Editorials - 14-03-2022

Electricity, roads and water were rated positively by the voters, but not health and education

Even though the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has returned to power in Uttarakhand with a facile victory, the assessment of its governance by voters was mixed and less emphatic. In the CSDS-Lokniti post-poll survey in the State, voters were asked to rate the work done on key governance parameters such as roads, electricity, water supply, health, and education. While the government was seen as having performed on the first three, it was on the issues of health and education that people were more likely to be critical.

Some positives, some negatives

On being asked whether the condition of roads in the State had improved or deteriorated in the last five years of the BJP government, three-fifths of voters answered in the affirmative. Their assessment of drinking water supply and power supply was even better, with close to three-fourths reporting an improvement. Voters in the Kumaon hills were, however, less impressed with respect to all the three parameters, especially with roads, as compared to voters in the Garhwal hills and the Maidan area. Nonetheless, they too were more likely to believe that things had improved rather than deteriorated.

However, when it came to assessing the condition of government schools and government hospitals, there was near unanimity across regions with more people stating that conditions had deteriorated. Farmers were also more likely to view their condition as having worsened rather than having improved. Interestingly, this pattern ofbijli,sadakandpaani(electricity, roads and water) being rated positively andshiksha(education),swasthya(good health) and farmers’ condition being rated negatively was also found by Lokniti in its survey in neighbouring U.P.

Like in U.P., seven of every 10 respondents (69%) in Uttarakhand were more likely to perceive that incidents of crime such as theft, rape and murder had decreased in their area. They were also more likely to perceive caste and religious tensions in their area as having decreased (62% and 64%, respectively). Muslims, however, were not as approving, especially on the issue of communal amity. Close to half of them (48%) reported an increase in religious tensions in their area. This is significant in the context of the hate speeches and calls for violence that were made by several Hindu religious leaders at a ‘Dharam Sansad’ organised in Haridwar in December 2021, just two months ahead of the elections. Clearly, the experiences and perceptions of Hindus and Muslims with respect to communal animosity were distinctly different in Uttarakhand.

Over four-fifths of Uttarakhandis felt that inflation and unemployment in their area had increased. Yet, this sentiment was not Uttarakhand-specific and was found in all other States as well. Corruption, too, was seen as having gone up, but this sentiment was also noticed across all States.

Shreyas Sardesai is with Lokniti-CSDS; Rakesh Negi is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Sringar, Uttarakhand



Read in source website

Refusing to take a firm line on the invasion while continuing to see itself as the world’s teacher is not credible

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has placed considerable moral responsibility on India, both as one of the world’s largest countries and its most populous democracy. However, at the United Nations (UN), India has refused to condemn the violation of the rights of the Ukrainians. It has, instead, put out a homily that speaks of resolving differences through dialogue. It has moved with alacrity to save its citizens without expressing compassion for the people of Ukraine who face an onslaught from a much larger military power than them. It would be natural for observers to equate the actions of the state in a democracy with the will of the people. So, as we are a democracy, the Indian government’s abstention in the UN Security Council vote on Ukraine is sure to rebound on Indians in their interaction with the rest of the world in the future, unfavourably.

No commitment to principle

Arguments justifying India’s stance in the UN have emanated from the erstwhile grandees of India’s diplomatic corps and current members of the national security community. The first of these is that in international affairs, a country must be guided by its national interest and not some abstract principles. What these principles could be is left unspecified, but what India’s interests are have been stated with clarity. Of the latter, it is pointed out that due to the very high dependence of India on the Soviet Union for defence equipment and the likely need of support on the Pakistan issue in the Security Council, India must not offend Russia by condemning the invasion. The result is that India makes statements that convince no one, only drawing attention to its lack of commitment to principle in international affairs.

Actually, interests and principles are not that apart. If a people’s principles are their most deeply held beliefs about how the world must be ordered, then their interest lies in ensuring that their principles prevail in international relations. Thus, if India does not want to see itself to be the victim of territorial aggression in the future, it must communicate strongly on the world stage that it condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The difference now

Those in charge of India’s foreign policy must reflect on its choice to be on the same page as China — a habitual violator of the norm of peaceful coexistence — on an issue of unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state. At a time when India’s abstention on the Russian invasion of Ukraine is being likened to its abstention in the UN on the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 it would do to recognise the difference.

In the 1950s the West was clearly unsympathetic to India, playing its card openly on the Kashmir issue at the UN as early as 1947. On the other hand, the Soviet Union, the precursor to the present-day Russian state, had rescued India several times by exercising its veto in the UN Security Council. Now, close to 75 years later, the situation has changed. Public opinion in the West does not favour unconditional support of Pakistanvis-à-vis India while Russia encourages Pakistan. Moreover, we know by now that some limited support at the UN matters little, as taking the Kashmir issue to the UN Security Council has not got Pakistan to withdraw from the territory it occupied. As India does not intend to expand its territory, it need not rely on any particular country that is a permanent member of the Security Council to support its future plans.

The defence supply argument

Now on the matter of reliance on the Russians for defence equipment. It is indeed correct that India relies on the Russians for such equipment and their spare parts. At the same time there is a global market for arms. It is not evident that anything withheld by the Russians cannot be sourced from that market. We have in the past bought guns from Sweden, ships from the U.K. and aircraft from France. It is the unpalatable truth that there is considerable spare capacity in the production of weapons in this world, and ready money is sure to get you to the goods you seek. For India to base its public stance on the Russian invasion of Ukraine on the assured supply of armaments is to really drag ourselves down to the bottom of the pit in terms of ethics.

As an east-west conflict

A second response from India’s security establishment has taken the form of a rationalisation of the decision to abstain on grounds that the Russian invasion and the West’s reaction, that has not included war so far, is a conflict between the east and the west, and India should stay out of it. While the argument about our need for defence equipment has at least a Kautilyan veneer, this position is contemptible. To avert one’s eyes from unprovoked aggression towards an independent country by one 10 times stronger would be to reveal a total lack of moral fibre. To say that this is just another east-west conflict from which India should stay out is tantamount to seeing the Russian invasion and the brave defence of their country by the Ukrainians as a mere marital squabble.

If there is a maxim that conveys an ancient belief of Indians, it isVasudhaiva Kutumbakam , implying that the world is a family. Families do not usually tolerate the bullying of the weak by those stronger among them. If India had allowed this principle to fall by the wayside in 1956 when it refused to condemn the Soviet invasion of Hungary, its action today is much worse. At that time, Jawaharlal Nehru was only concerned with propagating the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, christened Panchsheel. Today, empowered by its economic ascent over the decades, Narendra Modi talks of India being the ‘Vishwaguru ’ or World Teacher. By continuing to see herself as the world’s teacher while refusing to take a stand on the invasion of Ukraine, India mocks her chosen self-image. A teacher is granted respect for speaking truth to power.

The invasion of Ukraine, rather like Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939, is a once-in-a-century event. India’s foreign policy establishment seems to have missed its significance for the world. India must take a long view of how it wants to engage with it. Its actions so far leave it in the company of Russia and China. These are not democracies as understood; indeed, most of their recent actions militate against that description. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping have ensured that they will have unusually long tenures as leaders of their states. Reminiscent of the fascists in Europe, they make expansionist claims based on ethnicity, persecute their own people based on religion or sexual orientation, and exude an ethnic chauvinism. Most Indians abhor these practices.

The final word

India is a democracy, even if a somewhat diminished one of late. Moreover, it has not officially discarded Panchsheel as yet. It cannot look away from the violation of widely accepted norms contained in the unprovoked invasion of Ukraine for fear of losing access to its supply of armaments or of reciprocal support in the UN on matters of concern to it. Nor does it have the option of playing the ostrich, as suggested by some, for that would fool no one else. Standing up for what you believe in brings with it the possibility of encountering hardship. But then, sticking to its principles is not just in India’s national interest, it is also its own reward.

Pulapre Balakrishnan teaches at Ashoka University. He served as the Country Economist for Ukraine at the World Bank



Read in source website

The party seems to have converted an anti-incumbency mood into a pro-incumbency one

Even though Chief Minister Pushkar Singh Dhami lost from his own constituency, the BJP’s gamble to appoint him as Chief Minister just seven months before the elections seems to have worked to its advantage, particularly in the mountainous parts of Garhwal and Kumaon. While Prime Minister Narendra Modi was more instrumental in giving the party a repeat victory in the State, the Central leadership’s decision to remove Trivendra Singh Rawat as Chief Minister and bring in Mr. Dhami eventually (after Tirath Singh Rawat’s brief stint) seems to have played a role too.

Lokniti’s post-poll data found Mr. Dhami’s seven-month-old government to be better rated than the BJP’s five-year government in the State and far better rated than Trivendra Singh Rawat’s four-year tenure. While dissatisfaction with the Rawat government was found to be greater than satisfaction with it (61% as opposed to 33%), in the case of Mr. Dhami’s government, more people were found to be satisfied (59%) than dissatisfied (32%).

We also found that as many as three in every 10 of all voters and nearly two in five of traditional BJP voters were dissatisfied with the work done under Trivendra Rawat, but satisfied with the performance of Mr. Dhami. A large majority of such voters ended up voting for the BJP (55% and 78%, respectively). Just as the Congress government in Punjab was found in our survey there to be more unpopular on account of Amarinder Singh’s four-and-a-half-year tenure, in Uttarakhand too, the BJP government’s not-so-great assessment by voters was clearly more due to Trivendra Rawat’s tenure. However, unlike in Punjab, where the Congress failed to control the damage through the eleventh-hour elevation of Charanjit Singh Channi as Chief Minister, in Uttarakhand, the BJP did benefit from its late decision to replace the Chief Minister.

Mr. Dhami’s popularity was, however, restricted to the Garhwal and Kumaon hills, where satisfaction with his government was greater than in the Maidan region. Moreover, in both the mountainous regions, he was far ahead of his closest competitor, Harish Rawat, of the Congress, in terms of being wanted as the State’s next Chief Minister. In upper parts of the State, well over two in five of the respondents expressed a desire to see him back as Chief Minister, while in the plains area, this desire was much weaker (three in 10). Our data also suggest that Mr. Dhami found greater acceptance among previous Congress supporters than Harish Rawat did among previous BJP supporters. In sum, the Dhami gamble of the BJP does seem to have converted an anti-incumbency mood into a pro-incumbency one.

Sanjay Kumar is Co-Director of the Lokniti programme at CSDS; Shreyas Sardesai is with Lokniti-CSDS



Read in source website

A welfare-plus-development combination has struck a chord with voters, who now back the ‘change-makers’

Mandates always have a message and it depends upon how the recipients read the same. This is true with the recent round of Assembly elections. In India, electoral verdicts have always underscored the fact that continuity and change always go together, and this round of elections is no exception. Voters have continued with the change-makers and sought to change those who wanted to continue with the status quo.

Voters speak

There are four lucid aspects from the clear and loud message from the voters. First, the Uttar Pradesh results in particular have shown that voters have graduated and risen above caste and community considerations and voted resoundingly in favour of a welfare-plus-development combination. From the V.P. Singh era onwards, the political discourse has been dominated by political engineering effected through smart social coalitions or social engineering. Now, democratic polity has been taken to a different level and the effective management of aspirations has replaced social engineering. People prefer a party that delivers on the ground than parties that ask for votes in the name of caste and community. Also remarkable is the fact that the decimation of the Bahujan Samaj Party in the State is indicative of the fact that Scheduled Castes have refused to be bracketed with a single community-based party.

No thumbs up for dynasties

The second important message is that the days of dynastic demigods are over. Voters have rejected dynasties one after the other, from the Badals to the Yadavs to the Banerjees, and, above all, the Gandhis. The Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, had all along on the campaign trail cautioned voters aboutParivarvadi parties, and they seem to have paid heed to his appeal. In an aspirational democracy, people have realised that supporting the leaders of dynastic parties is like endorsing birth-based discrimination, something that our Constitution-makers had rejected lock, stock and barrel. Parties where the leadership is reserved for families have no glorious future any more, and the sooner dynasts listen to this message, the better it is for their survival. Let us hope that parties such as the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK), the Shiv Sena, the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), the All India Trinamool Congress (TMC) and the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) pay heed to this message seriously. Make no mistake, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is not, per se, a dynastic party although it is being run on the same lines almost single-handedly. Nonetheless, the victory in Punjab is also a clear rejection of a traditional alternative that has been a dynastic party.

