Since forming the government in May 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has focused on knowledge systems that are traditional to India. In November 2014, the government set up a separate Ministry of Ayush to ensure that the seven traditional systems of healthcare, which include Ayurveda and yoga, are being leveraged adequately in our public healthcare systems.
By December 2014, the United Nations passed a resolution to declare June 21 as the International Day of Yoga with 177 nations co-sponsoring the resolution. In June 2016, while addressing a joint session of the United States Congress, PM Modi stated that India has not claimed intellectual property rights on yoga, highlighting the fact that traditional Indian knowledge systems have always been open and accessible to all. In several public fora since then, the PM has categorically stated that yoga is India’s gift to the world for health and peace.
Yoga flows from Hinduism, with Lord Shiva being recognised as its first practitioner. However, like the universal values that Hinduism espouses, Yoga, too, has a universal appeal and a global outlook. This is also evident from the manner in which the practice has found global acceptance. From Vladivostok in the east to Vancouver in the west, from Cape Town in the south to Copenhagen in the north, people across the world have adopted yoga for its therapeutic potential. This shows the inherent value that Yoga brings to those adopting and practising it. From addressing specific ailments to preventative benefits and overall mental well-being, yoga is now being acknowledged as a practice that helps individuals cope with the pressures of the 21st century.
The journey towards the global acceptance of yoga has been a recent phenomenon and PM Modi’s leadership has been instrumental in this effort. Two responses during the Question Hour of the Lok Sabha during the years of the previous government before 2014 reflect the indifference and contempt that the government in those days had towards yoga and traditional Indian Knowledge Systems.
In August 2007, in response to a question in the Lok Sabha on whether the government of India has taken up the issue of the United States Patents & Trademarks Office (USPTO) sanctioning yoga-related copyrights and trademarks with the US government, the Ministry of Commerce acknowledged that while several patents were granted by the US, it had no intention of taking up the matter with the US government. Similarly in February 2014, a few months before Narendra Modi became the prime minister, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare acknowledged that the Task Force on Yoga that was constituted in March 2009 had not even submitted its formal report. In contrast, the efforts made by the government of India since 2014 highlight the intent of the government in ensuring Indian knowledge systems get adequate global recognition.
Fifty days from now, on June 21, India and the world will be celebrating the 8th International Day of Yoga. Over the years, global participation has increased and last year saw more than 15 crore people participating virtually. This year’s event has special significance as it is being celebrated during India’s 75th year of independence as part of ‘Azadi Ka Amrit Mahostav’.
As we commemorate the various events and heroes who have fought for India’s independence, we are also recognising those who have protected Indian culture and heritage. They have ensured that our value systems are preserved and protected from the various invasions that aimed to wipe out every vestige of our culture and heritage. As an ancient knowledge system that has come down through the generations, there is no better moment than this to recognise the power of yoga. Various ministries and departments are participating in making this event a grand success.
However, it is the participation of non-government entities, spiritual organisations, yoga enthusiasts and the general public that will make this a memorable one. Yoga now has been integrated into the daily lives of crores of people and has become a way of life. In India, over the last seven years, yoga has seen a revival in our national consciousness. At the same time, as a gift to the world, yoga has been embedded deeply into the global consciousness.
The writer is the Union Minister of Culture, Tourism and Development of Northeastern Region
A few days ago, I was startled to read a screaming headline in several newspapers: Indianness the Only Caste. It was the headline of a story reporting the speech of the Prime Minister when inaugurating, virtually, the 90th anniversary celebrations of the ‘Sivagiri Pilgrimage’ held every year in honour of Sree Narayana Guru, a saint-philosopher who lived in Kerala (1856-1928).
My acquaintance with the Guru’s teachings and a visit to Sivagiri had led me to believe that the Guru was resolutely opposed to caste as an identity and, throughout his life, fought against caste discrimination. The motto of his Ashram at Sivagiri was “Om Sahodaryam Sarvatra”, meaning ‘All men are equal in the eyes of God’.
Mr Modi is the Prime Minister of India that is a Republic under a Constitution that “we the people of India solemnly resolved to… give to ourselves”. The Constitution acknowledges states, religions, religious denominations, languages, castes and untouchability (and promises to abolish the detestable practice). The Constitution also recognises citizenship acquired by several methods — birth, descent, registration, naturalisation, incorporation of territory and migration (in certain cases). The word ‘India’ occurs in many Articles and the word ‘Indian’ appears in the context of Anglo-Indian, Indian State and Indian Independence Act, 1947. I did not find the word ‘Indianness’ anywhere.
Caste has only one meaning either in the English language or in any Indian language. It means jati, and brings to mind the innumerable evils that were associated — and are still associated — with the caste system. I understand the spirit in which the Prime Minister may have used the word, but the choice of the word was unfortunate and wrong.
Reject Single Identity
To equate Indianness with caste is dangerous. ‘Caste’ has rigid and retrograde rules. Under the rules, marriage is endogamous, and breaking that rule has cost many young lives. Caste distinguishes a group of persons and, more often than not, drives a wedge between two groups of persons. Caste loyalties and prejudices are stronger than religious loyalties and as fierce as religious prejudices. Until recently, religion was understated; caste was worn on the sleeve. Now, under the Modi government, both religion and caste are worn on the sleeve by many people.
Once caste is exalted, it brings to the fore the odious features of caste. Caste is insular, exclusive, has rigid and usually inflexible rules on marriage, food, dress, worship, etc. Caste attempts to create a single identity. If ‘Indianness’ is also aimed at creating a single identity, that is the polar opposite of diversity and pluralism. Like millions of fellow citizens, I reject the single identity attempted to be created by the BJP.
The Prime Minister’s statement prompted me to re-read the classic speech titled ‘Annihilation of Caste’ (that was prepared but not delivered) by Babasaheb Ambedkar. Here are some stirring passages:
“The effect of caste on the ethics of the Hindus is simply deplorable. Caste has killed public spirit. Caste has destroyed the sense of public charity. Caste has made public opinion impossible.”
“There cannot be a more degrading system of social organisation than the caste system. It is the system which deadens, paralyses, and cripples the people, from helpful activity.”
“There is no doubt, in my opinion, that unless you change your social order you can achieve little by way of progress. You cannot mobilise the community either for defence or for offence. You cannot build anything on the foundations of caste…”
Caste has perpetuated social and economic inequalities. In villages, especially, one’s caste and the numerical strength of the caste (in the village or taluk or district) determines the social and political structure and the distribution of social influence and political power. Invariably, the latter determine economic opportunities. I have found that a simple thing like getting a patta (land title) or a bank loan or a government job is influenced by one’s caste or the numerical power of the caste. Private sector is no better. Most jobs in the informal/ unorganised sector or in the micro and small enterprises go to persons of the same caste as of the owner.
If we equate caste with Indianness, we will find ourselves on a dangerous slope. I have no illusion that caste consciousness or caste-based discrimination will vanish overnight, but there are encouraging trends toward getting rid of the caste system. Urbanisation, industrialisation, television and cinema, open economy, communications, out-migration, and travel (especially foreign travel) are breaking down caste prejudices. To equate Indianness with caste will reverse the progress made in the last few decades.
A Republican approach
Obviously, there is a quality in every Indian that can be described as Indianness. I shall not define or even try to describe it, but being an Indian is the ineffable feeling of belonging to one country. My conclusion that Indianness ought to be equated with citizenship is in accord with the idea of a Republic under a Constitution. A citizen who believes in the basic structure of the Constitution of India and owes allegiance to its fundamental tenets is an Indian.
