Editorials - 19-03-2022

The death of a young student activist, who was critical of the Mamata Banerjee government, has sparked off massive protests in a State that is accustomedto political violence. Shiv Sahay Singh reports on the incident and its aftermath, which has rattled the Trinamool Congress government

Thirteen hours before he died, Anish Khan put out a post on Facebook. It was a photograph of two women on a scooter — the driver wearing a headscarf and the pillion rider holding a small idol of Ganesha. “This is what keeps India together, Please do not kill it for a few votes,” he wrote.

In the early hours of February 19, Anish, a slim 28-year-old MBA graduate from Aliah University in Kolkata, who had recently enrolled for a journalism course at Kalyani University, allegedly fell to his death. From the accounts of his friends and neighbours, and his social media posts, Anish was politically active, a champion of justice, and always brimming with hope. He was popular among the Left students’ unions in Kolkata. He was associated with the Students’ Federation of India in the past, and often led rallies on various issues including the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). In his village Dakhinkhanpara, in Howrah district, Anish was sought after at every social and community programme for his oratory skills. He never hesitated to air his views on social media. “You are human, I am human too, and the only difference is having a spine!” he had posted less than two weeks before his death.

While West Bengal is no stranger to political violence, Anish’s unnatural demise has sparked massive protests across the State and rattled the Mamata Banerjee-led Trinamool Congress government. Soon after the news broke, students blocked roads at important arterial intersections and broke police barricades. By that evening, they had stopped traffic at the famous Park Circus crossing.

Calling for “immediate identification and punishment of the perpetrators of this heinous crime”, the Communist Party of India (Marxist) tweeted that “a strong critique of the Mamata Banerjee government” had been “killed at his residence”. A Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA blamed the police for the incident. Mamata Banerjee announced that the State government would conduct an impartial investigation and a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was set up under the Chief Secretary. Reacting to statements about Anish being punished for attacking her government, she claimed that he was one of her own. “I was in touch with Anish,” she said, “and he had helped us during the elections”.

‘Job done, Sir’

Anish’s house in Dakhinkhanpara has been under construction for over five years. It has only a few windows and no railings. The bricks haven’t even received the first plaster of cement. The place from where Anish allegedly fell has a large opening demarcated for a window. Clothes have been hung out to dry. Villagers, journalists and investigators have climbed up the 23 stairs to the second floor nearly every day to look at the spot where the young man last stood. There is nothing to indicate that this is a crime scene, barring a small arrow mark on a brick to point to the spot from where he allegedly fell.

Anish’s father Salem Khan recalled the events of that fateful night. There was a knock on the door a little past midnight. Four persons, who said they were from the Amta police station, forced their way into the house, he said. Three of them were dressed as civic police volunteers and the fourth, a home guard, was dressed in khaki and holding a firearm.

The policemen told Salem that there was a police case against Anish. One of them put a gun to Salem’s head, while the other three ran up the stairs. Within minutes, they were back downstairs. “Job done, Sir,” they said briskly, and left. In a cold sweat, Salem rushed up to find his son lying motionless on the ground below in the dark of the night. He picked Anish up and rushed him to a nearby hospital. It was around 1.10 a.m. Just minutes earlier, at 1.03 a.m., Anish had posted on Facebook about a police officer in Shimla being arrested for alleged terror links.

A few hours later, a grief-stricken Salem called the Amta police station and narrated the whole incident. “What shall I do now,” he asked. The voice at the other end said the police had no information about the developments. Where is your son now, they asked. “He is dead,” Salem replied.

A few hours later Salem called up the police again with the same query. This time, he also demanded to know why the police had not visited the crime scene. It takes only 20 minutes to travel from Anish’s house to the police station, but the police arrived at the house only after 9 a.m., almost eight hours after the incident. Salem says the postmortem was conducted at a State-run hospital without the presence of any family member.

Investigation and whispers

Dakhinkhanpara is a bustling village with thatched huts and big ponds, but on February 28, the mood was sombre. After the furore over Anish’s death, the Calcutta High Court had ordered the police to exhume his body for a second postmortem. Salem remained inside the house. Their lawyer Imteaz Ahmed was the one talking. Almost half a dozen policemen stood guard near the entrance of the house. A group of investigators arrived later and sought the father’s permission to exhume the body of his son for a second postmortem.

Anger and curiosity ran high in the neighbourhood as thousands came out of their houses to witness the exhumation. Women stood on every roof in the locality, and men and boys surrounded the graveyard near the Sarada Abdul Taaj Club, just a hundred metres from the house of the Khan family. In the crowd, the watchful eyes of the state assessed the situation as well.

Fariduddin, a teacher at a local madrasa who had gone to watch the proceedings, said, “There is hardly any family in the neighbourhood where men have not migrated for work. For Anish to have completed an MBA from such a neighbourhood is no mean achievement.”

Safique Khan, a 46-year-old zari worker who has shifted to farming, had no doubt that Anish had been killed. This belief was strong in the village. “How could someone come and kill him in such a densely populated neighbourhood,” the residents whispered.

Sk Habibur Rehman, a few years senior to Anish at Aliah University, described his friend as a “pratibaadi (someone who stands up against injustice)”. Anish’s brother Shabir Khan also emphasised this trait. “He was never scared of anyone. I left home at the age of 14 to support the family. Our mother died a few years ago. One of our brothers is in Saudi Arabia. Anish was our hope and we were very proud of him,” he said.

“If the police kill, where will the family go to seek justice,” Habibur asked. In his early thirties, and dressed in a kurta-pyjama and a jacket, he stood out in the crowd. “Of late Anish was associated with the ISF (Indian Secular Front). He had one quality that not many know about: he was very good with announcements and conducting religious jalsas (celebrations),” he says. Hours before his death Anish had participated at a jalsa in his neighbourhood.

Few minutes later, two men in plain clothes approached this reporter. “Sir, what is the name of the AIMIM [All India Majlis-E-Ittehadul Muslimeen] guy you were talking to,” they asked about Habibur. “We saw you the day before yesterday.” After realising that they had approached the wrong person, the men said they are from the District Intelligence Branch of the Police. They apologised and requested that their identity be kept secret before the crowd. The presence of several intelligence officers of the District Police showed how closely the incident is being monitored.

Seeking justice for a justice-seeker

The alleged involvement of the police in the death of a Muslim youth has sparked waves of protests across West Bengal. As soon as the news of Anish’s mysterious death came to light, students of Aliah University hit the streets. The student and youth wings of the CPI(M) launched a massive campaign seeking justice for Anish. #InsaafForAnish has given a fresh momentum to the Left parties which have been holding protests outside Amta police station and in Kolkata for over two weeks. Amid the demonstrations, visitors from different political parties and civil rights organisations have met Salem. There have been a few exceptions too: when Trinamool Minister Pulak Roy tried to visit the father, he faced protests from locals at the village; and the BJP, the principal Opposition party in the State after the 2021 polls, decided against visiting Anish’s home and meeting his family members.

On February 26, the situation turned violent outside the office of the Howrah Rural Superintendent of Police at Panchla. Stones were hurled at the police who had to take shelter inside the office and then use force to disperse the crowd. Democratic Youth Federation of India State Secretary Minakshi Mukherjee and 16 other Left activists were arrested under non-bailable charges, including attempt to murder. As the CPI(M) leadership alleged physical torture on Minakshi, who had contested the Assembly polls against Banerjee in Nandigram, Salem received some unusual visitors on March 3. An elderly couple — Manoj Mukherjee and Parul Mukherjee — identifying themselves as Minakshi’s parents said they wanted to meet Salem after paying a visit to their daughter in prison. Salem promptly signed a mass petition seeking the release of Minakshi and other Left activists.

Banerjee was quick to not only set up a SIT to probe the death, but also call Anish as one of her own. However, Anish’s Facebook page, which can still be accessed easily, shows a number of posts targeting the Chief Minister.

On February 23, two police personnel — home guard Kashinath Bera and civic volunteer Pritam Bhattacharya — were arrested, but Anish’s family is not satisfied with either the arrests or with the SIT carrying out the probe. The arrested personnel said they had been made scapegoats and claimed that they had gone to Anish’s house on the instructions of seniors in the department.

It was only when Anish’s family knocked on the doors of the Calcutta High Court demanding a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that the the police were directed, by the court, to exhume the body for a second postmortem. The court also ordered a forensic examination of Anish’s mobile phone. The West Bengal Police said it would bring the truth to light in 15 days, but failed to keep this promise. The police have been directed to complete the investigation by April 18.

The Muslims of West Bengal

Anish’s death and the aftermath begs one question: In a State where even elected councillors of the ruling party and the Opposition have been shot dead in public, why has the death of a Muslim youth become such an important political and social issue and shaken the government? There might be no simple answers to this question, but it has something to do with the social and political reality of Muslims in West Bengal.

Politically, the Muslims, comprising 27.01% of the population in the State (2011 Census), have overwhelmingly supported the Trinamool. The 2021 Assembly polls were fought by the BJP on a strong Hindutva pitch, the promise of implementing the CAA and “throwing one crore infiltrators into the Bay of Bengal”. The Muslim electorate threw its weight behind the Trinamool.

For decades, the minorities voted for the Left Front, but a shift began in 2006, when the Sachar Committee recommendations pointed out that a worryingly low number of Muslims held government jobs and could be found in higher education in West Bengal. The then Chief Minister, Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, said that the findings were not new and these realities were always known, but his assurances that the situation would change did not work. The Muslims shifted allegiance to the Trinamool, said a Muslim leader who did not want to be named. However, almost 15 years later, there seems to be a growing unease among Muslims on the question of social and economic empowerment.