Focus on performance

The third message is about the politics of performance. Parties that ensure that their government delivers in governance, ably convert anti-incumbency into pro-incumbency. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has proved this several times in Gujarat, in 2019 in Maharashtra, in 2020 in Bihar, in 2021 in Assam, and now in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Manipur and Goa. The BJP’s victory in all these rounds of elections was not simply thanks to a weak Opposition. In fact, the Opposition in U.P., Goa, Uttarakhand, or earlier in Gujarat or Maharashtra cannot be described to be weak at all. And yet, if people have unequivocally shown their preference for the BJP in these elections, it is a clear indication of pro-incumbency. Curiously, anti-incumbency had become the rule, a kind of status quo; now, this rule clearly stands changed. The fact that the BJP has increased its vote share in most States also underscores what the Prime Minister has described as ‘an endorsement of the BJP’s pro-poor, pro-active governance’.

The leader does matter

Lastly, the verdicts in 2022 also underscore that national leadership always matters no matter how small or big a State is. There have been many times in the past where political pundits have said that verdicts in national elections mirror aggregation of State politics. Today, the verdicts in 2022 remind us that State verdicts too reflect national aspirations. These elections happened under the shadow of COVID-19. Also, when voting rounds had actually begun, the shadow of the Ukraine crisis was looming large as thousands of Indian students were stranded there. Whether it was the novel coronavirus pandemic or Ukraine, the way the Government faced these challenges seems to have gone down well with the people across the country. This also is indicative of the fact that people all over India believe that the nation needs Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership for many more years. The State verdicts reflect this feeling.

These election results are also important for democracy. As mentioned in the latest Pew Research Center survey report on satisfaction with democracy, ‘the global pandemic has, if anything, intensified perceived political and social divisions. Across the 17 advanced economies we surveyed in 2021, a median of 61% say that their country is more divided than before the outbreak’. And in India, in the first major elections held after three waves of COVID-19, people from diverse regions and far-off States seem to be speaking in one voice. Clearly, the Prime Minister has emerged as a unifier par excellence, across States, castes and communities. Having mastered the art of implementation, he has established that liberal democracy can go hand in hand with efficient state craft, making democracy deliver. All said and done, the 2022 verdicts are as much about credit going to the Prime Minister as they are about the BJP’s periodically galvanised organisation and its ideology-driven cadres.

Vinay Sahasrabuddhe is Member,

Rajya Sabha, and a former National Vice-President of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). E-mail: vinays57@gmail.com



Read in source website

While there is concern for the environment, it has reduced drastically in the last five years

The desire for development among Uttarakhand’s voters grew even stronger this election. When voters were asked in Lokniti’s post-poll survey which issue had mattered to them the most while voting, without being prompted with any options, well over-two fifths spontaneously saidvikaas (development). In the 2017 election, the proportion of those who had mentionedvikaas as the main issue had been much less at 28%.

Despite an increase in the State’s working-age population and a simultaneous decline in the employment rate, the issue of lack of jobs was the main voting issue for only 14% of voters in Uttarakhand, two points lower than 2017. Similarly, despite the soaring costs of essential commodities, inflation was the key voting issue for only 6% of Uttarakhandis as opposed to 11% last time.

It is quite possible that many important issues that may have been on the minds of voters got subsumed by the issue ofvikaas since we asked people to give us only their most important voting issue. They may have also resonated less in the backdrop of the pro-BJP choice of the voters.

Hence, in order to get a better sense of the issues that mattered to the voters, we read out to them, one by one, select issues and asked them to tell us the extent to which each of these had been important to them. It is here that unemployment and inflation along with development emerged as key issues. Over four-fifths said that joblessness and inflation had been ‘very important’ to them while deciding their vote. Corruption came next with 69% stating that it had been ‘very important’ for them. The issues of having a double engine government (raised by the BJP) and of making Gairsain the permanent capital (a promise of the Congress) do not seem to have mattered much. Only about one-thirds said that the two had been highly important voting considerations.

Notably, what does seem to have mattered a lot to voters (at least in relation to many other issues that were read out) were environmental protection (48%) and protecting the State’s culture (47%). But these were mentioned by the respondents only when listed as part of the menu of issues and not spontaneously. While Congress leader Harish Rawat had made Uttarakhandiyat a central theme of the Congress’ campaign, Congress gained little from the segment that attached great importance to State pride. The BJP managed a lead of 8% over the Congress among such voters.

As for environmental protection, given that there has been growing concern among some Uttarakhandis about the effect that massive infrastructural projects (such as the Char Dham highway development project) are having on the State’s ecosystem and geology, it is again noteworthy that many claimed that it was an important issue for them. So, we pressed voters further on the matter and asked them what they would prioritise – development or environmental protection, if the two come in conflict with each other. Most voters (59%) gave a middle-of-the road answer: they said both should be given equal attention. Only 15% explicitly opted for prioritising the environment and 16% opted for prioritising development over the environment. Moreover, the proportion of those giving precedence to environmental protection has reduced drastically in the last five years. In 2017, when the same question was asked, many more had opted for environment (27%) over development (12%). Interestingly, preference for either of these two did not make much difference to vote preference: among both groups the BJP won decisively. It was only among those who chose the middle road that the party performed below par.

We also sought voters’ opinion on the Char Dham project that has been opposed by many environmentalists, ecologists and geologists. Nearly three-fifths (56%) of the voters said Uttarakhand stands to benefit more than lose from the project. Only 16% thought otherwise. The remaining 28% did not have a stand. Clearly, the constituency in favour of the environment is yet to shape and consolidate in the State.

Shreyas Sardesai is with Lokniti-CSDS; Rakesh Negi is Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Sringar, Uttarakhand



Read in source website

The movement influenced the plains more than the hills

The proximity of Uttarakhand to the epicentre of the farmers’ movement and its impact on some parts of the State make for an interesting case study. One-fifths of the State’s households are farming households — based mainly in the hills rather than the plains. Close to three-fifths of the voters believed that the condition of farmers in their State had deteriorated — this trend was higher in the hills than the plains. However, not many voters in the hills (both Garhwal and Kumaon) considered farmers’ issues as voting issues. Less than two of every 10 in these regions said that the farmers’ movement was a voting issue for them.

However, in the plains, voters were more assertive on farmers’ issues: close to half of them considered the farmers’ movement as a very important election issue. Close to three-fifths (58%) also kept the Lakhimpur Kheri incident in mind while casting their vote (Table 1). In fact, voters of farming households from the hills were also non-committal on the Lakhimpur Kheri incident as not many shared their view on the removal of Ajay Mishra Teni from the Ministry after the Lakhimpur Kheri incident. On the other hand, half the voters from farming households in the plains agreed that Mr. Teni should have been removed from the Council of Ministers after the Lakhimpur Kheri incident. Even when it came to supporting the farmers’ movement, in the plains the support was quite strong as compared to the hills (Table 2).

Overall, the farmers supported the BJP and this support was even higher (+5%) as compared to voters engaged in non-farming occupations. Once farmers’ vote choices were segregated across regions, it was found that the BJP had the biggest lead (+41%) over the Congress in the Garhwal region. In Kumaon and the plains, the farmers preferred the Congress over the BJP. In Kumaon, the Congress’s lead over the BJP among farmer voters was +8%. In the plains, the Congress had the greatest edge over the BJP (a lead of +11% points). It was also found that the Congress was slightly ahead (with a difference of 3% points) of the BJP among farming households that openly supported the farmers’ movement while elsewhere the BJP was far ahead of the Congress (Table 3).

The farmers’ movement clearly impacted the plains more than hills. Even in the hills, the Garhwal region was not at all affected by the farmers’ movement and overwhelmingly supported the BJP. The farmers in the Kumaon region considered the farmers’ movement while voting and those who supported the movement voted for the Congress as done by the farmers in the plains.

Jyoti Mishra is a Research Associate at Lokniti-CSDS and Vidhi Goel is an Assistant Professor, School of Liberal Arts, Uttaranchal University, Uttarakhand



Read in source website

Sentencing of convicts in a caste murder case in T.N. is a rare blow for substantive justice

The recent sentencing of the leader of a caste outfit to life-long imprisonment has brought some closure to the horrific killing of a Dalit youth in western Tamil Nadu in 2015, purportedly committed to uphold the pride of a dominant caste. Unlike most emblematic cases of such ‘killings for honour’, the murder of V. Gokulraj, an engineering student, was not done by or at the instance of the family of a girl belonging to the dominant caste. Rather, it was by a gang led by S. Yuvaraj, who ran his own caste outfit and did not know either the victim or his friend, but had chanced upon them engaged in a conversation in a temple. It was likely that he sought to create a sense of awe among his own community’s youth by seizing on the opportunity to punish a man from a downtrodden community. After a quick interview to ascertain their caste status, he sent away the girl, who belonged to his own community, escorted by a couple from his own group. In a chilling sequence of events, Yuvaraj and his accomplices abducted the youth in their vehicle and devised a plan on the fly to kill him and make it appear to be a suicide. They forced him to talk about taking his own life and recorded it on a phone, and even dictated a ‘suicide note’ to be planted later on his body. After strangling him to death at an isolated spot, Yuvaraj severed his head and tossed the torso on a railway track and the head nearby.

Yuvaraj, who ran a group called Dheeran Chinnamalai Gounder Peravai, emerged as a key suspect after CCTV footage near the temple showed him and his accomplices leaving the temple with Gokulraj. Over the next few weeks, it was clear that Yuvaraj was after popularity, as during the three months he was absconding, he made public recorded messages and even appeared in a television discussion. Ultimately, this chutzpah proved to be his undoing, as he confirmed on air that he had confronted the couple at the temple but claimed he had left them there. The law, however, went by the principle that the accused with whom a slain victim was last seen, must explain his absence satisfactorily. The investigation saw some setbacks, when a DSP probing it died by suicide, while during trial, several witnesses turned hostile. The victim’s mother, V. Chitra, who obtained an order from the Madras High Court to transfer the trial from Namakkal to Madurai, Special Public Prosecutor B.B. Mohan and investigators who compiled technical and forensic evidence deserve plaudits for the successful prosecution. In a State where prosecutions under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act often flounder, the sentencing of 10 persons, all for the remainder of their lives, is a rare blow for substantive justice.



Read in source website

Pakistan’s demand for a joint probe is unwarranted, but India must get to the truth

The accidental firing of a missile by India into Pakistan could have led to serious, unintended escalation of tensions between the two nuclear-armed countries, but, fortunately, that did not happen. The Government of India has said the incident, on March 9, happened in the course of routine maintenance, due to a technical malfunction. India has ordered a high-level Court of Inquiry. The Chargé d’affaires of the Indian High Commission in Islamabad was called twice by Pakistan to convey its concerns. Pakistan has alleged that the incident “indicates many loopholes and technical lapses of a serious nature in Indian handling of strategic weapons”. Islamabad, which termed the inquiry as ordered by India as insufficient, has demanded a joint probe. It has also sought the involvement of the international community to promote “strategic stability in the region”. As it moved closer to India in recent years, the U.S. has suspended its fixation with the conflict between the two neighbours, but the fear of nuclear escalation in the region is very deep in Washington’s strategic thinking. India’s global image of being a responsible nuclear power has been built over decades of restrained words and thoughtful action. The security of its nuclear command and technical capabilities has never been in doubt. This incident frays that reputation and measures must be taken to restore the confidence of the international community in India.

There has been no official word from India on which missile was involved, which Pakistan has said landed 124 km inside its territory. The description by Pakistan — that the missile was travelling at three times the speed of sound, at 40,000 feet, and is a surface-to-surface missile — has led to speculation that the accident involves the BrahMos supersonic cruise missile which is now in the inventory of India’s three Services. India became a member of the Missile Technology Control Regime in 2016, an acceptance by major powers of India’s status as a reliable defence partner that is capable of handling its strengths and contributing to global security. India is developing more missile systems, including a hypersonic variant. The handling and the launch of any such missiles are highly regulated with checks and balances to avoid accidents. This accident also has echoes of another incident in February 2019. A day after the Balakot air strike, as fighter jets of India and Pakistan were engaged in a dogfight near the LoC, an Mi-17V5 crashed in Budgam shortly after take-off from Srinagar killing its personnel onboard and a civilian on the ground. The Court of Inquiry confirmed that it was shot by an Israeli-origin Spyder surface-to-air missile system of the IAF. India must leave no scope for any doubts about its capacity to handle nuclear and other military assets. That objective can be achieved without a joint probe with Pakistan or any international involvement, but the objective must be achieved nevertheless.