We must wean Indians from caste loyalties and educate them to celebrate universally cherished values such as liberty and liberalism, equality, tolerance, secularism and democracy. ‘Citizenship’ is the true foundation for building a nation, sharing values, rights and duties, and achieving peace and prosperity. That will also be true Republicanism.
It’s been thirty years since the crossing, or technically, uncrossing of legs on screen scandalized the world, yet, the provocative scene from the movie Basic Instinct continues to be a frame of reference to mark seductive female behaviour. British Opposition leader Angela Rayner called out “sexism and misogyny” in political reporting after a newspaper article quoting her male rivals suggested that she moved her legs the way Sharon Stone did in the hit thriller, to distract Boris Johnson. The UK Prime Minister denounced the newspaper and tweeted in support of Rayner, “I deplore the misogyny directed at her anonymously today”.
Considering the vast numbers of men of stature who were diminished by #MeToo in 2017, one would imagine it would be too frightening for the high profile to indulge in bawdy sniggering about hemlines. The positive fallout of the #MeToo movement has been important corrections to language, and debates on what is deemed appropriate for public discourse. “Leg man” is the cringeworthy (and thankfully, redundant) term used to describe a male whose primary interest centres on womens’ legs. It’s gone out of circulation, as has “ass man”, “locker room talk” and “boys will be boys”. There is an unspoken consensus that any human being invoking these outdated terms deserves to be put in the dock for tardiness, alone. In today’s world, a character on a sitcom could not be reduced to a specific body part like “Hot Lips Houlihan” from the beloved show M*A*S*H. Yet, it seems to be impossible to keep female limbs, covered or bare, out of conversations, political and otherwise.
The mini-skirt has been visible onscreen in Hindi films since the 1960s. One of the first and most memorable images is of Dimple Kapadia wearing a polka dotted top with a short, black skirt in Bobby —perhaps the first “good girl” to flash ample leg in a movie (thereby, rescuing the mini from being the sole preserve of “fast” vamps). Skirts, shorts and bikinis are everywhere in popular culture, but over the years I have witnessed heated arguments between friends and teenage daughters on why they will attract the wrong kind of attention, by wearing a mini to a mall in Delhi. The fact is the liberal attitudes within their homes are in sharp contrast with the reality of India outside, so whether girls may display limbs, exactly how much and where, remains a fraught topic in every household. Urban youth rightly feel entitled to self-expression via clothing, however explicit; parents worry about safety and judgment.
As every woman will attest, it’s unpleasant being ogled at or commented on. There are good reasons why powerful parliamentarians stick to sarees and salwar kameezes even in the dead of winter, when they would be much more comfortable in pants and a jacket. They know if they don’t, they will have to endure insufferable remarks from all and sundry; barbs and ridicule on Twitter is a form of abuse too. More aggravatingly, the dialogue shifts from what they are doing, to what they are wearing. One has to pick one’s battles when the morality police are thriving.
For example, just last year the then Uttarakhand chief minister was forced into an apology after questioning the values of a successful professional, a mother of two, for wearing jeans with rips and gaping holes. The discordance between her attire and self had been too much to bear, so of course, the CM felt compelled to critique her appearance. The world finds it impossible to separate sexuality from women’s clothing, as if the sole purpose of female sartorial choices is to seduce the crowd. It makes one wonder, if the pent-up rage of Basic Instinct’s ice-pick wielding protagonist stems from the truth, that some things never change.
The writer is director, Hutkay Films
The Bharatiya Janata Party acts like the bullock who thinks of himself as the owner of the farm. Least does it know that the real tamer of the bullock is the owner who is holding the leash. The owners in India’s politics are the public who care about constitutional values and a rights-based republic where criticism and engagement are part of their existence in this federal country.
The government might think that since public memory is short, it will forget about Jignesh Mevani, Gujarat’s Independent lawmaker and convenor of the Rashtriya Dalit Adhikar Manch, or many like him illegally incarcerated, and move on to another crisis. However, they forget that such acts are etched into the public’s minds, who will be emboldened to fight repression.
The arrest of 41-year-old Mevani by the BJP-ruled Assam Police highlights the growing repression by the BJP and its extended fears of a Dalit.
Mevani represents the state of the ordinary public, who look at him as their hero fighting for their rights. Though Mevani is an Independent legislator, he has a nationwide reach. As I write this column from New York, there is already a move within the diaspora and the international community to launch a campaign for Mevani.
To know Mevani better, we may have to visit some of the stories from his past. Mevani grew up in a lower-middle-class family of clerical parents. At a place that was a breeding ground for the oppressed castes to fall into the laps of Brahminism, Mevani could have easily been the trishul-wielding Dalit taking on the Muslims. But he was the produce of the Dalit tradition that could easily see the differences exercised in society. Mevani got trained in the field of democratic protests. A seasoned journalist, he matured into a Gramscian intellect who could easily move around the borders of the neglected, oppressed, privileged, and repressed. He wrote thoughtful essays and even spent time with serious scholarly initiatives that had an agenda for the future.
Mevani is a lover of Gujarati language, poetry, ghazals, culture, and the Gujarati pride that precedes the current darkness in disreputable chambers. The Gujarati story of modern times is not that of PR-created Vibrant Gujarat but of uncompromising Dalit Panthers movement, the literary exposes done by the Adivasi spaces, the forces of labour unions who ensured no communal riot took place in the state that borders Pakistan. But this state has also witnessed the tragic Hindu-Muslim binary, the prevalence of untouchability, and orphanage accorded to Adivasis over lack of land titles.
Mevani is a reason for the democratic celebration of an otherwise pessimistic, gloomy India. Even in his arrest, he invites celebration that an entire State machinery had to double down on an MLA living at the other end of the country, about 2,800 km away. It simply shows what the State’s priorities and fears are. It is clear by now that the BJP is afraid of Mevani. And Mevani and his followers like it. It has further ensured his position as an indisputable leader that the country is desperate to embrace.
Mevani’s mentors are those who came to Gujarat to organise workers and unionised them. He is among the rare breed of India’s social activists-turned-politicians who understand land relations with caste violence intimately. He identifies his struggle in line with Dr Ambedkar and Dadasaheb Gaikwad, who launched a nationwide agitation for Dalit land rights. Mevani did the same in his home state that blatantly violated the Gujarat Agriculture Land Ceiling Act, which did not give 5 acres of surplus land to Dalits, as was mandated.
The State perhaps miscalculated the impact of Mevani’s arrest. They have unduly acknowledged Mevani as a leading figure of the anti-BJP establishment. This arrest has already helped Mevani’s political résumé. In a party like the Congress, to be a political prisoner is a passport to higher ranks. He will rise in the party and launch his diatribe against forces that are dividing India based on majority-minority, communalist-casteism. With elections round the corner, Mevani might as well be the face of Gujarat that the Opposition wants to offer.
Mevani is not unknown to street struggles and fights with governments. He has reposed his faith in Rahul Gandhi, who he sees as a leader with genuine concern for the Dalits. Mevani has to survive two assaults — the BJP and Congress. If he succeeds on both fronts, India will have a leader to work with for several decades.
Suraj Yengde, author of Caste Matters, curates the fortnightly ‘Dalitality’ column.
It was sometime in 1997. In Colombo, in the basement banquet hall of a five-star hotel, the “milk man of India” was addressing a press conference to announce a $20 million joint venture between the National Dairy Development Board and Sri Lanka’s state-owned MILCO. It would be called Kiriya — kiri being the Sinhalese word for milk. Varghese Kurien was upbeat about his new project. He had come at the invitation of then President Chandirka Bandaranaike Kumaratunga. He said the aim was to make Sri Lanka self-sufficient in milk. We want to replicate Operation Flood here, he said.