Nazrul Islam, retired Additional Director General of Police, who runs a number of educational institutions in Murshidabad district, argued that the socioeconomic condition of Muslims has, in fact, worsened. “There are now even fewer Muslims in State government jobs than there were during the Left Front’s rule,” he said, pointing out that the community does not even have proportional representation in the State Assembly. After the 2021 polls, there are only 42 Muslim MLAs in a House of 294.

While releasing a report titled ‘Living Reality of Muslims in West Bengal’, in 2016, Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen had said Muslims “constitute a very large proportion of the poor in the State”. The report, by Association SNAP and Guidance Guild, in association with Professor Sen’s Pratichi India Trust, had pointed out that among literate Muslims, only 2.7% hold a graduate degree or more. Only 17% of Muslims in the State live in urban settlements against the national average of 28%.

Dealing with dissenters

Anish’s death also highlights how anyone questioning established power structures is frowned upon, kept an eye on, and even attacked in the rural hinterlands. Asit Mitra, Congress MLA who had represented Amta from 2011 to 2021, said Anish had approached him days after the 2021 Assembly polls requesting him to be the ‘chief guest’ at a blood donation camp that he wanted to organise in his village. “A few weeks later, Anish told me that local leaders opposed his plans and he could not organise the event,” Mitra said. The elderly Congress leader, who was the only politician to be present when Anish’s body was being exhumed, said a section of the local Trinamool leadership had been getting jittery over Anish’s popularity.

To illustrate how dissent is dealt with, Islam cited an incident from Murshidabad. On January 20, 2020, locals who had organised protests against the CAA were fired upon and two people lost their lives. “It was as if the ruling party has the sole right over organising any protests against the CAA and those organising protests without keeping the ruling party in the loop are trying to remove them from power,” he said.

Kirity Roy, a human rights activist known for highlighting human rights violations along the India-Bangladesh border, also visited Anish’s family. Roy and his organisation MASUM conducted a fact-finding mission. They said that Anish’s sister-in-law had alleged threats from locals and demanded action against the Trinamool booth president and his elder son. The fact-finding report pointed out that on May 24, 2021, Anish had lodged a written police complaint after his house had been vandalised by local Trinamool leaders who did not allow him to organise a blood donation camp.

Some in the Trinamool have rushed to give their own versions of what trasnpired. Saukat Mollah, MLA from Canning East, almost 150 km away from Amta, said Anish was climbing down the pipes from his house while trying to escape the police and fell down. Mollah did not seem to know that the house has no plaster, no running water and no pipes which Anish could have used to climb down.

Anish’s death is shockingly similar to the death of Rizwanur Rehman, a 30-year-old computer graphics teacher in Kolkata, 15 years ago. Rizwanur had married the daughter of a well-known Kolkata industrialist. The police had allegedly threatened Rahman of dire consequences if he did not separate from his wife. On a September evening in 2007, Rizwanur’s body was found on the railway tracks. His death embarrassed the Left Front government. Rizwanur had lived with his mother Kishwar Jahan at Tiljala lane in a Kolkata slum. That house had no running water and Kishwar, too, wanted ‘insaaf’ for her son.

Days after Anish’s death, when friends and relatives tried to press for a CBI probe, while showing a video clipping of 2007 to the media in which Mamata Banerjee was seen demanding a CBI probe into Rizwanur’s death, the family received a telephone call. “I read about it in the papers. I feel very sad. Please be patient,” Kishwar said over the phone. “Did your son get justice,” Salem asked. “I am still waiting for it. The matter is in court. Some day we will get justice. Please be patient,” she replied.

As he narrated the events of that day, Salem closed his eyes. “She wants justice for her son and I want the same,” he said and turned silent.



Read in source website

The passive subject is back, compromising democracy and making citizenship virtually redundant

Something new seems to be emerging in India. A decade ago, democracy was thriving. People with scant interest in politics increasingly felt a pressing need to become more vocal in the public domain. Remember the first decade of the 21st century? The Congress-led coalition government was compelled by activists to grant everyone the Right to Information and Education and to launch MNREGA, or the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee. The dastardly rape and murder of Nirbhaya turned thousands of young women and men into political activists. Citizen journalists emerged capturing acts of injustice and sending them to TV channels that routinely put the government in the dock. And who can forget the anti-corruption movement that virtually paralysed the then government, catapulting into power not only the Bharatiya Janata Party but also the newly born Aam Aadmi Party?

In 2013, when we seemed to be on the verge of a democratic revolution, the active citizen appeared to have a bright future. Young men and women left lucrative jobs to join the movement for a new political future for India. They hoped to launch new parties, accountable to the people, committed to providing them what they really need.

Yet, in one fell swoop, the political climate in the country seems to have changed. The active citizen is now viewed as a villain, pejoratively called an ‘Andolanjeevi ’. Those who only the other day personified active citizenship, today, in power, appear to shut the door on it. Not only active citizenship, but the very idea of citizenship has plunged into crisis. Rightly or wrongly, some are ready to forego even their rights as passive citizens, prepared to accept or tolerate political subjection. Since subjects are rights-less people who live passively within the jurisdiction of their ruler, I am inclined to see this current moment as marking the birth of a new political subject.

Active and passive citizens

It is important to understand what this means. Bringing out the contrast between three key terms may help us do so. Take active citizenship first. By definition, citizenship here is a matter of doing. An active citizen is able to (a) vote (b) publicly discuss the common good and use legally available means to influence public policy and law and if needed, to criticise, modify, even repeal them (c) run for public office.

This is in sharp contrast to passive citizens who rarely act in the public domain. They are either unable or unwilling to vote. They either cannot or could not be bothered to take a stand on public issues. Standing for public office is the last thing they imagine or want. They are mostly content with receiving things from the state — precisely why they are passive. Citizenship is defined here by what a person gets, not by what she does, regardless of whether this condition is forced upon or chosen by them.

But why still call them citizens? By virtue of two qualities — first, they still belong to a political community. They continue to be card-carrying members of a state that gives them an official identity. Second, they retain some basic rights — the right to protection against violence and those who need it, the right to a minimal package of subsistence goods. Moreover, while they make few demands of their own, they can complain when they fail to get what the state promises. Passive citizens are closer to being but arenot political subjects.

The loyal subject

At least two features distinguish political subjects from passive citizens. First, passive subjects do not haveany rights. They live by the grace of the ruler and get protection and other benefits by being loyal to him. This dedication does not entail that subjects devote themselves to further only the personal interests of rulers. They could easily subordinate themselves to a project of common good, as long as it is defined by the ruler. Second, citizens never equate the state with current rulers. No democratic ruler can call the state his own. However, political subjects identify the state with the ruler, as does he himself. Belonging to the state means becoming a ruler’s subjects.

Unlike a democratic body of equal citizens, the relationship between the subject and the ruler then is unabashedly hierarchical. Though the subject’s condition is a mixture of subordination and servitude, he gratefully accepts it because of the protection provided by the ruler. He interprets the wishes of the ruler as commands and has no appetite for rebellion. The gratefulness on the part of subjects is matched by the exuberant munificence of the ruler. When a subject receives a small, negligible portion of the state’s treasury, he believes it is charity flowing directly from the ruler’s personal largess. Overawed by him, the subject cannot but be deferential to the ruler. Disobedience would amount to shameful betrayal.

I suspect that a substantial part of our political climate now approximates what I have described above. This is why I see the emergence of the new political category oflaabharthi as the rebirth of the political subject. Thelaabharthi is a passive recipient of meagre resources, a beneficiary of the ruler’s generosity.Laabarthis , no longer rights-bearers, are the exact opposite of ever-demanding, rights conscious active citizens. In the recently held elections, the Prime Minister rightly went to them with the expectation that they would vote for him. Hardly abnormal in this environment. He instinctively knew that those who had eaten his ‘namak ’ (salt) cannot betray him.Namak halals do not easily turn intoNamak harams , do they? Political subjecthood, nowhere on the horizon in 2013, is back now with a vengeance.

The citizen-subject

I may have given the impression that today’s political world is neatly divided between rulers and their passive, loyal subjects. I do not intend this crude portrayal. There exists an extremely large group of people who are neither rulers nor passive subjects. I would classify them as a hybrid called citizen-subject, for they are a mix of passive citizens and active subjects — active because they surrender aspects of citizenship and embrace subjecthood of their own volition.

They are citizens because they see themselves as belonging to a state that in part is independent of the ruler. But what matters most to them is a private life of consumption for which they are not dependent on the state. Even their life and personal property are protected by paid security guards. Since they make few demands on the state, active citizenship is of little value to them. Such people are happy to be passive citizens. They may even be indifferent to who the ruler is. This makes them starkly different fromlaabharthis , ever grateful subjects whose very survival depends on a particular ruler’s generosity.

Yet, they depend on this very ruler/state to protect them from external aggressors and perceived internal enemies. For this purpose, they abandon their identity as citizens and choose to become political subjects — willing, unquestioning and loyal supporters of the ruler and his pet common projects. Here, state-dependentlaabharthis and state-independent consumers converge. Both share a world in which some of their common benefits flow from the largess of the ruler and from the public display of loyalty to him.

Alas, just when the passive subject was beginning to be seen as a relic of the past, it has made a stunning comeback. And upon re-entering our political world, it has severely compromised our democracy and made citizenship virtually redundant.