Read in source website

Considering that land monetisation is a complex process, entrusting this work to a separate agency is the right way to go about it.

Last week, the Union cabinet approved the creation of a National Land Monetisation Corporation to monetise the surplus land holdings of Central Public Sector Enterprises (CPSEs) and other government agencies. Considering that various arms of the state have considerable land holdings across the country, monetisation of their “surplus, unused and under-used non-core assets in the nature of land and buildings” is a prudent strategy as it will lead to more efficient utilisation of these “under-utilised” assets.

The rationale for creating a land monetisation corporation is multifold. First, a detailed and comprehensive inventory of the state’s land holding will not only help it identify the surplus land, and push for monetising it, but will also help create a database for potential investors. After all, properly marked land parcels with geographical identifiers, with their boundaries clearly demarcated, and with the legality of title well established, will provide greater clarity and certainty to private investors. Second, public sector entities hold vast tracts of land that are either unused and underused land. As per reports, the total vacant land available with Railways is estimated at around 1.25 lakh acres. Similarly, the defence ministry also has considerable land holdings outside of the cantonment boundaries. Thus, collating them under a single entity will lead to a more efficient monetisation drive, and better utilisation of these assets. Third, proceeds from the monetisation of these assets will help generate additional resources, boosting government coffers. After all, land in and around prime areas can possibly generate substantial returns. Fourth, auctioning off surplus land will increase the supply of land, which may address the issue of the “artificial” scarcity of land that exists in certain areas. This could depress prices and thus have a moderating effect on costs of projects.

Considering that land monetisation is a complex process, entrusting this work to a separate agency is the right way to go about it. As the government itself has acknowledged, it requires “specialised skills and expertise” in areas such as “market research, legal due diligence, valuation, master planning, investment banking and land management.” A separate entity, housed with professionals with specialised skills is better suited for this task. However, the entity will have to grapple with several issues. First, the estimation of surplus land may be a contentious issue. Ministries, departments, and public sector entities may be reluctant to demarcate land parcels as “surplus”. Second, the corporation will have to grapple with issues such as the absence of clear titles, ongoing litigation, and muted investor interest. Third, there is also the issue of the encroachment of government land to contend with. But while this monetisation drive should lead to more efficient outcomes, it does raise questions over the management of commons, and whether public purpose can be better looked after by more effective management of public land by the state.



Read in source website

The UP government should, as a starting point, allow slaughter of male cattle. These are the ones causing real havoc, both in fields and in streets.

Stray cattle may not have decisively impacted the outcome of the recent Uttar Pradesh assembly elections. But it’s a problem that will not go away, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi has himself acknowledged. UP has an estimated 19 million-plus cattle (i.e. the cow and its progeny) population. Farmers rarely keep cows beyond 5-6 calvings, by which time they are 7-8 years old and their milk yields cannot cover feeding costs. As regards male cattle, they have no utility in today’s world — where tractors, harvester combines/threshers, electric tubewells/diesel engines and artificial insemination have replaced bullock-drawn ploughs, treadmills, Persian wheels and breeding bulls. Nor does rearing cattle exclusively for manure or cooking fuel make economic sense when it is cheaper and less messy to use chemical fertilisers and LPG cylinders: Will the Ujjwala scheme’s beneficiaries want to go back to dung cakes?

Even taking an average productive life of 7-8 years for both female and male cattle, it means about 15 per cent of animals being rendered redundant annually. For UP’s 19 million cattle, it translates into some 2.9 million surplus animals — which farmers are letting loose every year and, perhaps, replacing with an equivalent number of fresh productive stock. Such regular herd turnover is what makes dairy farming viable; no rational farmer will maintain animals for their full lifespan of 14-15 years. The 2.9 million surplus cattle not dying, whether naturally or otherwise, are the chutta janwar (stray cattle) devouring the standing crop of the same farmers who have discarded them. Worse, their numbers are multiplying with every passing year. This is unsustainable, be it from an agricultural or even political standpoint.

What’s the solution? Allocating more funds for cattle shelters or procuring dung from farmers — as the Chhattisgarh government is doing and Modi is proposing for UP — cannot be answers. Scarce public money is better spent on building schools and hospitals than gaushalas. The UP government should, as a starting point, allow slaughter of male cattle. These are the ones causing real havoc, both in fields and in streets. It is not feasible to house them in gaushalas; they are violent and require more fodder and feed than cows. At a second stage, slaughter of crossbred cows can be permitted. Given that these animals have 50 per cent or more genes from Holstein Friesian, Jersey and other foreign breeds, they may not be deserving of the “holy” status reserved for indigenous desi cows! The advantage of this approach is that it ensures viability of dairy farming — crossbreds lactate earlier and yield more milk than desi cows and buffaloes. And no ruling party is better placed to take the bull by its horns than the BJP.



Read in source website

The chief of the army staff General V K Krishna Rao is believed to have postponed indefinitely his visit to France in view of the next visit by Soviet Defence Minister Marshall Dmitri Ustinov who is arriving in Delhi on March 15.

The chief of the army staff General V K Krishna Rao is believed to have postponed indefinitely his visit to France in view of the next visit by Soviet Defence Minister Marshall Dmitri Ustinov who is arriving in Delhi on March 15. Chief of the Air Staff Air Marshall Dilbagh Singh is cutting short his current visit to Britain by a couple of days to be available in time for the Soviet Defence Minister’s visit. General Rao will meet Dmitri Ustinov on the evening of March 15. Ustinov is not only the head of the massive Soviet defence machinery, he is also one of the most senior party leaders and a member of the politburo, who despite his 70 years is considered among the potential successors of President Brezhnev.

After Indira

Prime Minister Indira Gandhi has hinted that the “interference and pressure” from “outside” could complicate the process of succession after her. To a question, “What after Indira,” Mrs Gandhi replied that “our people are very sound of heart and mind and I have no doubt that things will continue to be managed but the only difficulty will be when there is interference from outside”. She recalled how Lal Bahadur Shastri took over after the demise of her father falsifying prophets of doom.

AIIMS Surgeons Quit

Two top heart surgeons have resigned from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences because of what they feel is a baseless and malicious attack on them by politicians. N Gopinath and Venugopal said that neither the institute nor the government defended them against the attack by Lok Dal MP, Ram Vilas Paswan who said that the AIIMS’ cardiothoracic department was headed by people who are either blind or epileptic. He said that the poor got a raw deal from the department.



Read in source website

Whatever the outcome of the Ukraine conflict, it heralds a transformation of the current world order

The Russian offensive on Ukraine on the night of February 23-34 shocked the world. It was unexpected, surprising and avoidable. Vladimir Putin’s decision to go on the offensive, whatever the rationale, has only one end — a regime change. The longer the war lasts, the greater the number of casualties and the more severe the world’s response towards Russia. This situation could have been circumvented by a more rational approach towards Russia’s security concerns. A one-liner from the US, saying that NATO’s expansion will address Russian security interests will provide the impetus to end the current conflict.

>

The clouds of war were gathering for over a month, as there was concern over the buildup of Russian military forces close to the borders with Ukraine, followed up by military exercises with Belarus. The trigger for the conflict has been the rise of anti-Russia/Putin and pro-Europe lobby in Ukraine, led by President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and with the tacit support of the US and the West.

The situation became deeply polarised after battle lines were drawn in 2015, with Ukraine’s breakaway Donbas region seeking a merger with Russia, after Crimea’s unification with the latter. In addition, the condescending attitude of the US and Europe towards Russian interests was — and continues to be — a major irritant and that negatively impacts Russia and Putin’s self-respect. Russia has, over the years, quite correctly questioned the relevance of NATO — a grouping of the Cold War era — and its expansion eastwards. For instance, NATO included the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) countries of Georgia and Ukraine, earlier part of the Soviet Union, in its “Partnership for Peace” programme, despite Russian objections.

All this brings to the fore the biggest unanswered question: Why is the US doggedly pursuing Cold War-era strategies against Russia, when the demon on the block is China? Whatever the outcome of this East-West conflict, it heralds a transformation of the current world order. Geopolitics will never be the same, especially with Germany and Japan announcing militarisation initiatives, polarisation in Europe and the strengthening of the anti-US nexus of China- Russia-Turkey-Iran.

It is too early to draw lessons but a matter of concern is that once again, the attention of the US and the West has been diverted from China, the main adversary, to a war that should not have taken place. China has been learning lessons from the US’s functioning and handling of global challenges, to put it simplistically, to see “what it takes to be a leading world power”. This is apparent from China’s changing focus towards modernisation and force structuring since 2004, outcomes of the lessons learnt from the US-supported conflicts in both the Gulf Wars, and invasions and conflicts in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and the “colour revolutions” of the 1990s. This is reflected in the White Papers issued periodically by China enunciating its military strategy. So, there has been a transition from “winning local wars in conditions of modern technology, particularly high technology” in 1993 to “winning local wars under conditions of informationisation” in 2004 and currently, calls for “winning informationised local wars” since 2015.

China is now once again witness to the inaction and vulnerabilities of the US and developed world in the face of adversity. In the current conflict, the ineptitude of the US/NATO to support Ukraine with “boots on the ground” is bound to embolden China in its nefarious design to annex Taiwan. This could also lead to increased hostility by China in the resolution of land disputes with the neighbouring countries, as well as in the South and East China seas. Though the nuclear alert issued by Russia seems to be overkill, it highlights the danger of the indiscriminate use of nuclear resources by autocratic leadership. It needs to be noted with concern that the US, despite repeated efforts, has been unable to get China to come aboard nuclear arms limitation agreements.

There are, therefore, more urgent priorities for world peace than the proverbial “rubbing Russia’s nose in the dust” such as mutually-accepted principles for the exploitation of niche and emerging technologies, militarisation of space, and the robustness of the current international institutions.

Another issue of concern is racial double standards and prejudice. There is a simmering feeling of “White supremacy” — whether in the remarks of journalists in the Western media or implied in the statements of leading political figures from Europe. Maybe the harassment of Indian students fleeing Ukraine is a reflection of this malaise.

For India, the greatest lesson is that it will have to meet the Chinese challenge on its own. There is no likelihood of the US or any other nation getting involved in India’s fight with China. Let us focus on atmanirbharta in all its dimensions.

This column first appeared in the print edition on March 14, 2022 under the title ‘An Avoidable Battle’. The writer is a former Indian Army Commander and former Indian military diplomat in Moscow



Read in source website

Increasing wheat exports will not only reduce its food subsidy bill, but also compensate for the higher costs of imports of crude oil

Some terrible things are happening globally, but there are some exciting occurrences at home. Let me first start with the global situation.

The news from the Russia-Ukraine war continues to be very disturbing. Yet, there seems to be a ray of hope with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy saying that he will not insist on NATO membership. This was one of the key provocations for Russia, which led to the invasion of Ukraine.

Right now, the US and its western allies may not be ready for a quick compromise on the matter. They would like to “punish” Russia through the strictest sanctions, with the hope that President Vladimir Putin bows out and the country is weakened to the extent that it never raises its head again. But China has openly indicated that it will stand firmly with Russia, and bail it out of the embargo. If China and Russia join hands, it may not be good news for either NATO or India. With Indian students now evacuated from Ukraine, Prime Minister Narendra Modi can take a lead, perhaps with other neutral powers, to find an amicable solution to the conflict, which is otherwise likely to be even more devastating than it has been so far.

The ripple effects of the war are already being felt across the world with energy and gas prices surging. Wheat prices are also skyrocketing. As on March 7, wheat prices in exporting countries like the US shot up to $525/tonne, up from $275-280/tonne on January 3. Other wheat exporting countries have also followed suit, with Australian wheat export prices touching $395/tonne, Argentina at $425/tonne, the EU at $460/tonne, and Canada at $478/tonne. Russia and Ukraine together normally export about 50-55 million metric tonnes (mmt) in a total global market of about 200 mmt. With their supply lines terribly disrupted, there is an opportunity for India to fill this gap. This wheat window is likely to be there at least for the next 3-4 months.