By then, I had been about a year or so in Colombo as the Sri Lanka correspondent of The Indian Express, long enough to realise that fresh milk was an exotic commodity, and milk powder ruled the market — rows of neatly stacked packs of full-cream milk powder on supermarket shelves, and in the refrigerated sections, tubs of creamy yoghurt made with imported milk powder, and a full range of cheese, all flown in from Europe and Down Under. My lasting memory of a first meeting with a Tamil militant leader-turned-mainstream politician in Colombo is of him sitting in the basement of his well-guarded fortress-like home, his back to the wall with a clear view of the bunker’s metal door, munching crackers with cubes of Kraft cheese.
At the press conference, I had made bold to ask Kurien if he was aware of the import lobbies in Sri Lanka and how much of a fightback he expected from them. His reply was something to the effect that he had faced bigger challenges in India, and this was no problem at all.
Many times during a recent trip to Colombo, my mind went back to that brief encounter as I heard about the milk powder scarcity, secretive WhatsApp tipoffs from groceries to loyal customers about fresh arrivals, the jacked-up rates for a 400 gm packet, children having to go without milk, and tea kades offering only black tea.
Crippled by an acute shortage of dollars, Sri Lanka has restricted all its imports, including essential food items. At the time Kurien ventured into Sri Lanka, the country’s annual milk powder import bill was $60 million. In 2021, dairy imports accounted for $317 million of Sri Lanka’s total consumer goods imports of $1.6 bn (the total imports in 2021 were $21 bn, of which non-fuel imports were $16bn).
Kiriya was never able to get off the ground. Union action over wages, hours of work, hirings and firings kept the three MILCO processing plants non-operational or functioning at levels much less than their capacity as to make them unsustainable. Influential ruling party politicians controlled the unions (as an aside, two decades later, it was again trade unions that ensured that the Rajapaksa government cancelled the tripartite agreement with India and Japan for the joint development of the East Container Terminal by paralysing work at Colombo Port for weeks on end).
Indian NDDB officials who had been sent over to run Kiriya were clearly unprepared for the extent of opposition. It was well understood by all that milk powder lobbies were hard at work to ensure there would be no “white revolution” in Sri Lanka. On one particularly bad day, the Indian managers at Kiriya had to hastily leave the premises as workers set up a menacing chant of “India Go Back”.
“All we know is that we are up against very powerful forces. The stakes are very high,” one official told me at the time.
Various other reasons were also forwarded for Kiriya’s failure — Sri Lanka does not have a pastoral tradition, its limited arable land cannot be used for growing fodder and grazing, and Sri Lankans love their coconut milk and have no special affinity to dairy milk, or cuisine that uses milk products. But Sri Lanka’s milk consumption has steadily grown since the 1980s, when the country introduced free market polices that opened the doors to unrestricted imports, and as the demand for milk grew among the country’s urban wealthy.
According to an appraisal of the dairy sector commissioned by Sri Lanka’s Ministry of Livestock Development and Estate Infrastructure and NDDB in 1998, the per capita consumption of milk and milk products in Sri Lanka, which was about 13 kg in 1981, had increased to 36 kg by 1996, low compared to India and Pakistan, but at the time close to the medically recommended 41.6 kg.
The dairy sector itself is tiny. There was some talk of strengthening it in the mid-2000s when the government’s move to raise the price of milk powder to set off the huge import bill met with political opposition. The plan included refurbishing the three MILCO plants that Kiriya had taken over and failed to turn around. But nothing came of it. Imported milk powder continued to fill the gap. Sri Lanka is to this day a great milch cow for the world’s milk multinationals.
It is bitter irony that Colombo has put in orders for milk powder and dairy products under the emergency $1 bn food and commodities credit line extended to it by India. That might be vindication for NDDB. In Sri Lanka, some see the present crisis as an opportunity to learn lessons about self-sufficiency at least in low-hanging sectors, including the dairy sector. It won’t be easy but it is definitely worth a shot.
Just before I sat down to write this piece, the head of the RSS made a very important statement. He said, “Violence does not benefit anybody. The society to which violence is dear is now counting its last days. We should forever be non-violent and peace-loving. For this, it is essential to bring together all communities and preserve humanity.” Wow!! Who was this aimed at? BJP leaders who have weaponised the Hanuman Chalisa and turned the greeting Jai Shri Ram into a war cry? Hindu ‘saints’ declaring that genocide is the way to deal with Muslims? Bajrang Dal thugs who wander about smashing Muslim shops? Cow vigilantes who lynch Muslim dairy farmers and meat traders? Idiots objecting to iftar in the Army? Or the Prime Minister who has remained silent while his second term in office has been defined by religious violence?
Whoever he was addressing, Mohan Bhagwat deserves respect for saying what he did. What is very hard to understand is why it was not the Prime Minister who took the lead in saying something about the deliberate targeting of the Muslim community by his chief ministers, ministers, acolytes, Twitter warriors and party spokesmen. The deliberate targeting of India’s Muslims is the root cause of the violence. There is no point in pretending that it is not, because the world has noticed.
Last week, an official of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) said this in a briefing to the US Congress. “This environment that we’re in its (sic) creating a situation in which there is a prolific amount of violence going on around India that is targeting and focused on mob violence, but also violence that is being tolerated (and) engaged in by officials at different levels that is being perpetrated… against Muslims (and) Christians.” The USIRCF has recommended, for the third time, that India be designated as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) on the US government’s list of the world’s worst offenders of religious freedom. This list includes Russia, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan.
Last week was Holocaust Remembrance Day so the word genocide was mentioned a lot by more reckless and foolish critics of India and comparisons were invoked with Germany in the Thirties. The comparisons are ludicrous because India’s Muslims constitute nearly 20 per cent of our population, and they are far from being helpless victims of a murderous State. They have shown the ability to fight back against repression every time they have faced it. This does not take away from the truth that the most vulnerable members of this community have been targeted.
Muslim shops and businesses have been brutally vandalized. Images of that gang of thugs lifting watermelons off a Muslim fruit vendor’s cart and smashing them to the ground were viral on social media for days. It moved enough people for a fund to be started online. And there are many others. There was that bangle seller whose wares were smashed by another hate-filled mob because he was selling bangles in a Hindu area. Instead of the police arresting the vandals, he ended up in jail for allegedly molesting a Hindu girl.
If these stories of sundry, unemployed, unemployable youths wreaking hate-filled havoc were not bad enough, we now have BJP chief ministers and municipal officials demolishing Muslim homes with missionary zeal. Let us not pretend that most of the demolitions we have seen in Khargone and Delhi were not Muslim homes. Then there is that unstoppable stream of saffron-clad ‘saints’ who pop up every other day to demand genocide as the final solution to our Muslim problem. Is there some end goal that all this violence is leading to? Are there still responsible leaders in the BJP who believe that hate speeches and violence are going to drive Muslims out of India? Are there those who believe that this is the way to avenge the wrongs done to Hindus when Muslims ruled India?
If you listen to those promoted by the BJP’s IT cell to spread hatred and verbal violence on social media, then there is someone somewhere in the highest echelons of the Indian government directing operations. If it is not the Prime Minister himself, then it is time for him to make his position absolutely clear as his RSS colleague has just done. What about a statement along these lines? The Indian Constitution guarantees the right to love, marry, work and worship to every Indian citizen and anyone who violates the Constitution will be considered a traitor. Included in this category of traitors should be those who respond to every act of violence by a Hindu mob with pictures of a Hindu being attacked by a Muslim mob.