Rajeev Bhargava is a political philosopher and the author of ‘What is Political Theory and Why do We Need It’



Read in source website

New Delhi should note President Zelensky’s constructive rethink and also drop its silence on Ukraine’s suffering

The Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelensky, is reported to have said in an interview very recently to the German paper,Bild , that he is prepared not to insist on his country’s North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) membership; one report quoted him as saying that he will not ask for membership on bended knees. Further, he said, in theBild interview, that he is ready to discuss the status of the eastern region of Donbas. He added that he will do so only in a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Unsurprisingly, this constructive rethink on the part of Mr. Zelensky has not received the attention it deserves. There was some mention of it in the Indian media but hardly any in the United States. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov referred to it in his press conference in Turkey a few days ago, describing it as providing some ground for optimism. However, nothing has come out of it so far.

Coming up short

Several questions arise. Why did Mr. Zelensky not take such a reasonable stance before the war started? Did he think that Mr. Putin would not attack since Mr. Putin had said he would not? But U.S. President Joe Biden had been warning him repeatedly about the invasion. Why did all those western mediators — President Emmanuel Macron of France and Chancellor Olaf Scholz of Germany — not try to build on Mr. Zelensky’s offer? Why does Mr. Biden not pronounce himself on this matter? And why does Mr. Putin not seize upon it and agree to meet Mr. Zelensky? For him, is winning the war and installing a new regime more important than saving lives of people, both Ukrainians and Russians? He wants, justifiably, to create conditions whereby Russia will feel secure against further NATO advance eastward. Mr. Zelensky seems ready to offer him that security at least in principle.

Putin loses

The fact of the matter is that each of these players has an agenda of their own. For Mr. Putin, he seems determined to teach Mr. Zelensky a lesson, to remove him from office and to install a ‘friendly’ regime in Kyiv. If the occupation of Ukraine is the only way to achieve that objective, so be it, whatever the cost and however long it might take. Does he want to recreate the ‘Soviet’ empire, as alleged by some? Nobody knows what is in his mind. Even if Mr. Putin wins, he loses. A country crushed by Russian might could remain hostile to Russia. Resistance in some form will continue, instigated, abetted and aided by the West, making the life of the occupiers extremely difficult. Mr. Putin’s purported objective of ensuring the security of his country will not be achieved.

In these circumstances, it is conceivable that Mr. Putin might be overthrown in a palace or Kremlin coup. His close buddies are his buddies because they derive concrete benefits from their proximity to the boss. They would not take kindly to losing all the lucre that they have gained over the years.

The West wants the same thing in Russia as in China. They want these nations to become capitalist democracies. In the case of China, this objective will take a long time, if ever, to materialise. But in Russia, it seems tantalisingly achievable.

If the war in Ukraine drags on for a long time, it will suit the West, just as prolonged American entanglement in Afghanistan suited China and Russia. The Ukrainian misadventure will cost Mr. Putin dearly, internationally for sure, but also domestically. After all, the Russians regard the Ukrainians as kith and kin. Many of them have intermarried with Ukrainians and have families there. When body bags start arriving in Russia in increasing numbers, mothers and sisters will stage demonstrations that no amount of state repression will be able to contain. A large number of protests are taking place across the Russian federation, and many are being arrested. It is entirely conceivable that Mr. Putin may not survive, at least politically, for long.

Mr. Zelensky could, and should, have shown more statesmanship before Russia invaded his country. He surely had a good idea about Mr. Putin’s determination to do all he could to achieve his goal of preventing NATO coming even closer to his doorstep. He should have agreed to implement the Minsk accords because he knew that NATO membership was not within reach for a very long time, if ever. Now, the situation has reached a point where the U.S. will not facilitate an early end to the war; the total silence on the Ukraine President’s laudable initiative is testimony to that.

Mr. Zelensky has emerged as a great war hero; it is not difficult to arouse the spirit of nationalism and mobilise the population in a war effort. He has done a most admirable job of winning the hearts and the minds of people as well as, importantly, of policy makers around the world. His (virtual) speech to the U.S. Congress has won him some support too.

China’s stakes, India’s stand

Could China emerge as a valid mediator? How far and for how long will China go on to defend Mr. Putin? It has enormous economic and technological stakes in the West. China’s trade with Russia is less than a tenth of its trade with the EU and the U.S. combined. But it also does not want Russia to collapse into chaos or democracy. China does not want to ‘lose’ Russia. It is good for China to have another authoritarian regime next door. A big functioning democracy on both sides will be intolerable for China. Its statements, already strong, will become more critical of Russia’s actions in Ukraine in future. China will definitely wish the war to end soon and endeavour to make that happen.

India has done well so far diplomatically. Its leaders should take public note of Mr. Zelensky’s outreach and support it fully. India’s abstention from several votes at the United Nations was justified on the ground of national interest. New Delhi’s relations with America have never been better. With Russia, it has a deep defence relationship and has also acquired a strong interest in the Russian oil industry over the past few years. However, India’s statements in explanation of the votes should be more forthright in expressing its disapproval about the conduct of the war. It should strongly deplore the indiscriminate bombardment that is causing a large number of civilian casualties and infrastructure damage in Ukraine. The threat of the use of nuclear weapons is irresponsible even though it may be only a threat. In the heat of war, anything can happen. All such loose talk about weapons of mass destruction ought to be firmly denounced. It is true that the global community is being bombarded, nonstop, by western propaganda. We will never have the whole picture. Nevertheless, we cannot dismiss all reports as false propaganda. We may not be getting the whole truth, but what we are getting is not necessarily untruth.

We should not rule out, for all time, voting affirmatively on resolutions on the Ukraine situation. It has long been our position that the victim of aggression and the aggressor cannot be equated. If desirable, India may not name Russia in its statements, but India cannot maintain a silence on the terrible sufferings of the Ukrainian people.

Chinmaya R. Gharekhan is former Permanent Representative of India to the United Nations



Read in source website

The world must save Afghans from poverty and also end the Taliban’s oppression

The UN Security Council’s decision to authorise a new mandate for the organisation in Afghanistan is the most emphatic step taken by the world body in tackling the myriad problems the country has been facing ever since the Taliban takeover. According to the UNSC resolution, which was adopted by a vote of 14-0, with Russia abstaining, the UN mission in Afghanistan is authorised to promote gender equality, the empowerment of women and girls, human rights and an inclusive and representative government. There is no direct reference to the Taliban, but it urges the mission to work in “close consultation with all relevant political actors and stakeholders....” The Taliban have called for international help but shown no signs of sharing power or respecting the basic rights of Afghans. In the 1990s, the Taliban had barred girls and women from education and work and taken a hostile approach towards ethnic and religious minorities. The Sunni fundamentalist group formed a men-only, Pashtun-dominated government that only reluctantly allowed girls to go to elementary schools; older girls are still denied education. And barring some sectors such as health care and education, Afghanistan’s vast number of working women are not allowed to go to their workplaces.

But the Taliban’s fundamentalism and their lack of legitimacy should not prevent the international community from working to ameliorate the suffering of the Afghan people. The country is going through one of its worst humanitarian crises. Before the Taliban takeover, two-thirds of the Afghan government’s expenditure came through donations. As no country has recognised the Taliban as the legitimate rulers of Afghanistan, these donations have dried up since August. The U.S.’s decision to freeze $9 billion in assets belonging to the Afghan central bank has deepened the crisis. Even government employees have not been paid their salaries for months. Only 2% of Afghanistan’s 38 million people have enough food, according to the World Food Programme. Its economy is expected to contract by 30% this year and nearly every Afghan citizen could be living in poverty by mid-2022, according to the UN. The international community is reluctant to step in over fears that the Taliban would use the aid to consolidate their power and resist further demands for reforms. But the international community cannot just look away when Afghans face mass starvation. With the fresh mandate, which got the support of almost all the major powers, the UN mission should start engaging the Taliban. This does not mean that the member countries should offer quick recognition to the Taliban regime. They should offer humanitarian assistance to the Afghans in consultations with the Mullahs, while at the same time putting pressure on them to accept at least short-term reforms and take measures to respect basic human rights.



Read in source website

India must oppose moves to hinder the flowof ingredients for manufacturing vaccines

In 2020, a key question that the pandemic posed was whether nations would act in solidarity and prioritise equity for the larger good over narrow self-interest. The experience in 2021 was that rich countries overwhelmingly chose self-interest — with several deciding to first inoculate their populations multiple times over rather than ensure poorer nations have at least a first round. It was amid this turmoil that India and South Africa had proposed at the WTO that all patent rights for COVID-19 vaccines, drugs and diagnostics be temporarily suspended to ensure smooth manufacture and distribution. While not surprising, given the history of wrangling over IP rights at the WTO, much of Europe and the U.S. were against any such reprieve, arguing that patent rights ensured better product quality and how many countries lacked the know-how and facilities; over 100 countries, including the U.S., support such a waiver now. The EU appears to be signalling truce, proposing that intellectual property rights held by international pharma companies on COVID-19 vaccines be relaxed for up to five years. This reprieve will however not apply to COVID-drugs and diagnostic devices. The waiver also allows pharma companies in developing countries to make and, further down, export vaccines without explicit permission from the patent holders, says a version of the negotiating text.