India has large stocks of wheat with the Food Corporation of India (FCI). The buffer stock norm for wheat on April 1 is 7.46 mmt while the actual stocks are 23.4 mmt in March. India can easily go for about 15 mmt of exports of wheat. This will not only reduce its food subsidy bill, but also compensate for the higher costs of imports of crude oil. India needs to scale down its target of procuring wheat in the coming marketing season from 44 mmt to, say, just 30-35mmt, and let the private sector buy wheat at competitive prices. The domestic market prices are likely to be higher than minimum support prices (MSP), provided we keep wheat exports going at a fast pace.

In this context, the news from the domestic front is more exciting. With the BJP winning four of the five states that went in for assembly elections, it has a shot in the arm for the 2024 general elections. The Indian voter needs to be complimented for giving a clear victory to the BJP in Uttar Pradesh and the AAP in Punjab. In UP, it is clear that neither the farm protests (largely driven by large farmers of western UP and Punjab) nor the saga over Covid deaths or joblessness made a significant dent in the BJP’s fortunes. But in the process, the Congress, which was at the forefront of farm protests — remember Rahul Gandhi and Amarinder Singh riding a tractor driven by Sunil Jakhar in support of farm protests — is almost decimated in UP and Punjab. In Punjab, even the Akalis who thought that they were the champions of farmers, and the newly floated party by protesting farmers, had to bite the dust.

The AAP in Punjab has made big promises to voters. They range from jobs for all to free power to Rs 1,000 for each woman, and on top of all this, a corruption-free state. These are lofty ideals and ambitions but let them assume power and see the crumbling finances of the state, and chalk out a strategy as to how they will fulfil the promises. Voters will be looking forward to the implementation of these promises. If the AAP can control corruption and make Punjab’s agriculture more prosperous and environmentally sustainable, it can hope to emerge as a national party, replacing the Congress as the main opposition to the BJP in 2024.

But let me come back to the wheat window. This is an opportune time for the Centre and key wheat-growing states to chalk out a reformist action plan. UP is the largest producer of wheat and should have the biggest say. Punjab and Madhya Pradesh are the largest contributors to the central pool. Haryana, Bihar, Rajasthan and Gujarat are others. There is a need to bring symmetry in procurement costs. The FCI should put a ceiling on procurement expenses (including arhatiya commissions/fees) to be no more than 3 per cent of the MSP in all states.

Right now, Punjab imposes an 8.5 per cent mandi fee/cess/ arhatiya commission while in most other states, it hovers around 3-4 per cent. Yogi Adityanath in UP should take the lead in streamlining the value chains of wheat, rice, sugar, and milk by inviting private sector companies to build export lines, storage silos with grading, packaging and processing facilities. Yogi can unleash a revolution in UP agriculture by making it more competitive and opening global markets to UP farmers.

Also, in wheat-growing states, they should give the PDS beneficiaries an option to get grain or cash in lieu of grains that is equal to MSP of wheat plus 20 per cent. That would still save the Centre resources by plugging leakages in PDS, help diversify agriculture to high-value crops, and give a better deal to farmers as well as consumers.

This column first appeared in the print edition on March 14, 2022 under the title ‘From Ukraine to UP’. Gulati is Infosys Chair Professor for Agriculture at ICRIER



Read in source website

Its hopes of democracy, socialism were belied

The motto of the Ukrainian city of Lviv used to be “Always True”, or, in Latin, “Semper Fidelis”. The city’s Latin name was Leopolis, the Lion City. Nearly 4,000 years before it acquired that name, the city distinguished itself by its peoples’ skill in taming horses and harnessing them for combat and drawing wagons. They had developed agriculture some seven millennia before the present time, with human inhabitation of the region going back 34 millennia. Normally, cities emerge by the banks of rivers. Lviv, too, grew on the banks of the river Poltva. But during the early 20th century, the city’s growing prosperity led to a higher population density, which made the rulers cover the river and build over it. Today, those who walk the streets of central Lviv hardly realise that they are walking on the river Poltva.

Five years ago, I went to Lviv for the annual PEN conference. The title of the conference was “Reclaiming Truths in Times of Propaganda”. Over 200 writers from 60 countries had gathered in Lviv to discuss the tyranny of post-truth, fake news, hate speech and state surveillance of citizens. Among them were such luminaries as Madeleine Thien, Paul Auster, Philippe Sands, Yaroslav Hrytsak and Andrei Kurkov. The discussions focussed on the US, China and Russia, and how these powers have contributed to the decline of free speech. Coming from India, I found many aspects of the discussion quite familiar. The joint declaration of the writers stated, “Over the course of the last century there have been moments in history when free expression has been threatened through increased censorship and propagandist agendas. We, PEN’s global community of writers, readers, publishers and activists, have witnessed and stood against these repeated and blatant attempts to erode this fundamental human right for close to a hundred years. Today, we are at such a moment once more.” Philippe Sands said in his keynote lecture, “No place knows more about the rights of individuals and groups than the city of Lviv.” I should add that the underground channel of the Poltva had provided an escape route for thousands of Jews during the Second World War. Prior to the Holocaust, there were about 1,60,000 Jews in the region, just about 2,000 of whom survived. Sands said, “Today once more… a poison of xenophobia and nationalism is coursing its way through the veins of Europe.”

After first the Soviet, then the German occupation of Lviv during the Second World War, it became part of the USSR in 1945. After Perestroika, it became part of independent Ukraine and with that change, its pre-war logo “Always True” was replaced by “Open to the world”. Through its long, chequered history, western Ukraine has always harboured dreams of self-determination. The dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 brought that sentiment back into a central role in Ukraine’s politics and culture. However, the conflicting pressures of Europe and Russia were too overwhelming to give it that space. Ukraine’s tilt towards the European Union took place in 2016, a year before the PEN Conference in Lviv. The iconic Ukrainian poet Natalka Bilotserkivets caught the existential anxiety of her people when she wrote: And what can grow from scattered ears of wheat?/ It’s been our fate to see the field denuded/ But someone, all the same, will see the harvest / And the striding foeman’s scythe pass through it/ And they will flail it on the threshing-floor/ And upon the embroidered cloth, the bread/ Will lie before us like a severed head.

The discussions in the writers’ conference were gripping. However, the most disquieting question was one that a young girl asked me outside the event. She was part of the team handling the recordings and interviews of writers for the local radio. When my interview with them was over, I invited the team to have coffee with me. We sat down and talked about the destinies of nations. The young people were keen to know how India was coping with “fake news”. They appeared well-informed and had heard of the murders of intellectuals in western India. When I asked them how Ukraine was coping with the pressure of the superpowers, they gave me a detailed account of Ukraine’s past and its long-standing dream of self-determination. A girl, whose grandparents had lost their lives because they were Jews and whose parents had lost jobs because of their non-aligned views, asked, “Tell me, what is our crime?” I had no ready answer to her question then. Now, sadly, I know better.

The crime is not knowing that Russia no longer cares for socialism and the US no longer cares for democracy. Ukraine is economically the poorest of the European nations, but that doesn’t concern Putin. The nation has just recently turned to democracy, but that is of no concern to Biden. Ukraine’s crime is not knowing that the guardian international institutions have long been defunct and are nothing more than their logos.

The recent discussions in the UNSC on the Ukraine question were so mired in the geopolitical interests of its members that the non-member countries seemed no more than the crumpled paper on which maps are printed. Ukraine’s crime is not knowing that the global media is interested in wars merely as a spectacle and not as a humanitarian crisis. And the Ukrainians’ most serious crime is not knowing that despite the death and destruction they have faced, people in many other countries will continue to sing the glories of myopic nationalism and vote for fascist governments. Didn’t many in our country ask voters to forget individual dignity and economic wants and vote for religious hatred and perceived national pride?

This column first appeared in the print edition on March 14, 2022 under the title ‘A Severed Head in Europe’. The writer is a cultural activist



Read in source website

It wants new ideas and a government with the right intent to keep the country firmly on the path of growth and development

March 10 proved to be a monumental day in the BJP’s journey as a party committed to ushering in a New India where the politics of development overrides the politics of differences of religion, caste and class. The BJP retained power in four states — Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Goa and Manipur. All the victories bear testimony to the fact that people, especially women, have unwavering faith in the leadership and vision of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

In political contests, it is legitimate for the opposition to fight the incumbent. It is the demand of a healthy, strong, vibrant democracy. But the nature of the fight also defines the health of the opposition. In fighting the BJP, the Congress adopted a campaign of half-truths and complete lies. Whether it was politicising the concerns of some farmers over the farm laws or compromising the security of a border state, or playing politics over unfortunate rapes in Uttar Pradesh, the Congress stopped short at nothing. In doing so, however, the party lost all its leftover ideological and moral standing in the eyes of the voters. The fact that today the Congress is celebrating that the Aam Aadmi Party, and not the BJP, won Punjab after receiving probably its worst political drubbing, says something about the state of the Congress.

The Congress’ malicious campaign against the BJP stands completely rejected by the final voice in any functioning democracy—the voice of the people. That said, it is important to understand the verdict because some are still trying to downplay the BJP’s win calling it a result of polarisation.

In Uttar Pradesh, the BJP has won a vote share of nearly 41.6 per cent gaining over the 39.67 per cent it received in 2017, emerging as the first party since 1985 to come to power in two consecutive elections. The rise in vote share shows that this is a pro-incumbency vote for the BJP in India’s most populous state. The AAP in Punjab has won about 42 per cent vote share in an election where people overwhelmingly wanted to throw out the Congress. Yet, the BJP is being given far less credit for its feat. The mandate for the BJP in UP shows that 2014 was no fluke. The state has in the 2017 assembly elections, 2019 Lok Sabha polls and again 2022 state elections unequivocally declared that it wants BJP’s double-engine governance.

Manipur, after the Northeastern state of Assam, has given a pro-incumbency mandate in favour of the BJP. No blockades, bombs and curfews in the state since 2017, showed the people that the BJP was there to keep its promises. Five years of peace and development left no doubts in the minds of the voters of Manipur when they reached the polling booths.

In Goa, the BJP is set to form its government for the third consecutive time. In Uttarakhand, the BJP has broken the jinx of an incumbent never being able to return to power with a clear majority.

There is no doubt that in Punjab, the BJP needs more time and more effort to build itself up.

The message for political parties from the people is clear: New India has no time to waste on the politics of dynasty, caste, religion and opportunistic alliances. New India wants new ideas and a government with the right intent to keep the country firmly on the path of growth and development. When Modi assumed charge as prime minister in 2014, he spelt out the larger agenda of the government, which promised pro-poor policies.

About eight years down the line, beneficiaries of government schemes in every nook and corner of India are speaking up. Even as some sections try to mute their voices, the beneficiaries are speaking through their ballot. TV cameras on the ground this election season reported how people thanked the government for free ration, pucca houses, money received in their accounts under the PM Kisan Samman Nidhi Yojana, social reforms and not compromising on its ideological moorings of cultural nationalism. The BJP, as PM Modi stated, is working towards 100 per cent saturation of all welfare schemes unleashing the full potential of Digital India.

In the 75th year of independence, PM Modi has set the nation on a path to reinvent itself.

The “Amrit Kaal” that he talked about is not a promise set far in the future. It is a work in progress, the benefits of which have started rolling out giving the poor and marginalised a quality and dignity of life that other parties served only as poll-talk tokenism.

The Indian electorate believes that this Amrit Kaal is a reality, which India under PM Modi and the BJP is well on course to achieve. The electorate believes in the honesty of BJP’s efforts and it shows in the results.

This column first appeared in the print edition on March 14, 2022 under the title ‘A Pro-Incumbency Mandate’. The writer is Union Cabinet Minister for Environment, Forest and Climate Change; and Labour and Employment. He is also the author of The Rise of The BJP



Read in source website

The state offers benefits to citizens as acts of benevolence to bargain with them in the realm of competitive electoral politics

The BJP’s remarkable success in the recent assembly elections, especially in UP, is being explained in two very different ways. There is an enthusiastic response to it. A section of commentators argues that BJP’s managerial skills helped it to reach out to the most marginalised sections of society. As a result, the party was able to consolidate its winning configuration. In contrast is the pessimistic argument that views BJP’s electoral popularity — especially that arising out of the party’s strategic use of welfare schemes — as a false consciousness of sorts, one that would further strengthen political authoritarianism.