Every time I have written in this column that violence against Muslims is causing serious damage to the fabric of India, I have been inundated with photographs of Hindus being killed by Muslims. And reminded about Hindu girls being abducted and forcibly converted in Pakistan. India is not Pakistan and to aspire to become Pakistan is pathetic and deeply stupid. So enough of this violence. If it does not stop, we are headed not towards a genocide of the Muslims but towards a civil war. Surely that is not what Narendra Modi would like history to remember as his legacy? If not, he must speak up as the RSS chief just did.
Narendra Modi’s announcement last Thursday in Assam regarding ongoing efforts to completely remove the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (Afspa) from the Northeast is reassuring. This builds on the earlier announcement to reduce the number of disturbed areas brought under the Act in Nagaland, Assam and Manipur from April 1. The PM’s announcement should now be followed up with a roadmap and timeline.
This will build on the credibility that the Centre has garnered on its willingness to minimise the use of this law. The improvement in the law and order situation — reports suggest a 75% decrease in violence in the region — is good news for the development and economic growth of the Northeast. This is also indicative of improved governance. Afspa, granting special almost unbridled powers to Indian Armed Forces to maintain public order in ‘disturbed areas’.
The law was first imposed in the form of the Armed Forces (Assam and Manipur) Special Powers Act in 1958 in the Naga Hills region (then a part of Assam), and later expanded across the Northeast. Over the years, Afspa has remained in force in parts of the Northeast, resulting in abrogation of various aspects of democratic and open societies.
Efforts at ensuring peace in the region proved to be unsuccessful, the continued imposition of Afspa adding to the vicious cycle of distrust. The efforts by the state governments in the region and the central government — as well as participation of the local people — has helped to seriously reduce the earlier endemic violence, the provocation for the imposition of the law in the first place. It’s fitting that the region where Afspa first raised its unhelpful head is the very place where GoI is working to make Afspa-mukt. One hopes other district under Afspa across the country also follow suit.<
Read in source website
Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has found a great deal of value in the market correction after the Covid-19 pandemic-induced asset price bubble popped over the previous quarter. The conglomerate’s $41 billion net stock purchases during the quarter, after sitting out a two-year rally, are its biggest in 15 years and has pulled down its cash pile that had reached a record despite a vigorous share buyback programme.
Buffett has been complaining he is no longer sure of which stocks to buy in a frothy market. At its annual general meeting, which draws investors like a rock concert, Berkshire Hathaway last week disclosed big bets in oil and technology. The company also slowed down its share repurchases as money-making opportunities opened up. Berkshire Hathaway’s $51.1 billion gross stock purchases during the first three months of 2022 stack up against private equity firm Blackstone spending a record $65.8 billion to buy assets in the last three months of 2021.
The $26 billion holding in Chevron makes it one of Berkshire Hathaway’s top positions with Apple, Bank of America and American Express. Energy has been a standout winner over the quarter against an overall decline in the Standard and Poor’s (S&P) 500. Berkshire Hathaway now owns 9.5% of Activision Blizzard, which could be a merger arbitrage bet as Microsoft completes its takeover of the video gaming company.
In deal value, Buffett’s cumulative purchases over the quarter line up alongside the $69 billion Microsoft bid for Activision Blizzard, S&P Global’s acquisition of IHS Markit for $44 billion and Elon Musk’s offer of $44 billion for Twitter. Investors will read confidence about the US stock market in Berkshire Hathaway’s heightened activity. But its net income more than halved from the same quarter a year ago on mark-to-market investment losses, excluding which its operating earnings were marginally higher. The Berkshire Hathaway stock has also outrun the S&P 500.<
Read in source website
Unless there is a surge in Covid-19 deaths — India has learnt to manage its economy better in every successive wave — the economy is unlikely to suffer any unexpected shocks. This brings up the most important post-pandemic question: What is India’s growth potential and has the pandemic left any permanent scars on this ability? These two questions are inseparable because the Indian economy was in a protracted slowdown even before the pandemic. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth in 2019-20 dropped to just 3.7%.
Reserve Bank of India (RBI)’s latest report on currency and finance says that India can achieve a GDP growth rate of 6.5%-8.5% provided reforms are continued. These include a wide range of tasks from gradual fiscal consolidation — especially the reduction of debt-GDP ratio — to reforms in labour markets to efforts to reduce pendency in courts. The report also lays emphasis on long-term goals such as the alignment of India’s future manufacturing goals with its climate commitments. While these goals are important and desirable, implementation will also be contingent on the policy synergy between the Union and the states. While federal relations are already on thin ice, things could become worse after the GST compensation to states ends in June.
India’s policymakers must also keep in mind that the global economic situation is volatile. Global inflation could become worse once the pandemic situation improves in China and commodity demand receives a boost. External shocks can generate strong headwinds for domestic growth. India’s growth potential is perhaps still the highest among major global economies, but cannot be taken for granted.
In a landmark speech, at a conference of state chief ministers and high court chief justices, and in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana offered a powerful diagnosis of what ails Indian judiciary on Saturday. And this diagnosis raises deeply disturbing questions about India’s legislative processes, executive capacity and political and bureaucratic intent. His comments come in the wake of repeated criticism of the judiciary for the huge pendency in cases and judicial overreach.
CJI Ramana’s fundamental point was this: The courts don’t want to be inundated with cases. But to prevent that, other parts of the State have to work better. If legislatures consider and pass laws with care and diligence, they will not be prone to easy challenges. If various arms of the executive, from the police to public sector units, from revenue officers to municipal authorities work with fairness and rigour, citizens will not need to rush to courts with grievances. If these internal branches of government do not fight with each other, the case load will automatically dip. And if the political executive helps fill judicial vacancies promptly at various levels, then the cases that do come in can be speedily disposed. To be sure, not all of this is because the legislature and executive deliberately wishes to fail or act with malice. It is often due to weaknesses in Indian State capacity in general. But, broadly speaking, the CJI is correct. Better laws, fairer enforcement of laws, less arbitrary decision making, more harmony within the executive, greater willingness of the executive to assume responsibility rather than pass the buck, obedience of court orders, and supplementing judicial capacity promptly will all help in reducing the excessive load on courts. This does not, however, absolve the judiciary of its own missteps, including a curious abdication when it comes to hearing crucial cases of constitutional importance.
Where the CJI and PM agreed was the need to make courts more accessible. CJI Ramana has backed the use of local languages in high courts, while PM Modi spoke of drafting laws in a manner where a conventional version draped in legal jargon was accompanied by one which has simpler terminology and is easier to understand. Both also agreed on the need to improve judicial infrastructure. But if Justice Ramana’s comments can force the legislature to introspect, and the executive to act a little more fairly, it wouldn’t just help the judiciary, but also serve citizens better.
Six months ago, Imran Khan was comfortably placed. Pakistan’s former prime minister (PM) was on the same page as the army, and the combined Opposition was in disarray. Six months later, Khan is out of office. The “same page” narrative is in tatters; the Opposition got its act together to move a successful no-confidence motion against him. For the first time in recent memory, a Pakistan PM was democratically removed through a vote of no confidence and his successor, Shehbaz Sharif, democratically elected.
The catalyst for this remarkable turnaround was that the army (selectors) started facing flak for bringing Khan to power and supporting his incompetent government. Worse, Khan decided to meddle in army postings. In October 2021, he tried to resist army chief General Qamar Bajwa’s transfer of director-general of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Lieutenant-General Faiz Hameed as Corps Commander, Peshawar. This was a red line for the army that, as an institution, does not brook any interference from politicians in its internal management.