While on the surface it signals equity, the proposal does not go far. Along with western European nations and the U.S., several Indian companies are now makers of COVID-19 vaccines that feed domestic needs and are available for export. They have achieved this through technology licensing arrangements with the U.S. and elsewhere. International facilities such as COVAX are now dealing with a problem of surplus vaccines and India too has begun expanding the drive to vaccinate younger populations. Therefore, vaccines, really, are not the challenge they were two years ago. A waiver of IP rights means little unless companies also share their ‘trade secrets’, and nothing in the current agreement hints at whether such sharing will be facilitated. Several countries, including India, already have ‘compulsory licensing’ arrangements wherein the government can revoke existing patents to enable drug manufacturing. Newer vaccine and drug manufacturing platforms have risen, bringing in their own complexities, and drug manufacturing companies have opted to enter into international collaborations rather than use forums such as the WTO to fight inequity. The Indian government must be more vocal about facilitating access to drugs and diagnostics and continue to champion the cause of developing countries. It must also strongly oppose moves to hinder the flow of ingredients necessary to manufacture them.



Read in source website

Fumio Kishida writes: In an increasingly uncertain world, both countries need to promote efforts toward the realisation of a ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’

Today, I am visiting India, making my first bilateral visit since my appointment as Prime Minister. Linked by universal values such as freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, which have been shared through a long history of exchange, Japan and India are “Special Strategic and Global Partners,” which share strategic interests. In this milestone year, marking the 70th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between Japan and India, I am dearly looking forward to this visit, the first by a serving Prime Minister of Japan in four and a half years, and to be able to feel for myself the tremendous dynamism of India.

Since my appointment as Prime Minister in October last year, I have been concentrating on measures to overcome Covid-19, and working towards the realisation of a “new form of capitalism” that will revive the economy through a virtuous cycle of growth and distribution. As part of such measures, I am focusing on finding solutions to various social challenges, including digital, climate change and economic security in the growth strategy. India is certainly the best partner to have when seeking to realise a “new form of capitalism,” as showcased in India’s contribution in response to the global health crisis as a major manufacturing base, leadership in decarbonisation efforts, including through the International Solar Alliance, engagement in advanced digital society initiatives such as Aadhaar, and the promotion of economic security initiatives, including measures for supply chain resilience. These are why I was hoping to visit India as soon as possible after my appointment as Prime Minister.

Today, the international community faces a situation that is undermining the very foundation of the global order. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a clear violation of international law as well as an attempt to unilaterally change the status quo by force, and it is totally unacceptable. Upholding the core principles of the international order is indispensable from the perspective of diplomacy and security in the Indo-Pacific, where the situation has been rapidly worsening. Japan will unite with the international community and take resolute actions. In the recent Japan-Australia-India-US (Quad) Leaders’ Video Conference, in which Prime Minister Modi and I participated, we concurred that any attempt to unilaterally change the status quo by force, such as this time, must not be tolerated in the Indo-Pacific region, and that it is precisely because of this situation that it is critical to further promote efforts toward the realisation of a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific”.

Against this backdrop, how can we protect the rules-based international order? Looking towards a post-Covid-19 world, how can we build resilient supply chains and reinvigorate the economy? How can we reform international organisations to match the realities of a rapidly changing world? How can we respond to new international challenges like cybersecurity and climate change? Both Japan and India are committed to taking bold measures to tackle such challenges. During this visit I am looking forward to engaging with Prime Minister Modi in a frank exchange of opinions on how to crystallise the vision for a “Free and Open Indo-Pacific” based on the rule of law, while deepening discussions on the above-mentioned themes.

Seventy years after diplomatic relations were established, here in India today, a metro system built with the support of Japanese official development assistance (ODA) is in operation, cars built by Japanese companies run on the streets, and a high-speed rail will make its debut in the future. Although the Covid-19 situation remains challenging, people-to-people exchanges between our two countries are also being advanced. Cooperation has also taken great strides in the area of security, including joint exercises between the Japan Self-Defense Forces and the Indian Armed Forces. Cooperation is also rapidly developing between Japan, Australia, India and the United States, four countries that share fundamental values, and the next leaders’ summit is under coordination, in which Prime Minister Modi will also participate. As the name “Special Strategic and Global Partnership” suggests, Japan-India relations have evolved into an inclusive and multi-layered relationship based on cultural bonds, firm friendship, and common universal values. I sincerely hope that my visit to India will open a new chapter in bilateral relations that will deepen the “Japan-India Special Strategic, and Global Partnership” even further. I am looking forward to meeting the people of India.

The writer is the Prime Minister of Japan



Read in source website

Peter Ronald deSouza writes: The internet is awash with such visuals of resistance. No autocrat can manipulate such widespread resistance.

In a voice that was decisive but also carried a thin hint of nervousness, he tried to end the conversation with “Okay, I’ve listened to you”. But she persisted. “Who are you? What are you doing here?” He had a menacing Kalashnikov in his hands. She had only a packet of sunflower seeds. She was wearing her regular black coat, the sort you wear when you go to the farmer’s market in winter. He was in his army fatigues, the modern kind that has pockets everywhere to carry munitions. He spoke with the certainty of military orders. She with the certainty that comes from moral outrage. The video of their conversation in Kyiv has gone viral.

She: Who are you? … Are you Russians?

He: Yes

She: What are you … (expletive deleted) doing here?

He: This conversation won’t lead to anything

She: You’re occupiers! You’re fascists! You came to our land. Why did you come here with weapons?

He: We… who said

She: Take these seeds, so sunflowers grow when you die here.

He: This conversation won’t lead to anything. Let’s not make things worse. … Please.

She: How could we make this situation any worse?

He: Please let’s not make things worse.

She: Guys put these seeds into your pockets. Take these seeds. You will die here with them. You’ve come to my land.

He: Okay I’ve listened to you.

She: Do you understand? You’re occupiers

He: Ok

She: You’re enemies

He: Yes

She: From now on, You’re cursed.

He: Yes

Listening to the conversation, I was immediately reminded of the powerful and evocative essay by Nobel laureate Heinrich Böll, ‘The Gun was aimed at Kafka’. I had read it four decades ago but still remember the scene he so vividly describes. Set in 1968, in spring when the Soviet tanks had rolled into Prague, Böll describes a fleeting encounter in the city square between a woman and a soldier. The young soldier stood beside his tank whose gun turret was aimed at the statue of Kafka. His colleague sat inside the tank, looking out at the world from the open hatch. A woman was walking by. There was both urgency and hostility in her gait. She had a dog on a leash. She looked straight ahead as if the tank was invisible, as if to make it invisible. The young soldier tried to humanise the situation and bridge the distance between occupier and occupied by bending down to pet the dog. In most situations, such gestures of friendship always work. This time the dog growled at him, a “do not come any closer or I’ll show you” growl. It seemed as if the woman’s hostility had travelled down through the leash to her dog. The soldier was taken aback. He was embarrassed because he did not know what else to do. They do not teach you the next steps in military school and he was too young to understand the ideology of occupation. He was only following orders. It was a small dog. He was a big man. But he backed off even though he had a tank with him.

The conversation between the soldier and the woman in Kyiv reminded me, once again, of the absurdity and tragedy of war. Yudhisthira’s truth. There was pathos in the exchange. The soldier, his finger on the trigger saying “please” twice to the angry woman, beseeching, even imploring her “not to make things worse”. She, oblivious, or rather unmindful of the danger of his finger on the trigger, offers him a packet of sunflower seeds, telling him that the life that is within them will surely come out, will sprout on his grave. She curses him. Almost stoically, he accepts her curses. Was she just speaking in anger? Was she being prophetic about the future of Ukraine? Is she denouncing war everywhere? Is she speaking as the mother of a soldier? Do curses work?

But apart from the bizarreness of this Kafkaesque situation, where normalcy has been upended and immense suffering has become widespread, where terrified children cower with their mothers in underground shelters, I tried to make sense of the absurdity from the perch of some future historian. Are we witnessing, in Ukraine, the death throes of an autocracy? Is this history’s cruel lesson that when autocracies die they do so in insanity and with the blood of innocents spilt? Is the tragedy playing out in Ukraine autocracy’s death rattle?

The flood of images on the web point to that conclusion. The bloodied face of a woman, wounded by a stray bomb looks at the camera uncomprehending but defiant. The queues of people lining up to receive guns from the government as they announce their intention to form a civilian army of resistance. The MP standing by her apartment window with her self-loading rifle ready to defend the idea of a democratic, European Ukraine. The father, gun in hand, sobbing as he sends his wife and child to a town far from the conflict while he stays back to defend not just his country, but his child’s future. The mayor of Kyiv, a boxer, announces that he is prepared to go the full distance, punch for punch, to fight off the occupiers. The women preparing Molotov cocktails in an open square to fight the oncoming army. The man standing in the path of the military convoy, defying them to run him over in what looks like a live repeat of that iconic 1989 picture of Tiananmen Square. The internet is awash with such graphic visuals of resistance. It is the new site of democracy’s core principle of “popular control”. No autocrat can manipulate such widespread resistance. The blogs from young people, their videos, memes, Twitter posts, documentaries, and photo uploads, show that people’s power has outgunned the Russian army which looks bewildered at this unexpected defiance. The soldier who was given the sunflower seeds, I am sure, must be wondering whether the curse of the woman, of his death, has any power.

Obviously, the Russian leadership had not read Heinrich Böll. Pointing the gun a second time at Kafka just does not make any sense. But will egotistical leaders ever learn or do they think that they are the gifted ones in history who will get it right?

This column first appeared in the print edition on March 18, 2022 under the title ‘Shooting Kafka in Kyiv’. The writer is the DD Kosambi Visiting Professor at Goa University, India. Views are personal.



Read in source website

Raja Menon writes: West failed to read Putin's ambitions and downgraded NATO. The mistake should not be repeated.