These explanations are more or less election-centric. They rely heavily on a direct and uncomplicated correlation between social expectations and electoral behaviour. There is a strong assumption that if the social crisis is not managed, it will naturally lead to a vote for change or what is popularly known as anti-incumbency. This rather restricted view of electoral politics is problematic as it does not explain the changing terms of political discourse and the emerging nature of the Indian state. That’s why there is a serious need to unpack the contemporary meanings of welfarism and empowerment. More specifically, we should critically examine the template called welfare state — a residue of the post-Second World War political thinking.

The notion of welfarism has changed quite significantly in the last three decades. The liberalisation of the Indian economy in the early 1990s was a watershed moment in this regard. The Narasimha Rao regime created an impression that the open market framework would eventually facilitate an independent and self-regulating economic sphere. The task of the state, in this schema, was only to resolve societal conflicts. This new imagination was uncritically accepted by all political parties including the CPI, CPM and BJP. The state began to define itself as a neutral agency to mediate between competing social groups and communities while maintaining a distance from the economic sphere. In the backdrop of this important political change, a sectoral approach to the idea of welfare evolved gradually. Social groups — women, children, Dalits, Adivasis, unorganised labour, minorities/Muslims and so on — were addressed as fragments to design independent policies. A new discourse of inclusion/exclusion characterised welfarism as empowerment.

The Modi regime has given a radical direction to this imagination. Without deviating from the political consensus on liberalisation and open market, the Modi government has made it clear that providing jobs is not a responsibility of the state. Instead, citizens are encouraged to become job creators. The official doctrine of New India is also based on the idea of responsive people and responsive citizens.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s recent interview with this paper is very relevant to elaborate this point. Explaining the BJP’s imagination of empowerment, Shah said: “There is a difference in the way we work: we have given gas connections, power connections and it’s up to them to pay their bills. We have made toilets for them but they have to maintain them…when you take populist measures, you promise to pay electricity bills, free gas etc. What we did was to provide help to upgrade their lives — this is empowerment.” (IE, March 1)

The popular reception of this changing official attitude on welfarism is equally interesting. CSDS-Lokniti’s various studies show that unemployment, economic distress, poverty, price rise/inflation are always seen as major socio-economic concerns. However, these issues do not always get translated into a vote for change. It simply means that there is no correlation between economic hardship and voting behaviour.

The voters, it seems, have accepted the fact that empowerment means one-time benefits on a case-to-case basis. Although the desire for a permanent government job has not yet completely gone, the people at the grassroots level are equally enthusiastic for benefits provided by the governments and political parties. In fact, there is an acknowledgement that the state is not responsible for social crises and the government should not be blamed for unemployment and poverty, and even the mismanagement of health infrastructure during the pandemic.

This form of welfarism takes us to what I describe as the charitable state: A state, which does not envisage welfarism as its fundamental political duty; instead, it offers benefits to citizens as acts of benevolence and generosity to bargain with them in the realm of competitive electoral politics.

The BJP’s electoral campaign in UP revolved around this model of charitable state (though a very different version of it can also be found in AAP’s electoral strategy in Punjab). The party focused on two crucial aspects: the reconfiguration of narrative and effective mobilisation of voters.

The BJP’s sankalp patra addresses the voters as possible beneficiaries (labharthi) without deviating from its Hindutva agenda. A package of carefully designed economic benefits and infrastructure development is offered simply to make a clear bargain with the voters. At the same time, the given identity templates — Dalit, backward, minority — are completely ignored to legitimise the official categories such as SC/ST/OBC. This careful reconfiguration helped the party to make skilful adjustments with voter groups at the constituency level.

The BJP’s electoral machinery is also redesigned to support the charitable state model. A three-tier system of mobilisation is created. The promises made in the sankalp patra are publicised in a highly professional manner to attract voters through media campaigns. This is complemented by the explanation given by the leaders in their speeches. Finally, the local level workers, the voter-mobilisers, translated these promises in a language of everyday interactions. This coordinated effort created a silent, yet impactful, narrative of BJP’s charity in which Hindutva always remains a subtext.

The opposition parties, it seems, have not yet fully understood the fact that the BJP’s success is inextricably linked to the charitable state model. The politics of Hindutva cannot be described simply as a project of upper caste/class Hindus supported by big corporate houses. It has invented a new class politics—a passive revolution of sorts.

This column first appeared in the print edition on March 14, 2022 under the title ‘The New Charitable State’. The writer is associate professor at CSDA and has recently published an edited volume with Peter R deSouza and M Sanjeer Alam Companion to Indian Democracy: Resilience, Fragility, Ambivalence



Read in source website

The Congress Working Committee meeting produced no surprises and followed a familiar script. Interim president Sonia Gandhi said her family was willing to make any sacrifice for the party but this was rejected. Some members, notably the G-23, voiced some critical opinions but their numbers were too small to matter. The big outcome of the meeting was Congress’s plan to conduct a “Chintan Shivir” in April. The last time this was held was way back in 2013 in Jaipur when the party was in office. In the interim, Congress has suffered innumerable setbacks and the leadership has been faulted for moving at a leisurely pace to institute course correction.

Despite the scale of the setback it is noteworthy that none of the voices for leadership change are coming from within Congress. Even those who have expressed concern over the defeats have held out vague promises to revive the party but none have been bold enough to demand that the family that controls the party must go or loosen its control. While Sonia Gandhi has been empowered to institute organisational changes, the lack of urgency in conducting the elections for the Congress president’s post is quite noticeable.

It seems to signal that Rahul Gandhi is not yet keen to retake formal control of the party yet. Elections to Gujarat and HP are coming up this year besides five other big states in 2023. Congress has high stakes in all of them. In contrast to the lack of a strong central command structure in Congress, parties like BJP and AAP are benefiting from energetic leadership that keeps showing immense political hunger for growing into new areas and embracing new social constituencies. It looks increasingly unlikely that Congress can throw up any surprises on the road to 2024.



Read in source website

The accidental launch of an IAF BrahMos supersonic cruise missile that landed 124 km inside Pakistan is one of those accidents everyone wants never to happen, especially in the context of nuclear-armed neighbours. The missile was inadvertently launched during a training and maintenance exercise near an air force base. That the missile wasn’t tipped with a warhead and that there was no loss of lives are what saved the situation. But, bear in mind that there is no way Pakistani authorities could have known that the missile was unarmed. Had their air defence systems picked up the BrahMos, they could have easily judged it as a hostile attack and retaliated. Plus, the reaction time in the event of missile launches between the two neighbours is only a matter of minutes. This makes conflict escalation a real danger.

What is baffling here is that the accident happened with much-tested BrahMos, which has been in service for many years now. And the missile launch system comes with multiple mechanical and electronic locks. Therefore, either these locks were accidentally bypassed by operators during the training exercise or there was a serious technical malfunction. Both are extremely worrying.

If human error is to blame, then the operational, command and control procedures must be reviewed. On the other hand, a technical glitch of this nature will cast doubts over the weapon system itself, especially at a time when India is looking to export BrahMos to countries like the Philippines. True, a court of inquiry has been ordered to determine the chain of events that led to the mishap. But responsibility needs to be fixed and heads must roll if required. The seriousness of this incident demands that IAF inquiry pulls no punches.

The other point to note is that despite their history of hostility, India and Pakistan do not have robust risk-reduction protocols or mechanisms to deal with such mishaps. This is something that New Delhi and Islamabad must look into now. Misunderstandings have happened elsewhere. In 1983, during the height of the Cold War, the nuclear early warning radar of the Soviet Union reported the launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles from the US. Luckily, World War III was prevented because Soviet officer Stanislav Petrov rightly judged the warning to be false due to malfunctioning detection systems. Thus, it is high time India and Pakistan work out protocols that can prevent hostile responses to any kind of accident or false alarm.



Read in source website

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s strong pitch for police reforms during his Gujarat tour is workable only if state governments join his call for change. Policing is a state subject, limiting the Centre’s ability to force reforms. In a telling remark, Modi said: “Even now, the perception about police is that one should stay away from them.” The incentive for reform is missing because state governments often rely on police to do extracurricular jobs, including setting the course of politically sensitive cases.

Political control is primarily achieved through dictating postings and transfers, which put extraneous pressures on officers. The Supreme Court’s 2006 guidelines for police reform in the Prakash Singh judgment are gathering cobwebs. There’s been no credible attempt to implement them. But there are now political costs in failing popular expectations on law and order. RJD in Bihar and SP in UP remain scarred by perceptions of greater lawlessness during their stints in office. Yogi Adityanath’s free hand to police to act against lawbreakers without being hampered by local party bigwigs, despite some allegations, worked electorally in his favour.

Besides not meeting bare minimum yardsticks like functional autonomy for cops, netas are also depriving policing of qualitative improvements. Sexual offences, which need better forensics and sensitive handling of witnesses, have abysmally low conviction rates. Women suffer as a result. Rising cybercrimes demand that police must simultaneously upgrade both tech and physical interface to ease reporting of these crimes. The Status of Policing in India Report 2019 reveals that 44% cops work over 12 hours a day; one in two don’t get a weekly off day. Meanwhile, around 5.3 lakh sanctioned posts (20%) lie vacant nationally. Such tough working conditions aren’t amenable to fostering a humane or well-trained police force. Unless politics changes, policing may not get the kind of reforms the PM spoke of.



Read in source website

As India inoculates more of its population, it must not forget large sections of the global population who are yet to receive their first or second shot. It must resume its grants and step up the export of vaccines to developing countries.

The government's decision to expand the Covid-19 vaccination programme to include the 12-to-14-year-old age group and opening up the booster - or 'precautionary' - dose for all senior citizens, and not just with comorbidity, comes not a day sooner. Expanding the size of India's inoculated population will help keep hospitalisation and severity of disease in check. In this context, the expert committee and regulator must seriously consider the issue of boosters for the below-60 population as well.

The 12-to-14-year-old cohort in India is 80-85 million in size. The Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI) has authorised three vaccines - ZyCov-D, Covaxin and Corbevax - for use. DCGI must require vaccine developers and manufacturers to provide and publish efficacy studies. This is important for expanding vaccination and ensuring global recognition for the vaccines. Vaccine equivalence is a major issue as travel for work, study and leisure resumes. Keeping this in mind, India must address the issue of boosters. In many countries, complete vaccination is defined by the primary two-dose plus the booster shot. If the expert group and DCGI have, through the basis of scientific assessments, determined that a booster is not required for the under-60, then these studies must be published widely in peer-reviewed journals. Oxford-AstraZeneca's vaccine (Covishield in India) was the mainstay of primary vaccination in Europe and Britain, while their regulators recommended an mRNA vaccine as the booster. In India, the booster is a repeat of the primary vaccine. Efficacy studies on boosters must be published. DCGI must address issues of equivalence and recognition with the World Health Organisation (WHO) and regulators like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

As India inoculates more of its population, it must not forget large sections of the global population who are yet to receive their first or second shot. It must resume its grants and step up the export of vaccines to developing countries.

<

Read in source website

The housing market can absorb orderly price escalation. But a sustained cost push through expensive energy could derail its recovery. The real estate industry will draw assurance from the role construction, with its enormous employment linkages, is expected to play in GoI's capex push.

Real estate companies are regaining their pricing power as the stock of unsold houses trends down and building costs, mainly steel and cement, keep climbing. The industry has been petitioning GoI to regulate prices, reduce taxes and allow easier imports of chief construction materials. Now, the leading developers have begun to pass the added costs on to buyers, in some cases by up to 10% of the price of a house, and they are not reporting any adverse effect on sales. The surge in oil prices, once GoI permits its pass-through to domestic fuel consumers, will add to the cost pressure in construction. Transporting materials constitutes almost a fifth of the expenses in building new apartments, which have already witnessed a 13% escalation in construction cost on account of steel and cement.

House prices in India have stayed fairly stable during the pandemic. This has been aided by low interest rates and an industry that has curbed the excesses of the previous real estate boom. The sector is on an upcycle with the pipeline of launches surpassing pre-pandemic levels. Incomes have been outpacing property prices for years, improving affordability. Construction nationwide contracted during the October-December quarter from the same period a year ago as the third wave played out, but is expected to post a smart recovery in 2021-22.

The housing market can absorb orderly price escalation. But a sustained cost push through expensive energy could derail its recovery. The real estate industry will draw assurance from the role construction, with its enormous employment linkages, is expected to play in GoI's capex push. The sector's appeal to reduce material cost pressures can be expected to find a sympathetic audience among policymakers.