The upshot was that the army became “neutral” and cut Khan loose politically. The “same page” narrative faded and without the army’s political management, Khan’s coalition started to dissipate, converting his government to a minority. This spurred the Opposition to unite, and, sensing an opportunity, it introduced a no-confidence motion against him in the National Assembly in early March.
Faced with the prospect of being booted out since he lost his majority, Khan took recourse to several unconstitutional moves to prevent the no-confidence motion from taking place. Key among these was the allegation of an American conspiracy to remove him from office because he followed an independent foreign policy. The deputy speaker of the National Assembly used the allegation to reject the no-confidence motion. Khan then advised the President to dissolve the Assembly and call for elections which the President did. Thanks to a unanimous Supreme Court decision, the National Assembly was restored, and voting on the no-confidence motion was held.
The allegation of an American conspiracy hinged on a communication from the United States (US), supposedly warning of dire consequences if the no-confidence motion failed. The communication was actually a routine diplomatic cable sent by Pakistan’s ambassador in Washington DC, based on his conversation with a US official at a farewell lunch that the ambassador hosted. Moreover, the director-general of Inter-Services Public Relations, the army spokesman, in a press conference on April 14, refuted the conspiracy theory, thus busting the central plank of Khan’s narrative.
Where does Khan go from here?
After his ouster from office, an angry Khan has gone into “container mode”, holding massive rallies in key cities such as Peshawar and Karachi and Lahore, seeking to mobilise people to force early elections. In addition, the social media cell of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) has gone into overdrive, spreading the narrative of retired army officers being critical of the current army leadership for not supporting Khan. The intention is to drive a wedge between the army and the people and between army chief Bajwa and the army.
Khan’s USP in the run-up to the 2018 elections was accountability, the dream of tabdeeli (change) and of a naya (new) Pakistan that mesmerised the urban middle class and the youth. He claimed that he could fix Pakistan’s ailing economy in 90 days, promised 10 million jobs and five million homes.
In three-and-a-half years, however, the dream lay shattered due to poor governance and the dire straits the country found itself in.
There are two kinds of problems that he now faces. One is the narrative. Will he continue to harp on the American conspiracy that has struck a chord with his supporters, but one the army has debunked? Having staked all on this narrative, Khan may be forced to persist because he has no positive achievements he can showcase.
The second problem is the possibility of being embroiled in a number of cases. Given the vicious one-sided accountability he indulged in when in power, it should be no surprise when the incumbent government indulges in some accountability politics of its own. Perhaps the most serious is the 2014 foreign funding case against the PTI. Details available indicate that PTI was indeed guilty of hiding its accounts through which it received foreign funding.
Meanwhile, as Khan’s April 21 Lahore rally showed, diminishing returns are becoming apparent. His speeches have become monotonous — the same words and the same slogans — and are low on substance. He was supposed to have announced the next phase of rallies in Lahore but did not do so. He also did not call for a long march then, as was expected.
While Khan undoubtedly remains popular, his arrogance, inflated ego and treating those opposed to him as traitors, do not make for democratic politics. Large rallies and fiery speeches can enthuse his supporters for some time, but it would be difficult to sustain the momentum. It remains to be seen if, without the crutch of the “selectors”, Khan can bounce back quickly.
Tilak Devasher is an author and member, National Security Advisory Board
The views expressed are personal
Two of my favourite actors are currently at loggerheads with each other. Ajay Devgn, a huge star in Mumbai’s cinematic firmament, seems concerned about our rashtrabhasha, (national language) while Kichha Sudeep appears worried about his mother tongue, Kannada. And all this does not stop at the language issue. The hijab, niqab, tilak, saffron, and even our food, all of which have been a part of Hindustani tehzeeb for centuries, are either embroiled in controversy or have become the cause of controversy. Why are we so divided and at odds with each other in the 21st century, when much of the world is thinking far ahead, even of establishing a human colony in space?
Let us start with Maharashtra. Maharashtra Navnirman Sena leader Raj Thackeray, who is currently in political exile, and has raised the issue of Azaan vs Hanuman Chalisa. An independent Member of Parliament (MP), Navneet Rana, who entered politics after a stint in the film industry, jumped into the fray as soon as the controversy erupted. She said she would go to Matoshree with her supporters and recite the Hanuman Chalisa. Matoshree is the ancestral home of Maharashtra’s chief minister Uddhav Thackeray and has a special significance for his Shiv Sena members and supporters as it is the home of the founder of the party, Balasaheb Thackeray.
This led to mobs shouting slogans outside Navneet Rana’s home. She and her husband Ravi Rana, a local Member of the Legislative Assembly, were arrested on charges of sedition. Was there anything treasonous in their politics? Is there anything at all in this matter which necessitates such action? But, if the MP wanted to read the Hanuman Chalisa, did she have to choose Matoshree for this?
We have reached an unfortunate time when opposing camps are neither right nor wrong. As a result, every administrative action and announcement is now caught up in needless controversy. Let us look at an example. When the anti-encroachment squad arrived at Jahangirpuri, Delhi, reports seem to suggest that bulldozers belonging to a Hindu government had reached there to demolish a mosque. However, the truth is that encroachments by Hindus were also removed. The anti-encroachment campaign in the Capital is still on. Similarly, there was huge resentment after three temples in Rajasthan’s Alwar were bulldozed. The Karauli riots in Rajasthan led to tensions, and this added fuel to the fire.
As usual, the main issue was lost in all this sentiment and emotion. How was the government able to carry out its duties? Why were the necessary precautions not taken? Could this have been because elections are scheduled in Karnataka and Rajasthan next year? It is clear that religion, caste, and language are ideal issues to whip up sentiment in the political arena. Leaders in Rajasthan have been harping on the clash of political ideologies between the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress. Now, leaders in Karnataka have begun taking up the language issue following the Ajay Devgn-Kichha Sudeep spat. The focus over the next few days will be on party spokespersons, social figures, and actors whose public utterances will most certainly create more controversies. It would seem that there are no issues of importance confronting India, barring religious, communal and linguistic ones. The political establishment should really pause and think seriously about what kind of image it is portraying of India to the rest of the world.
The events of the last few weeks have proved that India has much to be proud of. Many leaders from important countries arrived in Delhi amid the backdrop of the war in Ukraine. This suggests that much of the world is looking to India for advice on the way forward. This is the first time that external affairs minister S Jaishankar has been seen on public platforms telling the European Union, the United Kingdom (UK) and the United States (US) some home truths. India is unquestionably emerging as a strong nation under Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi’s leadership. The tone of the US, which was previously hectoring and bullying, has now changed. The language employed by the British PM during his visit to New Delhi was quite different from that used by previous British PMs and dignitaries.
Furthermore, despite the pandemic and the war in Ukraine, India’s growth rate is expected to be around 8% in 2022-23, according to the World Bank’s assessment. Though the figure has been reduced by 0.7 percentage points, India still remains at the top of the list of fastest-growing economies. The world seems to be looking at India through a different and more positive prism. But we need to change our ways to ensure this goodwill going forward.
Take a look at the list of Fortune-500 category companies. There are several corporations where people of Indian origin serve as CEOs. In the UK, the chancellor of the exchequer, Rishi Sunak, is in the running to be the next PM. This shows that when we put our mind to it, there is nothing we as Indians cannot achieve.
Shashi Shekhar is editor-in-chief, Hindustan
The duck analogy, often used to indicate calm at the surface with furious activity underwater, is reminiscent of India’s crypto regulation attempts. The visible calm hides the churn from all sides – be it the government, industry or users – but what this will throw up remains moot. Ambiguity on cryptos is probably more due to political and economic pressures than reasons of continued diffidence on categorisation and consequent choice of regulator, but these too have a bearing.