Wars produce much retrospective literature, and even World War I continues to produce fresh narratives, raising never before addressed issues. Perhaps we are too close to the events of the Russo-Ukraine war to produce a truly dispassionate account of the events that built up to the invasion. Of course, Vladimir Putin imprisons anyone who calls the invasion a war. His version is that it was a “special military operation”, akin to India’s police action against Hyderabad in 1948. This article is admittedly written in hindsight, but there is a continuing thread to the western blunders in the approach to dealing with Moscow, particularly concerning Putin. He has had a dramatic rise in the political hierarchy of Moscow, with many of his successes unexplained but for the strong behind-the-scenes backing of the FSB. What should have brought Putin to the notice of the West were his first two achievements — the stabilisation and increase in oil production and export that hugely increased the Russian GDP, and secondly, his successful suppression of the Chechnya revolt. These were clearly the achievements of a man with a vision for Russia. Unfortunately, it was ignored in the West, and particularly in Europe, which was busy with civilianising and militarily downgrading NATO.

It is understandable that as economic prosperity grew in Europe and Eastern European nations clamoured to join the EU, the western leaders were overcome with hubris and dismantled the military intellectual content of NATO headquarters, reducing NATO forces to a rapid reaction force under the political control of a civilian secretary-general. The West, therefore, failed to connect Putin’s invasion of Georgia with his continuing vision to fight the regime change in Ukraine in 2015. Instead, they actually made overtures to Volodymyr Zelenskyy to cosy up to a toothless NATO. The most ridiculous political performance of the first day of the Russian invasion will remain the ineffectual address by Stoltenberg, the civilian secretary-general of NATO warning Russia of “consequences”. There is no doubt that Russia will eventually withdraw from some conquered territory and also that Moscow and the Russian people will suffer financial consequences but a big question will remain: What is the cardinal error made by NATO? That will remain the civilianising of NATO when confronted with Putin’s vision of a greater Russia.

What can the Quad learn from this unnecessary war? The Indo-Pacific is not continental Europe. War in the Indo-Pacific will be a maritime war fought in accordance with maritime strategy and space assets. The rules of engagement are vastly different. The greatest difference is that peaceful maritime reconnaissance is a legitimate activity with the help of which situational awareness can be built up, enabling the delivery of a crippling conventional first strike in the first stages of a possible conflict. To call the Quad a “diplomatic grouping” is a catastrophic error. The visiting US C-in-C Pacific Command, Admiral Samuel John Paparo made almost an apology when he explained in Visakhapatnam that “strategy follows policy” and hence the Quad would be a diplomatic grouping, thereby going down the same erroneous route as NATO.

The big question is: Why is the Quad appeasing Beijing? In actual fact, the Quad, as Admiral Paparo admitted, is all about maritime domain awareness, underwater domain awareness, and information sharing — all of them purely naval activities, which need continuous communication (that is catered for), a command organisation and a secretariat, neither of which we have because Quad is a diplomatic grouping. The military is trained to think structurally, cast future scenarios, do contingent planning, find alternatives and plan for victory. Diplomats have no such background, and the one person the West really misses today is Andrew Marshal, the originator of Net Assessment, who would certainly have foretold the rise of a dangerous and embittered Russia. Each member of the Quad has a different enmity with China. India sees it as an obstructionist, aggressive, land grabbing competitor, the US sees it as an ideological and hegemonistic competitor, Japan and Australia are ideological allies of the US. What binds these nations is their determination to dominate the Indo-Pacific and use maritime power to enforce the rules of governance. Confusing Beijing by calling it a diplomatic grouping will certainly lead to a misunderstanding of the Quad nations’ resolve and possible Chinese adventurism. The Quad needs to be represented by the owners of the maritime assets used to obtain domain awareness and a staff with command communications and a depth of intellectual planning. Putin and Xi Jinping have both bulldozed their constitutions to lengthen their tenures to implement their vision, Putin for Russia and Xi for the world.

The great maritime strength of the Quad is its force of Maritime Patrol Aircraft. Japan and the US are particularly rich in those resources. India’s force of P-81s is substantial and with the help of Australia, a maritime domain awareness can be built up that denies the PLA navy the chance to hide in the vastness of the ocean. The Indo-US communication agreement was presumably established to keep the four-nation search group on a common grid. It would be useful to establish an Indo-Pacific situation plot at Visakhapatnam, backed by an elite naval staff, to watch the transformation of China from a regional power into a world-class navy. Quad meetings should be headed by naval officers, with diplomatic support, so that they don’t produce irrelevant communiqués like the one in February 2022 that spoke of dealing with Covid, climate change and natural disasters.

This column first appeared in the print edition on March 18, 2022 under the title ‘NATO blunders, Quad lessons’. The writer, a former rear admiral in the navy, is author of A Nuclear Strategy for India.



Read in source website

It’s good that India has agreed to provide a $1-billion line of credit for Sri Lanka in the midst of the latter’s economic crisis. This is on top of the $500-million line of credit for purchasing fuel and a currency swap of $400 million that India has facilitated in recent months. Sri Lanka has a total deficit of $9.4 billion in foreign exchange and is facing the worst economic crisis in decades. Its official reserves fell to $2.36 billion in January with a sovereign bond repayment of $1 billion due in July. Things have come to this pass because Sri Lanka accumulated excessive debt over the years, particularly on account of sovereign bonds. And its only strategy to repay this debt was to bank on its tourism industry and foreign remittances.

However, Lankan tourism took a big hit due to the Covid pandemic. Add to this populist policies of the Lankan government such as implementing tax concessions amounting to 1.5% of GDP and other missteps like switching to 100% organic agriculture. This led to a huge shortage of dollars for import-dependant Sri Lanka, which in turn led to an acute crisis of essentials like fuel, medicines and food, and ballooning inflation which hit a record 25% last month.

In fact, the crisis-ridden Lankan economy has also made China circumspect about offering further financial assistance to Colombo. This, despite the fact that the current first family of Lankan politics, the Rajapaksas, is known to have a preference for Beijing. True, China did facilitate a yuan swap amounting to $1.5 billion to shore up Sri Lanka’s reserves. But there appears to be an understanding in Beijing that a lot of the loans it extended to Colombo were sunk into white elephant projects that neither helped the Lankan economy nor earned the Chinese a good reputation. This is precisely why Colombo is now looking to New Delhi for help.

But India needs to be careful here. While the present moment does provide an opportunity for New Delhi to enhance its strategic relationship with Colombo, fundamental issues remain. Sri Lanka’s economic woes can only be resolved through IMF-mediated debt restructuring – something that Colombo now appears amenable to. Plus, there is also the Tamil issue and the implementation of the 13th Amendment to the Sri Lankan Constitution for devolution of powers. This has to be negotiated tactfully as overt Indian interference could once again create conditions for Sinhala nationalism to be deployed as a political tool. The Rajapaksas will try to play both New Delhi and Beijing. India, therefore, has to be smart.



Read in source website

Women as a constituency provide a decisive edge in electoral contests. It’s led to welfare policies and poll promises tailored to address their specific needs and subsequent analyses of the impact of these. Welfare, however, has limitations. It is a safety net, not a tool to empower women. Empowerment will come with jobs, which are often the gateway to financial security and a sense of self-worth, and political power. There are signs that political parties are now beginning to move beyond targeted welfare schemes to measures which can truly empower women.

Two recent examples are worth noting. Delhi’s government is trying to get more women to own and operate public transport through measures such as reserving licences and joint ownership. In Tamil Nadu, the DMK’s success in urban local body polls led it to appoint women as mayors in 11 of the 20 corporations, including Chennai. Important as these measures are they are not foundational. The precondition in empowering women is to impart confidence that they can access public spaces without fear. Data shows a strong correlation between perceptions of safety and women’s participation in the workforce.

GoI’s employment data for the last full pre-pandemic year, 2018-19, showed that 53.6% of the population in the 15-59 age group was in the job market. The discrepancy between women and men was stark. A mere 26.5% of the women were in the labour force as compared to 80.3% of the men. It’s the regional variation that foregrounds the safety factor. Southern states, Goa, Maharashtra, HP, Chhattisgarh and Sikkim were among states with a relatively high percentage of women in the workforce. Among states trailing the national average were UP, Bihar, West Bengal and Delhi. There are other reasons why so few women look for work. But unsafe public spaces are the most important.



Read in source website

Friction between governors, appointed by the Centre and state governments run by rival parties is one of the oldest stories in Indian politics, but few states — with the possible exception of West Bengal — have seen the level of bitterness that Maharashtra has in recent years. The tussle between the Maharashtra Vikas Aghadi (MVA) government and governor BS Koshyari, a veteran Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader, started days after the unlikely coalition took office in 2019. In May 2020, Mr Koshyari did not approve the state cabinet’s recommendation for nominating chief minister (CM) Uddhav Thackeray to the legislative council, a move that could have sparked a constitutional crisis since the CM had to be elected to the state legislature within six months of taking oath. The situation was resolved after weeks of bickering, and a meeting between Mr Thackeray and Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Then, towards the end of the first Covid-19 wave, Mr Koshyari criticised the state government for not reopening temples, and even wrote a letter to the CM asking if he had “turned secular”. Months later, actor Kangana Ranaut, who was locked in a verbal war with Shiv Sena leaders at the time, found support from the Raj Bhavan. And, for over a year now, Mr Koshyari has not cleared a list of 12 people recommended to be nominated to the state’s Upper House.