<

Read in source website

The Russia-Ukraine war has given a new lease of life to an old question: Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, Russia? There are at least three common justifications for India’s continued support to Russia. This article critically examines these reasons.

The first argument is that a strong relationship with Russia is imperative for India’s strategic autonomy. According to this view, India picking Russia over the West when presented with a binary choice demonstrates India’s strategic autonomy. Without such demonstrations, it is feared that India will effectively become a pawn in the geopolitical chess games of the West.

This view calls into question the logic of pursuing strategic autonomy as the ultimate goal of Indian foreign policy. Strategic autonomy is ultimately determined by national power. As a fast growing large economy and the world’s second most human resource-rich country, India has sufficient weight and agency that deters others from treating it like a pawn.

It follows that gaining more strategic autonomy requires growing one’s national power rapidly. And achieving this goal needs partners that have convergent interests, economic and military heft, and non-antagonistic values. In the current geopolitical moment, that would mean the West, and not Russia. As Russia’s relations with China deepen, the India-Russia relationship will have even less bearing on India’s strategic autonomy. To side with Russia just for the sake of proving one’s independent credentials is the precise opposite of strategic autonomy.

The second reason relies on the erstwhile Union of Soviet Socialist Republic’s (USSR) — and later, Russia’s — support to India in the past. “The USSR helped India in the 1971 war while the US-backed Pakistan’’, or “Russia has been a reliable partner through thick and thin for India” are some archetypal arguments in support of this line of thinking. However, Russia’s reliability is exaggerated. The ultimate reliability test would be if a State has taken a self-harming action in India’s interest. For many, the USSR met this criterion in 1971 by deploying destroyers and submarines in the Bay of Bengal to ward off the US Task Force 74. What’s forgotten is that four months before the war, India and the USSR signed an Indo–Soviet Treaty of Peace, Friendship and Cooperation. India had effectively allied with the USSR. The USSR’s actions were at best in mutual interest.

This argument also suffers from cherry picking. In the 1962 War, the USSR remained cold to India’s concerns. In recent times, Russia has backed the Taliban in Afghanistan and collaborated with Pakistan and China, while the Indian government continued to support the legitimate Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Most importantly, Russia’s reliability is under serious question going ahead as it becomes a much weaker partner, heavily dependent on India’s foremost adversary — China.

The third reason is military dependency. We have been repeatedly reminded that in the last decade alone, Russia has accounted for nearly 62% of India’s total military imports. And hence, India has little choice but to stand with Russia. This argument seems persuasive. However, there are two under-appreciated angles to this dependence.

One, military supplies to India from Russia are highly likely to be hit regardless of India’s relationship with Russia. The unprecedented technology sanctions and the targeted economic sanctions make it difficult for Russia to develop new weapons going ahead. Even if Russia manages to circumvent these sanctions — as it will — its focus will shift to building its military might with its now scarce resources. Critical military exports will take a backseat in the short-term.

Two, the 62% dependence figure hides more than it reveals. It comprises both substitutable and non-substitutable elements. Some items, such as spares for the T-72 tanks are substitutable as there are other suppliers. Besides, a whole global arms equipment market exists, with multiple sellers and repairers. Russia should be seen as a chosen vendor and not a benefactor for such substitutable equipment.

On the other hand, there are some not so easily substitutable elements. The top of the line S-400 surface-to-air missile system, the planned lease of two nuclear-powered submarines, and the collaboration on the BrahMos cruise missiles are some examples. Besides the equipment, Russia has also been more open to technology transfers. Reversing India’s stance on such systems requires a significant change, not just in India’s calculations, but also in the attitude of the United States. The cooperation on nuclear-powered submarines under the AUKUS arrangement shows that the West is finally willing to share sensitive technologies with partners to counter China. It is thus in the West’s interest to apply this new technology alliance mindset to India. As more options become available, India will find it easier to reduce its dependence on Russia.

Of the three reasons, the military dependency argument cannot be set aside easily. However, it should not be used as a veto to constrain India’s options on key geopolitical questions. The world order is changing fast. Inertia and over-reliance on older models are no longer the best guides for the future.

Pranay Kotasthane is chairperson, high tech geopolitics programme, the Takshashila Institution The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

Since Independence, at both the central and the state level, India has had a troubled history of government censorship of critics and dissidents. While the record of the judiciary in protecting the freedom of speech and expression has been patchy, recent judgments by the Kerala high court (HC) have indicated an alarming regression in our courts’ willingness and ability to stand up to State censorship.

The cases relate to the MediaOne TV channel, which was recently banned by the central government under the Cable Television Networks Regulation Act, on the apparent grounds of “national security”. Needless to say, the banning of a TV channel is the most drastic act of censorship that the government can engage in, more drastic than warnings, fines, and even temporary suspensions. It amounts to a complete violation of the constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech — akin to not just banning a single book (for example), but an entire publishing company.

MediaOne challenged its ban before the Kerala HC. In particular, it argued that the reasons for its ban had not even been communicated to it (thus denying it the opportunity to respond, or to place its case before the government). In any event, MediaOne argued that the government ban was disproportionate and unreasonable, both under law and the Constitution. In response, the government — strikingly — did not attempt to provide substantive justifications for its action. It only invoked the term “national security”, and stated that not only had its decision been taken on the grounds of national security, but that also, it could not reveal those grounds, because to do so would in itself undermine national security. In this way, the government set up a perfectly Kafkaesque situation: It took away MediaOne’s constitutional rights, did not allow MediaOne to defend itself, and refused to explain its decision — all by reciting “national security” before the court.

Regrettably, instead of giving this short shrift, the HC enabled — and indeed, facilitated — this authoritarian behaviour through its rulings. First, a single-judge bench upheld the ban, in a judgment that mirrored the government in giving no reasons at all. The single judge only said that it had received some material from the government in a “sealed cover”, and on the basis of that material — which nobody else, not even MediaOne could see — it was convinced that a ban was indeed in the interest of national security.

When MediaOne appealed this decision to a two-judge bench of the HC, an even more curious decision was handed down. As before the single judge, evidence was submitted to the two-judge bench in a “sealed cover”, which nobody could see. Remarkably, in its judgment, the two-judge bench was forced to admit that “the nature, impact, gravity, and depth of the issue” was not, as a matter of fact, discernible from the files that the government had placed before it. One would think that if the government wants to ban a TV channel, the very least it should be called upon to do is to demonstrate that the nature, impact, gravity, and depth of the issue warrants it. But despite explicitly noting that the government had failed to do so, the two-judge bench upheld the banning order on the basis that there were “clear and significant indications” impacting public order (what these were, we will presumably never know).

These two judgments set a disturbing precedent. Effectively, the government can ban a TV channel on the basis of secret evidence, that is then secretly given to the court, and the ban can be judicially endorsed in a judgment that goes so far as to concede that the evidence is insufficient, but still sees nothing wrong with the ban. In all this, the TV channel itself is given no chance to defend itself, and the public is given no chance to know the basis upon which this censorship took place.

All this is rather reminiscent of a judicial body in mediaeval England called the Star Chamber, which used to persecute dissidents and critics of the King, on the basis of secret evidence and secret trials, and hand down arbitrary and unreasonable rulings. The Star Chamber has become a byword across the world for judiciaries that have turned into extended arms of the government, and in whose precincts transparency, accountability, and the rule of law are sacrificed on the altar of secrecy and the “reasons of State” — all at great cost to the individual citizen. An urgent course correction is needed if Indian courts are to avoid a similar fate.

Gautam Bhatia is a Delhi-based lawyer The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

When energy transition and climate action become pillars of the Budget speech, it sends a signal of the intent to drive growth and employment through sunrise sectors focused on sustainability. But how can we contribute to a better energy future?

Consider the energy journey from 2022 to 2047. India’s primary energy demand will more than double. Energy will be central to overall human development. Could a coal miner’s child born in India’s 75th year of Independence become a billionaire clean energy entrepreneur when we celebrate our centenary? For such opportunities to arise, India must move from energy deprivation to sustained energy access, from rural to urban energy services, from dirty to clean energy, and from energy dependence to energy influence and resilience in global markets. In short, we must have universally accessible, adequate, reliable, affordable, and secure energy that can drive inclusive development.

A citizen-centric energy future will need a shift in thinking, from a primarily supply-side focus on building infrastructure to creating the political demand for an Energy Vision 2047. Such a political demand will come from transitions along six pathways.

First, jobs. There will be no sustained political momentum behind the energy transition if the jobs benefits are not forefront. As the energy mix shifts increasingly to clean energy, a just transition out of coal mining and thermal power must be the near-term priority. However, over the next few decades, there will be far more jobs in clean energy, in absolute terms and per unit of energy. The latest research from Council on Energy, Environment and Water, Natural Resources Defense Council and the Skill Council for Green Jobs shows that India already has 111,400 workers in solar and wind. This workforce would rise to one million if India built 238 GW of solar and 101 GW of wind power by 2030. Other sources of new job creation will include electric mobility, sustainable cooling, and green hydrogen, among others. These new jobs could drive a new political economy of energy.

The second pathway will be bridging energy and finance. When private investment is cautious, public investment can temporarily fill the gap. Eventually, trillions of dollars of investment will be needed from domestic and international private sources. The here and now issue of the financial health of power distribution companies clouds investor sentiment. Therefore, simultaneously financial de-risking is needed for proven clean energy technologies. Blended public-private finance will be needed for research and development investments in horizon technologies, such as green hydrogen and carbon capture utilisation and storage.

Third, energy futures are likely to be more decentralised, digitalised, and decarbonised. Eighty per cent of the renewables workers in 2030 could be from rooftop solar. How can regulation support decentralisation of the energy system, including of supply chains to manufacture new energy products and deliver innovative energy services? As it has done with fintech, India will need to find a new convergence of digital tech and energy tech. By driving this convergence at the consumer end, India can also accelerate decarbonisation. Instead of only building huge clean energy assets, technology and market signals can change demand patterns favouring super-efficient appliances, sustainable urban mobility, and cleaner industrial fuels.

A fourth pathway will be institutional. Long-term energy transition will need near-term sectoral targets, whether in terms of capacity or energy use. But for policy certainty, there must be legislative backing to ensure that the energy system delivers better and cleaner services. India should consider an Energy (Resilience and Decarbonisation) Act to guide, monitor and review actions and revise targets across electricity, industrial and transport fuels.

Energy geopolitics will also change. From current worries about rising oil prices due to supply constraints, attention will shift to new energy sources and growing centres of demand. Internationally, India’s priority should be to participate in framing new rules of energy security for critical industrial fuels like green hydrogen. Domestically, we must kickstart a circular economy of critical minerals and materials, which can service the emergent clean energy and sustainable mobility sectors.

Finally, resilience for the energy system and participants. Today, technology risks and the resilience of renewable energy-based systems might be a preoccupation. Equally, there must be resilience against financial risks, both stranded fossil fuel infrastructure and payment risks for clean energy developers. Increasing digitisation needs resilience against cybersecurity risks. Eventually, resilience against climate risks for the end-user must become a lynchpin for India’s energy security.

In The Lion Tracker’s Guide to Life, one character says, “I don’t know where we are going but I know exactly how to get there!” From 75 to 100, India’s energy journey needs us to be bold, but not foolhardy. Fulfilling India’s energy vision for 2047 will need telescopic vision, microscopic attention to sectoral challenges, and a spider web to weave together technologies, finance, institutions with consumers at the centre. Policymakers retire; governments change. By knowing “how to get there”, energy stakeholders must pass the baton onwards from one milestone to another. A vision without a plan will remain just a dream.

Arunabha Ghosh is CEO, Council on Energy, Environment and Water

The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has once again reminded us that we live in an interdependent world. While the war has indeed sent shock waves across the world with fuel prices shooting through the roof, will it be an impetus for the West to embrace clean and renewable energy earlier than planned? It's difficult to say.

Historian and philosopher, Yuval Noah Harari, recently explained the cascading impacts of the war through an analogy of defence budgets.

In a TED Talks interview last week, he said: “I hope for all of humanity that this war stops immediately because if it doesn’t it’s not only the Ukrainians and Russians that will suffer. Everybody will suffer terribly. Because of the shock waves destabilising the entire world. We have been living in an amazing era of peace in the last few decades and it wasn’t some kind of hippie fantasy. You saw it in the budgets,” he said. Many disagree with Harari’s theory of living in an era of amazing peace because conflict had continued to impact millions of people in south and west Asia, and many parts of Africa.