That cryptos are not and will never be legal tender appears to be stating the obvious, with this being an intrinsic sovereign right. Consequently, even if a nation issues a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), it does not in any manner legitimise or imply permission for private cryptos.
While restraining cryptos from claiming to be legal tender appears trite, limiting its usage as a payment system is complicated. Cryptos first emerged as payment systems and continues to be used as such – incentivised blockchains, the metaverse and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) being top of the mind examples. In fact, research indicates that NFT valuations are based more on volatile crypto values than of the NFTs themselves. Using cryptos as payment systems is no longer about paying for coffee or content on the darknet. It is usage for payments, such as on blockchains, within cryptos (to miners), for NFTs or online gaming that poses the first hurdle in the policy framing for cryptos.
Classification of cryptos is the first step to regulation. The Supreme Court, in the Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Union of India case, categorised cryptos as a payment system and indicated that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) was well within its rights to even ban cryptos but through due process. This judgment, which in itself is flawed, is unfortunately misquoted often and the primary directions given thereunder have been ignored. The case dealt with cryptos within limited scope but may form the basis for formulating crypto legislations.
Cryptos, as security instruments, were mooted many moons back and also adapted, as such, in multiple jurisdictions including the United States (US), which may be used to illustrate the complexities. US’s Howey Test i.e the triple test of “investment of money, into a common enterprise, and with reasonable expectation of profits through efforts of others”, does not explain the absence of intrinsic value that is a marked difference between existing securities instruments recognised in India, as opposed to cryptos. While the US’ classification may seem well entrenched, the repeated actions of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against cryptos, including for its issuance, lending or crowd funding for crypto launches, indicates that regulation has not lent certainty to cryptos or security to investors.
Even this classification as securities was questioned by the SEC’s chairman himself in 2018, who in turn classified it as “commodities”. The recent executive declaration by US President Joe Biden is a warning note to the crypto industry in the US. It is also a caution to India to pause before copying foreign legislations blindly.
Scams relating to issuance of new cryptos, crypto ponzis, money laundering and cryptos to facilitate crimes are but the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Certainty through criminal provisions would lend value to the crypto industry and to citizens alike.
Cryptos in themselves are opaque to investors, who have jumped in without comprehending the product. Volatility, scams, absence of transparency and accountability add layers to be addressed. Yet, to say that exponential adaptation of cryptos impedes law-making is too simplistic to be sustainable. Centuries-old legacy laws in India are classic examples of displaying dynamism in law to adapt to evolving scenarios.
Lack of focus and pressures of meeting diverse stakeholder claims appears to be delaying crypto legislations in India, more than the complexities. Ensuring focus, taking baby steps in introducing enabling legislation (such as for blockchains) and protective measures, instead of an “all-or-nothing” attitude, may be a preferred first step to robust regulation.
NS Nappinai is an advocate, Supreme Court of India and founder of Cyber Saathi
The views expressed are personal
While the Oscar ceremony was in progress, as the rest of the world obsessed over Will Smith’s slap, Indians were more concerned about a slap of a completely different kind, the one apparently delivered on the unsuspecting, nonviolent cheek of our most ancient nation by the Oscar committee: the ignoring of Dilip Kumar and Lata Mangeshkar in their “In Memoriam” segment.
Aiyyayyo, how could the amazing, world-record-setting Lata Mangeshkar, the Nightingale of India, who sang more songs for more movies than the all the ones shown in all the Oscars put together be ignored thus lamented a chorus of betrayed Indians on social media. Newspapers highlighted this terrible oversight, nay, injustice, perpetrated by the racist Oscar chappies on these two legends when even the BAFTAs had honoured them, dammit.
(It may be important to note here that, in his lifetime, Dilip Kumar himself didn’t give a rat’s rear-end about Hollywood. He had famously turned down – and, if his interviews are anything to go by, had zero regret about refusing – a pivotal role in Lawrence of Arabia, the one that went to Omar Sharif, making him an international star overnight.)
Soon after, I came across the grand celebration – fan-made or sponsored, I’m not sure – of an Indian cinematic “achievement” all over social media. Fans were in paroxysms over a newly released, pan-fried-Indian movie which had collected more money in the US and UK than two Hollywood big-ticket releases. And this, apparently, meant that we had arrived, and that Hollywood’s knees were knocking in fear, and that it was only a matter of time before James Cameron would be second assistant to Boyapati Srinu.
No mention was made of course that both Hollywood films had released weeks earlier, and were on their way out while our film was in its first week. No mention was made either of the fact that those tickets were priced in the region of $15, while our film’s were going at $25. And, most importantly, that every last dollar for our film was coming from screaming, loutish, regressively-caste-obsessed locals who are presently overseas, and not from hordes of heaving-bosomed white women like the ones seduced by the fancy footwork of our protagonists, or white men who were vanquished by our CGI in the self-same film.
Why do we need the Oscars, Grammys, or IHOP, for that matter, to pay tribute to our film folk? Why do we think they ought to care? Why do the overseas box office figures of our films matter so much to us? Why is the white man’s endorsement so important to us in all fields?
Conversely, why do we see our dismal position on the world hunger, poverty, press freedom, women’s safety, pollution indices, all from reputed Western surveys, as totally false, biased, and mere conspiracies to bring disrepute to our mighty nation – inventor of plastic surgery and pre-Vedic aircraft – by evil white folk who are terrified of our growing power?
Why do we imprison visibly uncomfortable white leaders in inappropriate, over-long, completely un-Indian bear hugs, arrange grand welcome parties for them, give them cutesy Gujju names on one hand, while we tell the same people not to interfere in our “internal affairs” if they so much as mention yet another human rights atrocity perpetrated with utter impunity on our glorious soil?
Who are we?
Are we the resolute, make-in-India, British-Italian-Mughal-destroying atmanirbhar patriots who have finally managed to erase the pernicious influence of the foreigner on our incomparable land, who don’t need validation from them any longer, and are currently going through an Indian Renaissance comparable with the Golden Age of the Guptas?
Or are we snivelly little brown folk, unable to get past our pankahwallah antecedents, dying to have the goras look at us, like us, say we pass muster, put their arms around our shoulders, and invite us to their parties, willing to rub our bodies with Fair & Obsequious if that’s what it takes?
Let’s break that down.
Here’s how we see the whiteys: we puff up our chests and strut about when they acknowledge us, sulk when they ignore us, and bring in their mothers and sisters if they criticise us.
Here’s how they see us brownies: cheap, efficient, trouble-free labour. Or a large, gullible market, willing to fork over the moolah. (There’s one-and-a-half billion of us teeming about on this hapless planet, remember?)
That has been our relationship with them, that’s what it is now, and that’s what it will be forever.
PS: No one is lying sleepless and chanting the Hanuman Chalisa over our skyrocketing economic, military, yogic, and, above all, cinematic power.
So let’s all calm down and figure out why our collective self-esteem is so life-threateningly low.
The Congress-Prashant Kishor saga continues to be a subject of animated discussion in the party. The entire episode, which played out over several days and ended with the poll strategist declining Sonia Gandhi’s offer to join the party, has obviously embarrassed the Congress. But more than that, it has dented party general secretary Priyanka Gandhi’s image. It is an acknowledged fact that she was insisting that Mr Kishor be invited to join the party and help plan and manage the next round of elections. Priyanka had similarly messed up when she insisted on Navjot Singh Sidhu’s appointment as president of Punjab Congress, triggering a chain of events which eventually proved to be disastrous for the party. Once touted as the Congress Party’s “brahmastra” Priyanka’s track record so far has not been particularly inspiring. Her political choices are being increasingly questioned even by her diehard loyalists in the party who were once convinced Priyanka would be a better alternative than Rahul Gandhi. Well, not anymore.