Mr Thackeray’s government has responded by curtailing the governor’s powers in appointing vice-chancellors of universities. In May 2021, it denied Mr Koshyari permission to use a government aircraft to fly to Mussoorie after he boarded the state plane. The governor was forced to take a commercial flight at the last minute. On the first day of the budget session on March 3, an irked Mr Koshyari walked out within minutes of beginning his speech after sloganeering by legislators — the first time this has happened in the five-decade history of the Maharashtra legislature.

Bitterness between Raj Bhavan and Mantralaya undermines the sanctity of both institutions and does not bode well for the governance of one of the country’s largest states. Maharashtra is plagued by a raft of problems, from farmer suicides and falling agricultural incomes to urban unemployment, malnutrition and slowing economic growth. The need of the hour is to bury the hatchet and focus on critical issues of governance, and find creative and sustainable solutions for the problems facing the state’s 110 million people. Both sides must find a way to de-escalate.



Read in source website

A few weeks ago, a friend from America rang up to seek my advice on how to go about giving away approximately 100 crore to create a Booker-type of prize for a literary book in Hindi. Being 90 years old, he wanted someone who can take the entire responsibility for setting up and administering the endowment.

I have been working in the field of research and promotion of philanthropy for the last 30 years or so, and yet, I was stumped about where to point him. Unfortunately, in the field of philanthropy in India, there are hardly any intermediary organisations that keep such information or can offer such advice. There are some wealth managers, lawyers, and chartered accountants who specialise in managing charitable donations and endowments, but there is no directory or listing of such professionals, a gap that perhaps some philanthropy intermediary organisations can fill.

The need for such professionals will undoubtedly go up in the near future. In spite of the pandemic, the number of high net-worth individuals (HNWI) has gone up and philanthropy in India continues to grow.

According to Bain and Co’s Annual Philanthropy Report, about 20% of private sector philanthropic funding totalling about 64,000 crore (about 23% more than in the fiscal year 2019 — 52,000 crore) comes from family philanthropy. Edelweiss’ The Family Wealth Report 2018 shows a similar picture. India has nearly 150,000 ultra high-net-worth families holding a cumulative net worth of about 140 lakh crore. This cohort is expected to grow to 400,000 families with a net worth of almost 360 lakh crore by 2025.

Not all of them know what they want to do with that money philanthropically, or how to go about it. Nor do all have legal advisers for this purpose, who are knowledgeable about the social sector and where the gaps are where their money would make the maximum impact.

The problem is even more acute when it comes to the Indian diaspora, for there is the added complication of the Foreign Contributions Act, if they are foreign citizens.

On the other side, there are thousands of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and socially-minded individuals who desperately need money to actualise their visions for social change.

Therefore, what is needed are more professional advisers such as lawyers, wealth managers, and chartered accountants who specialise in charity management, on the one hand, and more information about them in the public domain, on the other. This is where intermediary organisations in the philanthropy field can play a valuable role. They could be the first port of call when one wants information of the sort mentioned above.

At the moment, there are very few such organisations in India, largely because there is very little funding available for such organisations. Donors don’t seem to understand the need for organisations of this type.

They would much rather give their money for schools, public health projects or something where they can have their name attached to the donation. It needs some farsighted donors who understand the role that philanthropy plays in a society, in partnership with the government, and as a counterweight to the government.

If our philanthropy is to grow and play an effective role in bringing about the needed social change, we need more infrastructure for philanthropy such as professional advisers specialising in philanthropy, intermediary organisations and more research and advocacy centres. Is this too much to wish for?

Pushpa Sundar is a scholar of Indian philanthropy, civil society, and development, and has several books to her credit 

The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

The visit of Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida to India could not have been better timed. The annual summit on March 19 will celebrate the 70th anniversary of India establishing diplomatic relations with post-War Japan. That, however, is the formal part of his visit.

The real substance can be expected to be a frank conversation between Asia's most important democracies on the likely consequences of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and the implications of all this for China's relations with not just Russia, but also the United States (US), the European Union (EU), Japan, and India. It is a crucial opportunity for leaders to exchange minds and deepen understanding of their respective position on the conflict, guided by legitimate national interests and history.

While Moscow has tested Euro-Atlantic calculations, Beijing’s nationalistic fervour ahead of the Chinese Communist Party Congress continues to challenge regional security across important sub-theatres of the Indo-Pacific. From Ukraine to Taiwan, the Himalayas to the South and East China Seas, the rule of force has dented rule of law. Stakes are high.

Washington’s effective global leadership is stretched thin, showing signs of fatigue from Kabul to Pyongyang. Meanwhile, making of a China-Russia alignment is an important variable bearing strategic implications for many, including India and Japan.

At this critical juncture, India and Japan have a strategic opportunity to improve their own position in the emerging world order by working more closely together. India-Japan should position itself as a net positive asset in the global system. How India and Japan play the long game will be judged by history. The summit presents a window to sharpen the strategic maturity of India-Japan Indo-Pacific Vision 2025 ahead of the Quad Leaders’ Summit scheduled in Tokyo.

Despite differing orientations — Tokyo’s decades-old treaty alliance with Washington and Delhi’s guiding principle of strategic autonomy and multi-polarity— the compelling rationale of former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's vision of the “Confluence of the Two Seas” has laid the foundation for a trusted partnership that Kishida and Modi will have to build on.

There may be nuanced gaps in the India-Japan conversation on some verticals, be it rules governing mega-free trade architecture like Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) or their posturing in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the G7's response. But strategic convergences far outweigh the divergences.

The strategic trust first built by Prime Minister Abe and continued by his successors, including Kishida, has helped the two countries to work closely together on a post-Covid Indo-Pacific agenda. India and Japan have also been able to work in concert in various trilateral, plurilateral and multilateral forums.

India-Japan demonstrated resolve in nurturing alternative solutions while manoeuvring post-Covid complexities. Strong institutional structures yielded an impressive report card even as Covid-19 struck, be it launching Quad’s Vaccine Partnership or Semiconductor Initiative; engineering the Resilient Supply Chain Initiative (RSCI) with Australia; and, joining forces in the Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI). Co-opting with Blue Dot Network, Build Back Better for the World (B3W) and the US-Japan Global Digital Connectivity Partnership also holds promise.

Economic security is a dominant theme in the post-Covid era opening up opportunities for cooperation in new technologies, including digital, cyber, space, 5G and semiconductors. Japan's desire to de-risk in critical supply chains also offers India opportunities that it must seize. Balancing national security interests, developmental goals, and cost-efficiency of high-tech presents a steep learning curve.

India and Japan require a deeper discussion on issues pertaining to technology transfer and adaptation especially with a focus on the Fourth Industrial Revolution, leveraging the transformative potential of strategic technologies, and scaling up in Artificial Intelligence, quantum, blockchain, big data, the Internet of Things, submarine optical fibre, critical materials and minerals, space, energy-efficient and low carbon technology, green hydrogen and green ammonia.

Complementary strengths in high-tech and the knowledge economy present opportunities. Indian software prowess and its demographics offer a favourable position for it to create solutions for Japan’s Society 5.0. Here, the Specified Skilled Workers programme is an enabler.

Japan has been a force multiplier in India’s economic modernisation. Kishida’s commitment to invest around $42 billion over five years underscores Japan’s continued determination in building a robust India. From a cumulative $36 billion foreign direct investment (FDI) since 2000 to quality infrastructure financing and ODA which advanced mega-industrial and freight corridors, shinkansen and developmental projects in strategic peripheries of Northeast and Andaman, India features prominently in Japan’s “Infrastructure System Overseas Promotion Strategy” (2021-2025).

Over the past decade, Japan has also emerged as an important defence and strategic partner. Committed to a rules-based maritime order through joint exercises, logistics, information and intelligence sharing with Quad powers and key European navies, the two are moving on to greater cooperation in cyber, space, digital infrastructure and defence technology.

Japan’s maiden National Security Strategy (NSS) prioritised India on account of its maritime geography and naval prowess. As policy planners in Tokyo currently revise key defence and security documents, India will continue to be an important pole alongside the US, Australia, Europe and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

China’s arrival as a confident power in the system is upending power equilibrium, between US-China and China and Asian neighbours. Discomfort with the idea of a Sino-centric order led Tokyo to revisit its grand strategy. As Japan pushes the gambit of positive pacifism, India and Japan will inevitably embrace a greater role in regional security.

While 2022 is about celebrating seven decades of diplomatic relations, the depth of the India-Japan partnership draws from much deeper historical and cultural roots. India’s footprint in the Japanese public psyche, from Rabindranath Tagore, Subhash Chandra Bose, Radha Binod Pal and Krishna Menon makes for a solid foundation.

Looking ahead, India’s significance in Tokyo’s grand strategy will be unwavering. The variables that pushed the inclusion of Delhi in Japan’s strategic outlook have become even more potent in the post-pandemic game. Amid global disorder, India-Japan cannot remain bystanders. They will rather lead together as a stabilising force and design strategic solutions to restore equilibrium to the post-Covid world.

Titli Basu is an associate fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses

The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

The pandemic has seen a significant increase in cyberbullying cases in India, especially involving women. The National Crime Records Bureau figures show a 36% increase in cyberstalking and cyberbullying cases in India post the pandemic. Research shows that women, girls and people from the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual (LGBTQIA+) community who access digital spaces face a disproportionate range of abuse from trolling to threatening or harassing phone calls. Covid has seen an increase in the use of digital spaces and, with it, cyber harassment which causes deep social and psychological distress to victims. The effect of all this is not just in the harm faced by the victims but also in solutions proffered like limiting access to phones or actively decreasing digital use, all of which are detrimental to women’s rights.