“In EU [European Union], the average defence budget was around 3% of the government budget. That’s a historical miracle almost. For most of history, the budget of kings and emperors and sultans 50%, 60%, 80% goes to the army. In Europe, it's only 3%. Globally on an average, it's around 6%... within a few days Germany doubles its military budget in a day… this is a race to the bottom…when they double their budgets, other countries look and feel insecure about their budgets. So, they have to double them again and triple them,” Harari explained.

Along with the fear of more aggression globally now, another clear fallout of the war is a massive disruption in the energy sector. While Europe has been saying that it is in solidarity with Ukraine and has extended support through humanitarian aid and weapons, it is in a precarious position when it comes to its dependence on Russia for gas.

Russia currently supplies nearly 45% of Europe’s gas imports. The European Commission on March 8 proposed an outline of a plan to make Europe independent from Russian fossil fuels well before 2030, starting with gas.

“Europe has been facing increased energy prices for several months, but now uncertainty on supply is exacerbating the problem. REPowerEU will seek to diversify gas supplies, speed up the roll-out of renewable gases and replace gas in heating and power generation. This can reduce EU demand for Russian gas by two thirds before the end of the year.”

The Commission has proposed to develop a REPowerEU plan that will increase the resilience of the EU-wide energy system by diversifying gas supplies, via higher Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and pipeline imports from non-Russian suppliers; larger volumes of biomethane and renewable hydrogen production and imports; by reducing the use of fossil fuels in homes, buildings, industry, and power system and by boosting energy efficiency, increasing renewables and electrification and so on.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) also presented a 10-point plan for the EU to wean off from Russian gas. The most significant among them is to: Diversify the EU's gas supply in the near term; Accelerate deployment of new solar and wind power; Increase the share of bioenergy and nuclear energy.

The US announced an immediate ban on the import of Russian oil, LNG, and coal on March 9. The White House described it as a significant act with widespread bipartisan support that will further deprive Russian President Vladimir Putin of the “economic resources he uses to continue his needless war of choice.” Last year, the US imported nearly 700,000 barrels per day of crude oil and refined petroleum products from Russia.

Diversifying gas supplies from non-Russian sources doesn’t necessarily mean moving towards clean energy. It could also mean sourcing gas and oil from other cheaper suppliers. Some news stories on the energy crisis in Europe and US should worry all of us. The Climate Wire carried a story on March 11 which said two coal plants, one in the United Kingdom and another in Germany, have already delayed retirement plans in view of Russia's Ukraine invasion and more are expected to follow. 

Glenn Rickson, head of European power analysis at S&P Global predicted in the story that European coal generation will average 15 gigawatts in 2022, up from 11GW in 2021 and 8 GW in 2020. Germany’s coal fleet, which has largely operated as a backup source of power in recent years is now likely to run more frequently. There were reports from the US about more permits being granted for shale gas drilling. According to a report in Yahoo News on March 10, the oil and gas industry in the US is sitting on 9,173 approved but unused drilling permits on federal and tribal lands. The promises of moving towards renewable energy can take a swift turn towards cheap and dirty fuels.

The key to achieving all the announcements that the US and EU have made is to recognise that the climate crisis has started wreaking havoc across the world and in a few years its impacts will be catastrophic. It’s the next crisis that will cripple most parts of the world. More than defence budgets, all countries that have announced net-zero emissions goals need to focus their energies —financial and technological, on implementing near term goals that can help achieve their net-zero goals by 2050, 2060 or 2070, as is the case with India.

Even as the US and the EU’s announcements on limiting fossil fuel imports from Russia bring hope, it's important to remember that global energy-related CO2 emissions rose by 6% in 2021 to 36.3 billion tonnes — their highest ever level — as the world economy rebounded strongly from the Covid-19 crisis according to an IEA analysis released on March 8.

To keep global warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has said global net human-caused CO2 emissions would need to fall by about 45% from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching “net-zero” around 2050. The world is nowhere close to this pathway.

From the climate crisis to air pollution, from questions of the development-environment tradeoffs to India’s voice in international negotiations on the environment, HT’s Jayashree Nandi brings her deep domain knowledge in a weekly column

The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

Nearly three weeks into Russia’s unprovoked armed assault on Ukraine, which much of the world has called an invasion except for a few countries including the two most populous ones, China’s current diplomatic strategy to deal with this attack is clear. Or, from Beijing’s public posturing, it seems so.

The basics: Focus, fret and fuss over the humanitarian impact, give token aid to Ukraine, even call it war and use appropriate words like “heart-wrenching”; continue blaming the United States (US) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) for pushing, provoking Russia and prompting Ukraine into a conflict; side with Russia, strongly oppose economic sanctions; always, always, call for negotiations to end the crisis; reach out to the European Union (EU).

Additionally, for high-impact, use the word “peace” as many times as possible in official readouts on interactions between the Chinese leadership and global leaders and diplomats.

That’s not all.

On the side: Censor pro-Ukraine views; resurrect conspiracy theories, one of which claim Russia is targeting selected Ukrainian cities because of the presence of US bioweapons labs.

Once in circulation, the theory was promptly picked up by State-run media outlets in China and Russia; in no time, it was echoed by China’s foreign ministry.

“US Biolabs in Ukraine have indeed attracted much attention recently,” Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian said at a regular briefing.

“...all dangerous pathogens in Ukraine must be stored in these labs and all research activities are led by the US side,” Zhao said without providing evidence — which to be fair to Zhao, he never does — to back up the claim.

Meanwhile, Wang Yi, China’s suave — and possibly outgoing — foreign minister, told the world on March 7 that China-Russia ties were “rock solid” just in case someone read too much into a Chinese diplomat calling the situation in Ukraine “heart-wrenching” at the United Nations just a couple of days before.

Wang’s statement at his annual press conference on the sidelines of the yearly meeting of the National People’s Congress, China’s rubberstamp legislature, made it amply clear that Beijing-Moscow’s “no limits” friendship was strictly off-limits for any speculation to the contrary.

It’s no coincidence that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin, who have referred to each other as “best friends”, have met 38 times in the past decade.

To be fair, at the big risk of not being treated to Russian ice cream by buddy Putin at his upcoming birthday, President Xi on March 8 told European counterparts French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz during a trilateral video summit that China was “deeply grieved by the outbreak of war again on the European continent”.

Xi expectedly stopped short of calling the conflict an invasion but called for “maximum restraint” to minimise the humanitarian crisis.

Intense internal discussions and introspection later, there might be more nuance in how China is publicly commenting on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but make no mistake — Beijing and Moscow are as thick as wary best friends with benefits.

Beijing-Moscow ties gradually warmed after the end of the Cold War in the 1990s. Around the time, the two also resolved their long-standing land border dispute following protracted negotiations, which as a leading Chinese expert on Russia once told me, invariably ended with rounds of vodka.

The two countries have since pursued a strategic partnership, working closely on wide-ranging sectors including trade and military and having each other’s backs in geopolitics.

Ties have strengthened under Xi’s aggressive China, which is always ready to take on the US and the West.

Besides building a common front against the US-led Western bloc, China and Russia, for one, are also trying to build an alternative financial system.

The statements issued after Putin’s visit to Beijing in early February are telling in more ways than just their joint opposition to NATO’s expansion in Europe.

Putin’s signed article published by China’s official news agency, Xinhua, on February 3 gives an indication of just how Beijing and Moscow are preparing to tackle Western economic sanctions.

“We (Russia and China) are consistently expanding settlements in national currencies and creating mechanisms to offset the negative impact of unilateral sanctions. A major milestone in this work was the signing of an agreement between the Government of Russia and the Government of China on payments and settlements in 2019,” Putin wrote.

Putin also said he wants to increase trade between the "two superpowers" to a volume of $200 billion, up from the $140 billion it had reached in 2021.

What’s also fuelling bilateral ties is the “mutually beneficial energy partnership” between the two countries.

“Along with long-term oil and gas supplies to China, we have plans to implement a number of large-scale joint projects,” Putin wrote.

For example, the world's longest pipeline, the China-Russia east route natural gas pipeline, has transported over 15 billion cubic metres (bcm) of Russian gas to China as of January 17, 2022, Chinese state media has reported.

The flagship “Power of Siberia 1” gas pipeline is headlining the energy partnership between the two countries.

In December 2019, the Power of Siberia-1, or the Russian section of the China-Russia east-route natural gas pipeline, became functional.

According to Chinese official media, it provided some 5 bcm of Russian gas to China in 2020.

“The amount is expected to increase to 38 bcm annually from 2024, under a 30-year contract worth $400 billion signed between the China National Petroleum Corp and Gazprom, China’s national energy giant, in May 2014.”

That was the beginning.

In 2020, Putin approved the launch of a feasibility study for the “Power of Siberia-2” pipeline to export natural gas from western Siberia to China.

Gazprom has conducted a preliminary technical and economic analysis of the project, which is expected to deliver up to 50 bcm of gas to China via Mongolia each year, Xinhua had then reported.

On February 28, the Russian company released a statement on a working meeting between Alexey Miller, company chairperson and the Deputy Prime Minister of Mongolia, S Amarsaikhan.

“The parties discussed the implementation of the project for the construction of the Soyuz Vostok gas pipeline in Mongolia. It will be a continuation of the Russian gas pipeline ‘Power of Siberia-2’ and will allow to supply of up to 50 billion cubic metres of Russian gas per year to China, the world's fastest-growing gas market,” the Russian company said in a statement.

During his meeting with Xi in Beijing, Putin said Russia has prepared a new deal to increase gas exports to China to 48 bcm a year via a new pipeline that will deliver 10 bcm annually from its Far East region.

“Russia is the third-largest natural gas supplier to China, including both pipeline gas and LNG. Russian natural gas accounted for around 10% of China's total gas imports of 121 million mt in 2021, against 25.9% and 19.8% from Australia and Turkmenistan, respectively,” according to S&P Global Commodities Insight.

With the EU, which gets some 40% of its gas from Russia, planning to reduce the volume by two-thirds this year, China is set to emerge as a viable alternative for Moscow.

Sutirtho Patranobis, HT’s experienced China hand, writes a weekly column from Beijing, exclusively for HT Premium readers. He was previously posted in Colombo, Sri Lanka, where he covered the final phase of the civil war and its aftermath, and was based in Delhi for several years before that

The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

The Union health ministry’s decision to expand India’s Covid-19 vaccine programme to include those aged 12 and above, and do away with the loose restriction for booster doses (for those over 60 years) is welcome. It is an important step towards insulating India from the impact of future waves of the coronavirus disease, and protecting people from newer variants of the Sars-CoV-2 virus that are bound to emerge. And it needs to be followed up with an even more important step — expanding the eligibility for boosters progressively, first to those aged 45 and above; and then 18 years and above. The scientific evidence in favour of vaccinating the population below 12 years is mixed.

The decision comes at a time when life (and work) are almost back to where they were before the pandemic in India. The seven-day average of daily cases in the country stands at 3,757 currently, a 23-month low, and 80% of the population over the age of 15 (1.01 billion) has been fully vaccinated with another 16% having received one dose. Around 2% of this population has also received boosters — mostly people with co-morbidities, although only self-declaration to this effect is required. This condition has also been done away with now. The decision will widen the eligibility for vaccines to almost 85% of India’s population, with only children under the age of 12 remaining unvaccinated. To be sure, because of the way India counts ages for the purposes of vaccination, anyone who has completed 11 (and entered their 12th year) will also be eligible for vaccination).

This newspaper has repeatedly argued for the expansion of India’s vaccine programme to those aged 12 and above, and for the need to provide a booster dose to the entire adult population. With supplies not being a constraint any more, and an effective vaccine delivery network already in place, India can provide a booster dose to its entire adult population by the middle of this year, if it so wishes. The science on the benefits of a booster dose is clear, although there is no India-specific data that is available. There’s more work to be done: The health ministry should also ensure India’s genome surveillance network continues to operate so as to identify potential variants of concern early. And the health and home ministries should standardise the response to flare-ups to ensure minimal disruption of key activities, including business and education.