Delhi and Punjab chief ministers Arvind Kejriwal and Bhagwant Singh Mann recently signed a “knowledge-sharing” agreement to enable the two state governments to cooperate in various fields of public welfare. This comes shortly after the two chief ministers faced flak when a group of officials from Punjab met Mr Kejriwal in Delhi without Mr Mann. The Opposition immediately dubbed the meeting as “unconstitutional” and accused Mr Kejriwal of running the Punjab government through remote control. This agreement, the Delhi political grapevine insists, is essentially a cover to enable Mr Kejriwal to interact with the Punjab bureaucracy, dictate policy and exercise control over the Mann government without attracting Opposition ire. It is widely believed that Mr Kejriwal cannot and will not allow Mr Mann to function independently as it would enhance the latter’s stature since he heads a larger state.
For the past several years now, ministers in the Narendra Modi government were discouraged from interacting with the media unless they were assigned to do so. Information on their respective ministries was to be conveyed only through official channels, they were told. However, there’s a perceptible change now as ministers are calling up selected groups of press persons for informal briefings.
For instance, last week Mansukh Mandaviya, chemicals and fertilizers ministers, and his colleague power minister R.K. Singh were among those who invited journalists for such a briefing. This can probably be put down to the fact that the country is facing a severe power crisis due to the shortage of coal while Russia’s war in Ukraine has worsened the fertilizer crisis not just in India but across the world. This has forced the government to hike the subsidy on fertilizers to bail out the farming community.
With Naresh Patel, the influential head of the Khodaldham Trust, keeping the Congress guessing about his political future, the party has finally decided to keep its own Patidar leader, Hardik Patel, in good humour. Hardik had been upset at being sidelined and had gone public with his grievances, even suggesting that he could leave the Congress. Gujarat Congress leaders had pinned their hopes on poll strategist Prashant Kishor persuading his good friend Naresh Patel on joining the party as that would have minimised any damage from Hardik's possible defection. Now that talks with Kishor have fallen through and Naresh Patel has said he is still 'thinking' about his political debut, Gujarat Congress leaders have gone into damage control mode. Realising the party has lost precious time in Gujarat where both the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Aam Aadmi Party are already in campaign mode, a fresh outreach to Hardik has begun. Last week, Gujarat Congress chief Jagdish Thakor and other leaders put in an appearance at a function to mark Hardik Patel’s father’s death anniversary. Hardik has apparently been assured he will be kept in the loop on all key decisions in the future. However, this may yet fail to placate Hardik as he wants sufficient say in ticket distribution.
After sulking for the past two years, former Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda finally pressured the Congress leadership to replace his bete noire Kumari Selja with his protégé Udai Bhan as the president of the party’s state unit.
The initial proposal was to give charge of Haryana Congress to Mr Hooda but the latter was reluctant to give up his current position as leader of opposition in the state Assembly. The next big question is whether Mr Hooda will flex his muscles when it comes to picking the party’s candidate for the Rajya Sabha when elections are held this August following the retirement of two Upper House members from Haryana. The Congress and the Bharatiya Janata Party are set to get one seat each. It is being speculated that Ms Selja could be accommodated in the Rajya Sabha provided Hooda doesn’t nix the proposal. Senior Congress leader Anand Sharma, who is looking to return to the Rajya Sabha after his retirement, also has his eye on the upcoming Haryana vacancy. Mr Sharma is at an advantage here as he is a close friend of Hooda.
Shorn of niceties, the concerns expressed by Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramana at the conference of chief ministers and high court chief justices, in the presence of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, can be reduced to a single point: the government and its officials do not do the job assigned to them, adding to the burden of the judiciary. Though he mentioned it, the Chief Justice was not focusing on omissions of the executive, where it wants the court to be the final arbiter of tough decisions. What worry him most are the way laws are made in our legislatures and the government officials’ apathy towards implementing court orders.
The legislature enacting ambiguous laws without required deliberation, clarity of thought, foresight and the welfare of the people in mind adds to legal issues; on the other hand, a careful process limits the scope of litigation, the Chief Justice has pointed out. This must be seen as a direct criticism of the government in power which has made it a practice to keep the legislature as a rubber stamp and deny it a chance to deliberate on the bills brought before it. There are any number of such pieces of legislation of great consequence that were passed overnight and now waiting for a hearing in the apex court. An anomaly that crept into a draft of a law could remain there in the final text if the elected representatives of the people do not get a chance to verify them. Moreover, the Constitution vests the power of governance with the executive in the hope that the council of ministers, which sits at the top of the structure, is collectively accountable to the legislature. If the latter is passed over, then the very idea of constitutional democracy is lost. As mentioned by the Chief Justice, the same concern was recently expressed by Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla who, at the recent Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meet, said laws should be made after thorough debate and discussion.
The second issue the CJI has flagged brooks no delay on the part of the government. Officials tend to ignore court orders, forcing citizens and institutions to move court with contempt petitions. This is most unfortunate. In our scheme of things, a court has the right and duty to do complete justice in a matter brought before it, and if the orders the courts pass are not implemented on the ground, it’s not only denial of justice but undermining of democratic rights. The executive cannot arrogate to itself all the powers.
While the CJI brought to the attention of the executive the lapses the judiciary has noticed, the Prime Minister highlighted an issue that must make all fair-minded people sit and notice: lakhs of undertrial prisoners, mostly from underprivileged and poor backgrounds, are languishing in jails.
If we see the meet as a part of a process wherein each branch of the state helps the others correct themselves, then the exchanges that happened among the participants will result in better delivery of justice and democratic rights to the people.
The Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) has excluded two excerpts from poems written by the legendary Urdu poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz from the curriculum for the academic year 2022-23. The two excerpts were part of the curriculum for over a decade in the section on “Religion, Communalism and Politics” in the Class 10 NCERT textbook Democratic Politics. The reasons for this decision have not been given.
It must be conceded that educational authorities have the right to review school content, and some of this is necessary. It is my opinion that our educational content is still considerably trapped in the colonial legacy, and that much of it is not fully representative of the remarkable historical diversity of our country. There is still too much emphasis on history centered around Delhi, and the North. While the history of the great Mughals needs to be taught, there could also be far greater inclusion of the stalwarts of the south, such as the remarkable achievements of the Chola dynasty, or Krishnadeva Raya of Vijayanagar, the remarkable ruler of the last great Hindu kingdom.
But this being as it may, the question still remains: why axe Faiz? Was he a mediocre poet? Was he hostile to India? Was he an Islamic fanatic? The answer to all three questions is a resounding no. Faiz was one of the greatest poets in Urdu, and his ghazals and nazms are hugely popular both in India and Pakistan and, indeed, worldwide. He was nominated for the Nobel Prize in literature, and was the recipient of the Lenin Peace Prize. Who has not been enraptured by the poetical genius of his nazm, mujhse pehlisi mohabbat mere mehboob na maang, beautifully rendered by Noor Jehan. He also wrote extensively in Punjabi. He was against undemocratic regimes, and fought against the military dictatorships in Pakistan, for which he was incarcerated in jail. His revolutionary poems, Bol ke lab azaad hain tere, or the iconic, Hum Dekhenge, have inspired generations of those who seek justice and liberty. He was not against India — in fact he was an internationalist — and had legions of friends and admirers in India, a country which he visited often and was very fond of. And, he was certainly not an Islamic fundamentalist. In fact, far to the contrary, he was a member of the Communist Party in Pakistan, and against the mullahs and their regressive ways.