But there are also efforts by civil society and non-governmental organisations to tackle this, apart from, of course, the law. The non-governmental organisation (NGO) Point of View has taken up this issue and it has worked to make more readily available information on digital safety and security, especially in regional, non-text-based mediums so that women, girls and other gender minorities are able to access and explore the digital space more freely. It has piloted TechSakhi, an informational helpline, to answer queries on digital safety and provide support for those facing online abuse or violence. This is one effort, and we need many more like this to counter this insidious form of harassment and bullying.

Bishakha Datta, director, Point of View, says, “While our helpline has been able to provide support to many women, queer, trans and non-binary persons, as soon as our helpline launched, we received a flood of calls — a number of them from men who proceeded to harass our responders. This is one of the most common themes our responders deal with--phone harassment.”

A mother of two from Uttar Pradesh (UP) who did not wish to be named approached TechSakhi saying that she had been getting a lot of abusive calls from unknown numbers. She had blocked the number, only to find that the harassers began calling from random numbers.

The platform offers solutions: Block the number, use apps that can tell you the name of the caller like TrueCaller and screen the call, take on the caller and threaten to go to the police or take legal action. However, the caller can always circumvent a blocked call and call from another number as happened with the victim from UP. Even if the caller identity is found, the calls may not stop. Reporting it to the police or engaging in legal action is a lengthy process, which most victims are unable or unwilling to undertake.

These are limited solutions as telecom companies do not have reporting mechanisms for harassment. Sohini Banerjee, co-lead for TechSakhi says that their responders were subject to such harassment themselves in the beginning. “We have made changes in our call processes, communications and messaging, and taken other measures that have reduced this harassment and provided support to our responders. However, this experience demonstrates the need for effective reporting and accountability mechanisms for phone harassment.”

While the scars of online abuse are not easily visible, it is a threat to the well-being of women. To encourage safe digital spaces, the government must address this issue in partnership with NGOs with expertise in this field. Strengthening the cybercrimes cells and bringing in experts would be a good first step at this time.

lalita.panicker@hindustantimes.com 

The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter coined the term “creative destruction” to describe persistent industrial change that revolutionises a country’s economic structure from within. The old economic order crumbles, a new one is born from its ashes, and the process repeats ad infinitum. Creative destruction has its analogue in politics when old political formations give way to emergent political forces — thereby establishing a new political equilibrium.

The 2014 general election — and the emergence of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) as a hegemonic force — is an example of creative destruction’s transformational potential. The 2022 assembly results, in which the BJP triumphed in four of five states, indicate that its dominant position has consolidated further. But creative destruction is not a unidirectional force; after eight years, we are finally seeing signs of churning among the Opposition as well. These developments are both significant and long overdue.

Let’s begin with the Congress. The Congress itself shows no signs of reinvention or rebirth — but its demise is now being fully internalised by others. In the aftermath of the 2014 election, it was obvious that the Congress was suffering from a trio of deficits: It lacked credible leadership, a robust party organisation, and a clear ideology. Eight years on, the party appears worse on all three scores.

It takes a certain amount of chutzpah to slump to a few dozen seats in Parliament and yet think that, without a drastic overhaul, your glory days are right around the corner. Predictably, the Congress has sunk even lower. Between 1962-67, the Congress averaged a 42% vote share in state assembly elections. Between 2016-2020, that share had fallen to 23% and continues to plummet. Compared to the BJP’s 1,339 Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs), the Congress boasts just 762 — roughly the number of legislators the BJP possessed in 1991. Today, the Congress can only claim two chief ministers—its lowest number on record. Its struggles at the state level mean that its Rajya Sabha tally has come down to 34, one-third of the BJP’s membership.

In previous work, scholar Jamie Hintson and I have shown that once the Congress falls below second place in a state, it never recovers. Increasingly, the Congress functions as a significant force only in states featuring a direct, bipolar contest with the BJP. But given the steady stream of defections from the Congress ranks, one can expect that the Congress will have to defend its shrinking territory in states like Gujarat (which goes to polls later this year) and Karnataka, where it faces threats from new entrants such as the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and other regional outfits. If current trends prevail, the Congress will be treated as a distraction rather than the default core of an anti-BJP coalition in 2024.

As the Congress continues its descent, its rivals are expanding their horizons. The AAP’s victory in Punjab signals that the party is resilient — after a respectable showing in the state’s 2017 assembly polls, it flopped in the 2019 general elections, only to rebound this year — and nimble enough to capitalise on voters exhausted with the political status quo. The AAP’s emphasis on public services is matched with a less strident nationalism that seeks to court Hindu voters without alienating minorities. The party’s leader Arvind Kejriwal has accepted the fact that the AAP voter in Delhi elections votes BJP in the parliamentary polls.

The Trinamool Congress of Mamata Banerjee has also attempted to spread its wings beyond its bastion of West Bengal, albeit less successfully. Banerjee’s pitch is an amalgamation of targeted welfare schemes — many of which prioritise women and girls — and a vigorous defence of secularism. But the party has yet to take flight outside eastern India, as evidenced by its weak showing in Goa. Both parties have obvious limits — they are autocratically run, geographically circumscribed, and possess leaders whose consistency has been questioned — but their appetites have clearly grown beyond their traditional bailiwicks.

In the short-run, a deepening process of creative destruction within the Opposition will be a boon for the BJP. A truly “Congress-mukt (free)” India would create a vacuum that could be filled by new political forces. A badly weakened Congress that takes up space, fragments the Opposition, but has no serious hope of coming to power on a national scale is an even better outcome from the BJP’s perspective. Unless the Opposition can form a grand alliance — a prospect that seems unlikely at present — fierce jockeying to fill the space the Congress is rapidly ceding will create an internecine struggle for the soul of the Opposition. This short-term pain, despite reinforcing the BJP’s national-level dominance, is necessary for long-term gain. However, there is nothing mechanical about the process of creative destruction: Convergence is but one possible outcome. The Opposition’s success depends on how it answers three questions.

First, what is the appropriate relationship between the State and religion? There is an obvious appeal to soft-pedalling criticism of Hindutva to maximise votes but doing so means playing on the BJP’s turf. Yet, a vociferous defence of secularism — a term that has been hollowed out and often perverted — may be foolhardy as well. Can the Opposition champion principled secularism that acknowledges the sins of the past while articulating a new vision that goes beyond the binary of Hindu supremacy or minority appeasement?

Second, what is the optimal design of the welfare State? The BJP’s success in recent years has ironically relied on beating the Congress at its own game. Having come to power dismissing welfarism, Narendra Modi has now mastered it. The public provision of private goods — toilets, gas cylinders, bank accounts, and water connections—has been an electoral winner. But this “new welfarism” elides the challenge of providing public goods such as high-quality health, education, water, and sewage services. Will the Opposition merely mimic the BJP’s schemes, which are inextricably linked to a popular prime minister and augmented by the Sangh machinery, or can they reimagine the welfare debate?

Third, what is the balance between caste versus class mobilisation? The assembly results sound the death knell of Mandal politics. Let’s not forget the Samajwadi Party (SP) accomplished exactly what it set out to do in Uttar Pradesh: Consolidate Muslim and Yadav votes. Nevertheless, it still fell far short of the BJP. The latter, in turn, has been able to pick up votes from non-dominant Other Backward Classes (OBC) and Dalit jatis who feel left behind. In so doing, the BJP has carefully fused caste grievances with class appeals. At a time when the pandemic and years of slowing growth have created hardships for ordinary Indians, can the Opposition devise a credible message that links social justice with economic empowerment?

Locating answers to these questions will be difficult, especially since the BJP will hardly be content resting on its laurels. But the assembly results indicate that while the BJP occupies a comfortable pole position, there are signs of churn among their adversaries. This upheaval is essential for the future of political competition, not to mention the health of a vibrant democracy.

Milan Vaishnav is senior fellow and director of the South Asia program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC

The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

Accidents, of course, will happen but there are some we must do everything to ensure never do. If they still occur, how we respond becomes the test not just of our strength but also of our credibility. The accidental firing of a supersonic missile by India, a nuclear-weapon State, at Pakistan, another nuclear-weapon State but also a neighbour and rival, is a precise, if frightening, illustration of my point.

For 48 hours, there was silence from the Indian authorities. Only after Pakistan went public with the news did our government confirm what had happened. Surely, it was our duty to have immediately alerted Pakistan? Their National Security Adviser (NSA), Moeed Yousuf, claims we did not and we have not denied that. So, if we did, we need to emphatically say so. But if we did not, we need to explain why.

The explanation we have so far offered — to ourselves and the world — raises a further set of concerns. This is because the statement released by the defence ministry not only fails to reassure but adds questions and doubts to the prevailing confusion. It says: “In the course of a routine maintenance, a technical malfunction led to the accidental firing of a missile.”

Now, if a missile can be inadvertently fired during maintenance, doesn’t this raise disturbing questions about the measures and procedures India adopts and how that maintenance is done? It might have been better to acknowledge what happened and apologise for the error and leave explanations till after an inquiry has established the cause of the accident.

However, in the interim, there are other issues that need urgent answers. Did this missile have a self-destruct mechanism? If it did, was it activated? If it was, did it fail? Also, what was the intended flight path? I’m told all missiles have a pre-programmed one. And even if it’s too early to be authoritative, what is our initial sense of why, or if, it veered away from that path?

These questions need to be quickly answered because, if they are not, that will affect our image and credibility as a responsible nuclear-power State. Remember, that was the basis on which critical waivers were granted when the Indo-US nuclear deal was negotiated. The current silence can only cause concern and fuel doubts.