Read in source website

In the span of a few hours on Sunday, two councillors from the Trinamool Congress (TMC) and Congress parties were shot dead in separate incidents in West Bengal, highlighting, once again, the alarming levels of political violence that have come to characterise the state. That the twin shoot-ings came weeks after the sensational killing of political worker Anis Khan should set alarm bells ringing and prompt the state government to institute sincere inquiries.

Violence has always been an unfortunate marker of political processes in the state. The phenomenon took root during the successive post-Partition governments of the Congress and the Left, and has not got any better during the decade of TMC rule. The twin murders, coupled with the sporadic viole-nce in local body polls last week, and the gruesome killing of Khan paint a sorry picture of the state’s law and order apparatus, which appears beholden to political interests and unable to crack down on criminals with political patronage. It also indicates that the multiple court-monitored inquiries after the 2021 state polls have had little impact on the ground, especially in reversing the culture of political violence. There are many admirable things about the state’s political culture, including the consistently high electoral turnout, more women visible in public life and election arenas than in many other states, and a markedly lower impact of casteist and communal violence in suppressing marginalised communities. But political violence is a blot on this record, one that is eroding the mandate that the TMC received less than a year ago. The chief minister and the state government need to act, even if it means also cracking down on their own.



Read in source website

Prime Minister Narendra Modi was spot on when he said that the policing system in the country has not changed in the 75 years after Independence and that the perception even now about the police is that “one should stay away from them”.

Internal security during British rule revolved around instilling fear in the masses, which needed to be changed, the Prime Minister said. Ideally, as Mr Narendra Modi said, the police and other security personnel should be able to “deal strongly with anti-social elements and softly with society and instil a sense of friendship and confidence among people”. The fact, sadly, is otherwise.

As per the annual Crime In India report of the National Crimes Record Bureau, 76 custodial deaths were reported in 2020 with Gujarat topping the list with 15 instances. Reports say 1,888 custodial deaths were reported in India in the last 20 years but only 26 police personnel have been convicted. More than 60 per cent of the victims died even without their arrests being recorded as mandated by the law.

Mr Modi is not the first Prime Minister to rue the colonial hangover of the police and seeking a change in it. The Janata Party government of 1977 formed the National Police Commission to suggest ways to reform the internal security apparatus. It submitted eight reports between November 1978 and May 1981, listing ways to improve performance and fixing responsibility that suit a democratic system of governance. There were also reports by commissions and committees led by senior IPS officer Julio Ribeiro (2000), former home secretary K. Padmanabhaiah and former chief justice of Kerala high court Justice V.S. Malimath that suggested reforms in various aspects of policing. The Supreme Court of India, too, has intervened time and again in dealing with serious lapses in police administration and violation of human rights for righting what is wrong with the police.

The long and short of it is that the rulers of the country are seized of the matter but they have been hardly effective when it comes to police reforms. Use of brute force and third degree methods remain key tools in investigation though sweeping changes have happened in criminal investigation methodologies the world over. The police essentially remain the most reactionary relic of the Raj.  
And there are reasons, too. The police still work on the legislative framework of 1861, the early British Raj era, and have not changed with the tectonic shift in the way this country is governed. The police are not trained to be friends with the people but their handlers instead. The strength of the force is inadequate to police the burgeoning population: India has 137 police personnel for one lakh people against the UN recommendation of 222. As per a 2016 report, 24 per cent vacancies in state police units remain unfilled. The police leadership, trained under various academies, remains feudalistic in its nature.

A tech-savvy, humane, law-abiding, responsible and accountable police force is key to economic and overall growth of a society in a civilised world. The Prime Minister has pointed out the issues that plague the force. It remains to be seen how far he will be willing to walk the talk, take the other stakeholders, mainly the state governments, along and implement police reforms.



Read in source website

The rate of return from the social security fund of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation has nosedived to 8.1 per cent, the lowest since an eight per cent return in 1977-78. This may come as a disappointment to over 60 million salaried employees who, along with their employers, contribute monthly towards funding their retirement.  Even so, it is only a reflection of the state of the global economy in which such returns from investments in bonds and partially in the equities markets through ETFs are to be considered as not abnormal.

With a Rs 16 lakh crore corpus from over 24 crore accounts to look after, the trust has an onerous responsibility and cannot be too adventurous in its investment policies, particularly in the current market environment that has been subjected to a pandemic for two years and then the war in Ukraine that has roiled the international oil market. The safety of the fund is far too important as the history of pension funds invested in equity markets abroad with some disastrous consequences has shown. Going forward, the fund can expect to do better as equity markets improve after emerging from recent shocks.

Debt market investments, while ideally steady, cannot offer much more than bank interest rates, which are, however, likely to rise marginally once RBI’s growth-oriented accommodative stance changes to deal with inflation. It is moot whether provident funds will remain the ideal savings instrument for retirement when several other equity-market based avenues are more freely available from India’s insurance and finance market investment players these days. But that is not a call the government can take on behalf of millions.

The timing is tricky currently because foreign outflows have been strong from the Indian equity market. However, there is no denying that the equity markets in the long run give better returns than bank deposits and the pension fund can continue to do its best in a combination investment of government securities, bonds and ETFs. It would be up to salaried employees to look for savings beyond just their statutory contribution and start investing wisely in long term instruments to buttress their retirement fund.



Read in source website

Spring is definitely around the corner if you are convinced by the sunshine this weekend.

But that apart we have gloom and doom. We are worried about things abroad — Ukraine, about the Queen and then about the cash in our pockets. And not to speak of the fresh round of refugees which may enter this island from Ukraine.
It is not difficult to say what worries us most. It is the Queen and her health. This was supposed to be a year to celebrate. She is 95 and has just completed 70 years on the throne which is a record for Great Britain. The party for the Platinum Jubilee begins in early June, and we should be dusting out our gowns and polishing our tiaras. The succession of Prince Charles is confirmed and his (second) wife Camilla will be Queen when Charles succeeds as King by the decision of the Monarch. Even the unmentionable scandal of Prince Andrew has not been allowed to spoil the occasion.

But then Covid struck. The Queen has had to isolate herself, cancel her (usually multiple) engagements. Even travelling the one hour between Windsor and London is too much for her. She had begun using a stick to walk while reassuring visitors that she is otherwise well.  Now we learn that she has dropped out of a big event which she never misses — the Commonwealth Day Service. As she is more or less the first Monarch who has presided over the modern Commonwealth (created after India’s Independence), this is a major shock.

There is yet to come: a memorial service for her husband the Duke of Edinburgh at the end of this month. If she misses that, it would have been six months since she was last seen in public. But then we cheer up thinking that her mother Elizabeth, the Queen Mother lived to be 101: we hope that she can break that record.

The other worry is Ukraine. Our TV screens and our daily newspapers are filled with horrific scenes of death and destruction, of refugees streaming out of Ukraine towards neighbouring countries reminding some of us of the tragedy of the Partition of India. There are scenes of crowded trains and three generations of families walking miles to reach the border while bombs are falling. There is a sense of helplessness. A war of this intensity has not occurred in Europe for nearly eighty years. Worse is feared if Putin uses chemical or nuclear weapons. Radioactivity from a bomb in Ukraine can pollute water, milk and animal products as far away as London.

Suddenly Russians, especially very rich ones — oligarchs as they are called — are being sanctioned, their property confiscated, visas cancelled. Not so long ago, they were lauded for their hospitality on the yachts they had parked here. The Chelsea football club, the world champion this year, is owned by Roman Abramovich who has to sell the club (for just £2 billion!) immediately. He has managed to sail away his yacht before the UK government confiscates it.

Another oligarch, Lebedev, owns the Evening Standard, London’s only evening newspaper which is sold free. He is also a Lord — appointed by Boris Johnson, the Prime Minister. Now he is in trouble as well. He strongly denies being Putin’s henchman but while once they hung on every word he said, nobody is listening now.

Now there is a new proposal to use some of the mansions left behind by oligarchs who are abandoning the UK as refugee shelters. This might not have been a bad idea — but some are concerned about the legality of it all. The home minister, Priti Patel, certainly has her hands full.

If, till some time back she was battling the problem of illegal migrants, now a flood of refugees from the war torn zone might overwhelm her plans. These are difficult days as no one really knows how long this war will last, and what will be the long term consequences.

Unlike in India where Russia remains a partner — the days of the cold war are returning here, as speculation about Putin’s mental health begins to grab headlines.

Finally there are our domestic energy bills. Even before the Ukraine invasion, energy prices had quadrupled. Energy companies are asking us if we can afford the bills. If not, we can spread out the payment over several years. Inflation is back after decades. If the war gets worse, prices will go higher. Of course, once the energy price rises, so does every other price. So it is the time for counting pennies and wearing woolies indoors as well as outdoors.

May summer come soon and be really hot — so we can switch the radiators off.
But meanwhile, nothing out here is bringing good cheer… And April may still be a cruel month.



Read in source website

Election victories sanctify the actions of a political party; they do not validate them. Sanctification is the giving of a blessing and has nothing to do with the real world. Validation is based on facts.

At this point in time, now that the Assembly election results are in, one can claim that the voter was attracted to a party because of its welfarism or its competence at governance or delivery of services. This is what is happening in the wake of the BJP’s spectacular success in Uttar Pradesh and elsewhere. And it happens each time there is a BJP victory, of which there have been many and will continue to be. One reason is that the BJP needs secular validation because it operates in a world and under a Constitution that does not tolerate overt communalism. This is the reason that its supporters feel the need to trot out non-communal factors to justify the BJP’s success.

Those who wanted the Trinamul Congress to win in West Bengal, and were fortunate to see it triumph over the BJP, did not pretend that it was welfarism or competent governance or messianic leadership that carried the day. They were just relieved that the divisive “ideology” that is tearing this nation apart was stopped at one frontier. It is mostly the BJP and its backers who seek to find granular reasons for its electoral success. So, what was the win of the BJP on March 10 due to?

The truth lies in front of us. What the BJP itself did and say to the voters, how its leaders behaved and what they said, is important. What they asked votes for and in the name of is relevant: the rest is punditry.

The chief minister of Uttar Pradesh had said that “80 vs 20 is a reality”. This was definitely an “80 vs 20 election”. The dividing of Indians by religion for votes is a reality for the BJP and it pursues this reality. If it believed that votes would be won mostly on the basis of performance and delivery, why would it engage with such things? Again, this is a rhetorical question and it will be bizarre if one does not know the answer.

This month Haryana has become the seventh BJP state since 2018 to write up a bill against “love jihad”. On February 4, 2020, the Lok Sabha was told by the Union home minister that there were no “love jihad” cases in India and that the phenomenon does not exist. So why are BJP states, including UP (which passed its love jihad law in 2020), chasing a phantom? This question will only be asked by those who are innocent of what the BJP wants and what it does, which is the constant harassment of our minorities, especially Muslims.

It is comical that instead of looking at what the BJP itself is saying to its voters, analysts and supporters look at tarot cards to divine what the factors for voting were.

The BJP has got more than 40 per cent of the votes in Uttar Pradesh in four consecutive elections (2014, 2017, 2019, 2022). We are now asked to believe that this is on the basis of the UP government’s performance and not the incessant focus on the Ram temple, beef, love jihad and the violence that they have produced.

Consider the fact that if communal mischief were not important or only marginal to the BJP’s electoral success, why their leaders would focus on it. Why put off minority voters if the burden of your song is development and delivery? The answer is that the burden of the BJP’s song is not development and delivery. It is communalism and division and the stoking of hatred, and even violence.

Consider also that this is successful and has always been so. The BJP did not have a majority of its own in any state in India from the time that the party (as Jan Sangh) was founded till 1990, when Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh and later Uttar Pradesh got BJP chief ministers. It had a national vote share in single digits for four decades till it suddenly doubled to 18 per cent, and then doubled again. What happened in a short time for the party to become nationally popular? Of course it was the movement that mobilised Hindus against the mosque in Ayodhya that was destroyed, triggering pogroms across the country.

There was no delivery of services from any government and no competence to show in anything to the voter then, and there is none now.

Will this continue to attract voters in the future? This is interesting to consider, given that the Union government has made a total mess of the economy according to its own figures. Perhaps it will continue and perhaps it will not, we will see. But it would be a relief if we were not told that the BJP’s success is not on the back of what the party’s leaders themselves repeatedly demanded votes for but some mystical factors that have only now come to light in the wake of these results.



Read in source website