Was he dropped then because he was from Pakistan? It is true that we have major problems in our political and military relations with Pakistan. We have also had more than one war with our western neighbour. Yet, should such matters hold culture or people to people interactions hostage? We play the most watched cricket matches with them. Our cultural heritage overlaps in myriads of ways. Our films are hugely popular there. My first book, a biography of Mirza Ghalib, published by Penguin, was a bestseller in Pakistan and India. In any case, are such boycotts sustainable? Mohenjodaro and Harappa are in Pakistan. Should we delete the Indus Valley Civilization from our text books? Takshila, the famous ancient university, is in Pakistan. Should we block the profound wisdom and learning it symbolises? The British conquered and looted India, and history cannot be erased. But should, as a retaliation, we should ban Shakespeare?
Culture and creativity transcend political boundaries and historical memory.
Could the powers that be today have an animus against Urdu? Possibly. Recently, a leading BJP MP led a nationwide campaign on social media against an ad campaign because it used Urdu words in the celebration of Diwali. Such usage was considered anti-Hindu. So now, if we say “Diwali Mubarak”, we are being anti-Hindu! The attempt to equate Urdu with Islam must surely rank as one of the most dangerously foolish manifestations of the uneducated ultra-Hindu right. Urdu is an Indian language, also spoken in Pakistan. It is the repository of some of the most sublime thought, with a delicacy of expression that has few rivals in any language. To associate it with one religion is so culturally illiterate that one hangs one head in shame. If Faiz became Pakistani after Partition, should we now also send across the border the literary heritage of Mirza Ghalib, Momin, Zauq, Munshi Prem Chand, Gulzar and Javed Akhtar, to name just a few, merely because they wrote or write in Urdu? And where will this madness stop?
Some day, very soon, some hothead will say that to celebrate Christmas is anti-Hindu because Jesus was not born in India. The attempt to define Hindu interest in such terms of exclusion and insularity is a reflection of cultural illiteracy, bigotry and narrow mindedness that is an insult to all Hindus. And yet, remember, because of the threat of violence hyphenated with this stunted mindset, the ad campaign using Urdu words was taken off. The hate-filled power of the uncultured and ignorant should never be underestimated. Did Faiz become a victim of this?
The CBSE has also removed from the curriculum chapters on “Democracy and Diversity” and “Challenges to Democracy”. Why? Are they no longer relevant? Can democracy survive without respecting diversities? And, should not the young learn about the challenges to democracy, and the need to guard against attempts to subvert it, even by governments that are democratically elected?
Education and culture are derived best in an atmosphere that encourages discussion and debate, freethinking and free choices, and an exposure to great thinkers and writers, irrespective of where they hail from. If this is not done due to the myopic insularity of those who misguidedly believe that educational curriculums should be dictated by their narrow ideological limitations, we will do great damage to the sophisticated, nuanced and profound intellectual heritage that is Indian civilisation. Indian children, as legatees of this heritage, deserve better.
All of a sudden, a new term has entered the public debate on economic policy: freebie. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines a “freebie” as “something that is given to you without you having to pay for it, especially as a way of attracting your support for or interest in something”. Political parties and leaders are offering freebies to win votes, economists are worried about the fiscal burden on the public exchequer and the media are debating the pros and cons of different types of freebies. As is typical of Lutyens’ Delhi, a think tank affiliated to the ruling establishment in New Delhi even organised a closed-door interaction on the subject at a fancy five-star hotel.
Should political party A offer free rations? Should political party B offer free power? Should political party C offer free water? Is free education a freebie? The question of free vaccination in the battle against the Covid-19 pandemic was briefly raised and then forgotten. Economists and policymakers have long debated the merits and demerits of subsidies. Way back in 1978, Prime Minister Morarji Desai, till then the longest-serving Union finance minister and a fiscal conservative, appointed an expert committee to evaluate controls and subsidies. The debate yielded a consensus on one issue, namely, that some subsidies are justified while others are not.
The subsidies justified on grounds of welfare and efficacy were called merit subsidies and those that were regarded as regressive from both an economic and a social perspective were dubbed non-merit subsidies. A government in any civilised society is expected to tax the rich and subsidise the poor. Civilised societies also subsidise or provide free certain public goods like school education and public health. There are good economic, social and political justifications for such public provisioning.
There is, however, no justification for political parties offering freebies that are either no more than electoral bribes or that the government’s exchequer cannot afford. When political parties promise free television sets, kitchenware and suchlike, they are using the taxpayer’s money to bribe voters. When they promise free electricity, water or other scarce resources, they are merely borrowing from future generations to reward present ones.
A few weeks back several senior civil servants reportedly told Prime Minister Narendra Modi that the freebies promised as part of election manifestos were pushing several state governments into deep red and could trigger a serious fiscal crisis. It would have been helpful if they had warned the PM before the recent Assembly elections in which all major contenders, including the BJP, had dangled freebies like free power, farm loan waivers and the like to incentivise voters. Major public figures ranging from the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of India to the Reserve Bank of India’s governor have been issuing statements warning political parties and governments against such fiscal profligacy.
While there are sound economic reasons why political parties should not promise such non-merit subsidies or freebies, the real question is, why are such promises made? Apart from the desire and desperation to win an election, by fair means or foul, there could be a larger and more worrying social and political factors behind this mounting fiscal burden on the state exchequer. Consider the challenge of the falling credibility of the political process and of politicians in general. The desperation to win political power so as to be able to get hold of public funds and assets, especially land, have contributed to a sharp escalation of the freebie promise and the equally sharp decline in the credibility of the political system.
Freebies become the fig leaf that corrupt politicians and political parties use to cover their sins of omission and commission while seeking electoral support.
Political power offers a fast track to private wealth. A simple exercise that compares the family wealth of a politician and his or her family at the time when they acquire political power with what is currently and evidently in their possession, not to mention benami assets and hidden wealth, would suffice to show how public office is the shortest route to private wealth.
While the rising share of public spending on subsidies, both merit and non-merit, in total government expenditure has been a problem for several years now, it has emerged as a major policy concern not only because of the fiscal constraint that governments, the Union and the states, are facing, but also because such public expenditure now competes with the renewed demand for increased capital spending.
Between 1991 and 2015 the Indian growth process was fuelled by rising corporate and household earnings, savings and investment. However, the decline in the rate of investment since 2016, the consequent deceleration of national income growth and the impact of such events as demonetisation and Covid-19 lockdowns has forced the Union government to push for growth through increased public investment. If the economy has to return to the eight per cent growth trajectory of the 2003-12 era, reversing rising unemployment, public investment has to pick up. This requires balancing spending on subsidies, especially non-merit subsidies, with that on public investment, including in infrastructure, public transport and defence.
The fiscal situation facing the country is serious. Tackling it requires political leadership at both the national and state level and, given the current political scenario in the country, greater political collaboration between the Union and the states. Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014 promising “cooperative federalism”. The only real example of successful cooperation between the Union and the states was in the legislation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The credit for that goes entirely to the former Union finance minister, the late Arun Jaitley, and the four state finance ministers who worked with him in a spirit of cooperative federalism, namely, Amit Mitra, Haseeb Drabu, Sushil Modi and Thomas Isaac. There are few other such examples.
As the country approaches 2024, it may prove politically difficult for the leaders of contending political parties to work together in dealing with the fiscal challenge facing both the Union and state governments. If they continue to indulge in political one-upmanship, the fiscal situation could rapidly deteriorate.