Pakistan will, of course, do everything to spread those concerns and undermine India’s standing. Its NSA has already said the incident “indicates many loopholes and technical lapses of a serious nature in Indian handling of strategic weapons.” We must act expeditiously to reassure the world he’s mistaken. The question is how?

I fear the easy and mistaken response will be to engage in a Twitter-war with Moeed Yousuf. That may get cheered by bhakts and trolls, but the international community, who want thoughtful and responsible answers, will see it only as immature deflection and, possibly, not understanding what is actually required.

What the world wants is the truth of what happened and a credible guarantee it cannot occur again. Maybe the full truth cannot be told in public but that doesn’t mean near silence will be acceptable. We need a well thought out balance that is convincing. And, remember, others have to be the judges of that.

Meanwhile the guarantee there will not be any repetition has to be more than a verbal statement. Meaningful steps must be taken which satisfy our friends and are difficult for our critics to deny or question. Again, other countries will judge if they’re meaningful. Not us.

On both of these issues, we need to act now. We must not believe that, as time passes, concerns will die down. At the moment, the world’s attention is firmly fixed on the Ukraine crisis. This is why the western press has ignored our mishap. However, the accidental firing of a missile by one nuclear power at another may be overlooked for now but it certainly won’t be forgotten. If we mishandle our response, the concerns this situation has created could start to haunt us.

Karan Thapar is the author of Devil’s Advocate: The Untold Story 

The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

India’s stance in the Russia-Ukraine war has prompted policymakers and analysts in Washington DC to question the depth of the United States (US)-India strategic partnership. As a member of Quad, India is central to the US’s Indo-Pacific vision, and its alignment with this vision is seen to be critical as Washington hones its China strategy. While many in Washington question whether the India-US partnership can withstand international pressure for India to take a stance against Russia’s assault on Ukraine, the relationship is far too robust today to undergo a complete reversal. The Ukraine crisis no doubt exposes a strategic mismatch between Washington and New Delhi’s security priorities, yet there remain existing and durable connections in other spheres that could buoy the bilateral relationship.

Our new Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) project “Women You Should Know in India” demonstrates how the breadth of the US-India partnership extends across numerous industries, and is advanced by bottom-up interests that can transcend security issues. The project encompasses, through bi-monthly interviews, a growing catalogue of senior-level women in India who identify and explain overlapping areas of US-India interest. Many areas for cooperation they discuss are those already identified in Washington as being high on the Biden administration’s agenda. For example, the climate crisis is central to a progressive vision of governance the White House and in the US Congress. As Bahar Dutt, a prominent conservationist and environmental journalist, highlights, US-India cooperation on the climate crisis has both historical roots and nascent potential, particularly in terms of solar energy — where India has already taken the lead on the International Solar Alliance (ISA) — and in air pollution. “India has extensive environment laws but lacks enforcement,” Dutt comments, and the United States’ experience in successfully managing urban pollution in the 1970s could offer regulatory guidance for India.

Developing and sharing technology will be critical for tackling environmental issues, as well as matching the comparative advantages of the Indian and US technology sectors. Debjani Ghosh, president of the National Association of Software and Service Companies (Nasscom), a trade association that represents India’s information technology (IT) and business process management (BPM) sectors, emphasises that the Indian IT industry already works closely with US government and academic institutions to promote technological development in areas such as the life sciences and health care. Ghosh finds that “the United States excels in cutting-edge R&D while India has the talent available to plug the gap between supply and demand in digital skills”.

Bilateral cooperation in the wake of Covid-19 further demonstrates the potential for coordinating Indian skills and markets with US funding. Roopa Kudva, managing director, Omidyar Network India, a philanthropic investment firm, explains that further progress can be made by channelling investment into firms from sectors of mutual priority. A large portion of India’s Covid-19 response was fuelled by the innovative breakthroughs of frontline NGOs, who collected data, designed apps, and devised technology-led solutions for testing and contact tracing. Without Indian and US investment, India’s Covid-19 recovery may have been hindered further due to an underdeveloped testing-and-tracing apparatus. In other spheres such as the education sector, India is already a primary global developer of technologies and also a leading recipient of American venture capital inflows — which total $4 billion since January 2020, according to Shaheen Mistri, CEO of Teach for India.

The scope of existing US-India cooperation in the environmental, technology, education, and business spheres is given further heft by security and defence issues that can guide the trajectory of the relationship. And although there seems to be a serious disconnect on Ukraine, continuing cooperation in other security areas is in both countries’ interests. China is not going away as India and the US’s respective largest threats. Russia’s increased alignment with China as a result of the Ukraine crisis only complicates New Delhi’s ability to rely on Moscow as it balances Beijing.

Raji Rajagopalan, director, Centre for Security, Strategy and Technology (CSST) at the Observer Research Foundation (ORF), argues that space governance will become central to the US-India bilateral relationship, driven by mutual concern about the People’s Liberation Army’s increasing space capabilities. Older concerns persist as well, she explains: “India’s war on terror preceded the global war on terror, and despite the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, or perhaps because of it, terrorism is an important priority for Indian policy analysts.”

Beyond Ukraine, these shared security priorities will continue to link Indian and US goals in the long-term. For policymakers and analysts in the US, knowing which issue areas are ripe for cooperation marks a first step, but knowing about the expert voices in India who can speak to these areas is the second. As we continue the project, we expect our interviewees to highlight further issues and interests that could impact the relationship in the years to come.

Manjari Chatterjee Miller is senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, and associate professor at Boston University.

Zoe Jordan is a research associate at the Council on Foreign Relations

The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

Two days before the Karnataka high court (HC) delivered its judgment upholding the hijab ban on students, India’s chief justice was in Hyderabad at the ground-breaking ceremony for a new arbitration centre. Photographs of the ceremony with Hindu priests conducting rituals are instructive of the pervasive role of religion in our secular life.

The three-judge bench of the Karnataka HC ruled that “wearing of hijab by Muslim women does not form a part of essential religious practice in Islamic faith.”

The statement ignores the ground reality for many students. Many first-generation learners, particularly Muslim girls, are able to go to school within the “safety of their religious practices”, says author and historian Rana Safvi. “Ideally there should be no purdah, but the parents and girls believe that it is a part of their religion,” she says. If it takes a head scarf to get a girl to school, so be it.

The judgment has been challenged in the Supreme Court. But there is a danger of two sorts of backlash, both of which are already in evidence.

The first is a generalised attack on Muslim women in hijab in public spaces. On March 16, a Mumbai-based dentist tweeted that his hijab-wearing wife, carrying a baby in her arms, was denied a seat on the local train when a man got up to offer it to her, but the passengers insisted that other women take it instead.

The second backlash is the adoption of hijab by an increasing number of women as a sign of their resistance to unchecked Islamophobia and majoritarianism.

At a time when Muslims feel persecuted by a growing radical Right-wing Hindutva movement, these girls are being pushed into a corner into adopting hijab in larger numbers as the only resistance within their means. Far from “emancipating” women, the judgment will result in greater numbers stepping forward to adopt visible symbols of their faith and identity which they now see as under threat.

The 129-page judgment alludes to a conspiracy where the Muslim girls are being “brainwashed”. It speaks in lofty terms of “a step forward in the direction of emancipation and more particularly, to the access to education.” It goes back to the history of the veil and refers to scholarly articles on the adoption of the hijab. But it is silent about the outrageous videos of women being forced to remove their burkhas and headscarves in what can only be seen as a virtual public stripping.

There is not one word in empathy with the girls being turned away from the gates of their schools and colleges by their teachers. Or being heckled by scores of saffron-wearing thugs shouting slogans at a solitary figure who walks towards her classroom.

If a mere headscarf can disrupt public order, then who is responsible: The student who wears it or the law enforcement agencies responsible for maintaining the peace?

Unfortunately, the judgment does not answer that question.

Namita Bhandare writes on gender

The views expressed are personal

.



Read in source website

Blazing a new trail, Tamil Nadu's Budget for 2022-23 looks at the past, present and future of the state with a view to building an inclusive society that excels in education and industrial growth through transparent governance without forgetting its past and ancient glory.

Unlike the Budgets of yore, Tamil Nadu finance minister Palanivel Thiaga Rajan allocates funds for taking the thoughts of Periyar E.V. Ramasamy to a global audience, creating awareness among the youth about the classical antiquity of Tamil and for restoration of ancient buildings.

Adequate funds have been allocated for protecting the environment, conserving cattle life, promoting sports, encouraging women’s education through financial assistance, strengthening the police force, addressing modern day issues like social media trolling and helping agriculture, which provides an overview of the government's priorities and aspirations. Health, housing, roads, ports and industry are sectors that have received substantial support in the Budget with a futuristic outlook. Additional focus given for education, particularly to women and common people through schemes to enable students pursue higher studies and touch peaks of academic glory and technological excellence, is a sign of the government’s intention to take Tamil Nadu’s disadvantaged sections forward.

Targeted funding for renovating places of worship of minority communities, preventing crimes against women and children, combating narcotic menace and reclaiming encroached public lands point to the government having its fingers on the pulse of the people as these issues had been crying for special attention from the government for long. Not only does the Budget complain about the Union Government not providing the rightful dues to the state that contributes 10 per cent of the nation’s total production, it also vows to continue the fight for the state’s rights. So, the Budget is a continuum of Chief Minister M.K. Stalin's adherence to the Dravidian Model, balancing development with social justice, aimed at turning the State into a trillion-dollar economy.



Read in source website