorities in India. During the farmers’ agitation, a similar attitude was shown toward the Sikhs. At that time too, it was said that the environment would be vitiated if official spokespersons made such public outbursts on critical matters. Such rhetoric might also rejuvenate the separatists active across the borders.

The Centre and most state governments have now had to step up security to deal with the growing protests. Violence erupted on June 3 in Kanpur, UP, where riots had almost become a thing of the past. The police were able to bring the situation under control, but it was only the beginning. Large crowds gathered across the country to demand harsh punishment for Nupur Sharma. Following the Friday prayers, incidents of stone pelting, arson and violence were reported from various parts of the country, with Ranchi imposing a curfew. The All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen (AIMIM) has also joined the protests, with others also likely to join issue and take political mileage.

Is this a Salman Rushdie moment-2? This truth is without a doubt understood by reasonable people in the government, organisations, and even the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. This is why Mohan Bhagwat, the chief of the Sangh, stated publicly on June 2 that the Sangh will not undertake another agitation after the Ramjanmabhoomi movement. He went so far as to say that a new issue should not be brought up every day. The Centre has also made its intentions known by filing complaints against 32 people for making offensive statements and violating other provisions of the law. Many others are likely to face legal action in the following days.

Is that enough? Of course, the problem will not be resolved unless leaders of all the political parties take concrete efforts to rein in their spokespersons. Similarly, all parties must make public a clear code of conduct for their leaders and workers. To clean the Ganges, the Gangotri, the holy river’s major source, must first be cleaned.

Shashi Shekhar is editor-in-chief, Hindustan

The views are personal.



Read in source website

The Election Commission of India has set the date for the election of the sixteenth President of the Republic. There is some doubt, though, about whether President Ram Nath Kovind should be referred to as India’s 15th or 16th President. The answer depends on how one would consider one of the many instances when Justice M. Hidayatullah served as acting President. Justice Hidayatullah served as Rashtrapati on three occasions. On two of those three it was only for a day, when he was vice-president.

However, between July 20, 1969 and August 24, 1969, for over a month and including the Independence Day of 1969, he had served as the acting President, in his capacity as the Chief Justice of India.

 

If Justice Hidayatullah’s odd case is not considered then President Ram Nath Kovind would indeed be the 15th President, and his successor the 16th. There has already been some speculation in the media on potential candidates for the country’s top job, but I would venture to suggest that there is no reason why President Kovind should not be given a second term. He has discharged his constitutional role with utmost dignity and has endeared himself to a wide cross-section of society. For someone who came out of virtual political obscurity, after having served as a low- profile governor of Bihar, President Kovind has earned for himself the reputation of being wise, dignified and a learned occupant of the President’s palace.

 

If not Mr Kovind, there is vice-president M. Venkaiah Naidu. There is no reason why he should not be elevated. So, all the media speculation about the other names is quite redundant.

None of the governors whose names are currently doing the rounds have adorned their constitutional office with the grace that President Kovind has come to be associated with. Politically oriented governors are not new. In the 1980s Hyderabad was home to one such in governor Ram Lal, whom the Telugus finally got rid of. It is once again home to a partisan busybody. But such governors are not presidential material.

 

Indeed, governorship has not been an important qualification for the nation’s top constitutional post. The only two predecessors of President Kovind who served as governor were Shankar Dayal Sharma and Pratibha Patil.

The professional background of the republic’s 15 Presidents has been very diverse. While most were active political leaders, a philosopher, a diplomat and an engineer also made it to the top. Almost always it is the political context that has determined the choice of the winner. However, whenever the Prime Minister has been in a politically commanding position capable of securing the support of a clear majority of the electoral college, the PM’s choice has been a person who could be personally trusted.

 

Enjoying the PM’s trust is a primary qualification for the job. Having regard for constitutional values and conducting oneself with dignity and decorum is an equally important qualification. While the Constitution makes it very clear that the final word on matters of state is that of the Union council of ministers headed by the Prime Minister, and that the President must accept their views as duly conveyed, there are often situations in which a strong-willed President can make life difficult for the PM.

Rajendra Prasad was known to have had several differences with Jawaharlal Nehru and Shankar Dayal Sharma often argued with Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao. In 1969 Indira Gandhi went to great lengths, even splitting her political party, to prevent the election of Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy and secure the victory of V.V. Giri. The more infamous spats were between President Zail Singh and Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi in the mid-1980s.

 

Given this background and the fact that the next President will be in office at the time of the next general election, in the summer of 2024, one should expect Prime Minister Narendra Modi to play it safe and seek a candidate who is not merely a political and an ideological fellow traveller but someone he can personally trust. Mr Naidu must wonder why there is all this speculation about names!

On the other hand, it is difficult to guess who might be the consensus candidate of a united Opposition. It has to be an inspirational figure who may genuinely be able to unite the entire Opposition and stand for principles that can help isolate the BJP and bring political parties sitting on the fence on to the side of the Opposition parties. A tough call.

 

The idea that a political party’s choice of nominee for the President’s post can deliver electoral benefits is highly exaggerated. While the choice of a dalit, like K.R. Narayanan and Mr Kovind, or a Muslim, like Zakir Hussain or Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, may have had some symbolic value, the electoral dividend is minimal. As a believer in Hindutva, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee may have won praise for opting for a Muslim President, but that choice offered no electoral dividends for the PM. Why should any voter care who occupies the palace on Raisina Hill when power resides in the streets below.

 

Some people seem to think that the BJP would like to put a woman in Rashtrapati Bhavan as a demonstration of its commitment to gender empowerment. That cause would be better served placing more women in positions of real power, both within the government and the party organisation. The Congress Party has anyway earned the distinction of electing the first woman PM and President.

Given the state of the nation today, it would do good for national unity and integrity, and for domestic social peace and stability, that the next President should be someone capable of healing the nation’s many self-inflicted wounds. Someone who can be a friend, philosopher and guide to the Prime Minister, capable of taking a non-partisan view, protecting the best interests of all and not promoting a sectarian political agenda. After all, the President of India is also the supreme commander of the nation’s armed forces, and so must be capable of earning the respect of every soldier, sailor and airman who wears the uniform and who may be called upon to make that ultimate sacrifice for the nation.



Read in source website