Gautam Navlakha, the veteran human rights activist accused in the Elgaar Parishad case, had requested a copy of The World of Jeeves and Wooster. It was initially denied as a “security risk” by Taloja Jail authorities, a decision the Bombay HC termed “comical”.
What’s truly comical is that it’s Wodehouse. Even Indian fairy tales like Thakurmar Jhuli pack more subversion in them than the fading world of unflappable British valets, battle-axe aunts, and prize pigs. Even more ironic is that Wodehouse liked to claim he was apolitical. He was interned in a prison camp because he happened to be living in France when Germans invaded. When the Nazis released him, they asked him to broadcast some amusing stories about prison life. Wodehouse thought that was a plum idea and was baffled why the English were not amused.
Wodehouse remains a jolly good fellow even if the world he depicted feels archaic. Some might be surprised that Navlakha even wanted to read him in 2022. But as writer Evelyn Waugh presciently told the BBC in 1961, Wodehouse’s “idyllic world can never stale” because he continues to “release future generations from captivity that may be more irksome than our own”. Little did Waugh realise, in Navlakha’s case that captivity would be literal not metaphorical.
His enduring appeal to Indians can feel like a mysterious colonial hangover. Shashi Tharoor, who founded the PG Wodehouse Society at St. Stephen’s College and has read all 95 of his books, has written about how shocked he was when at a panel in England, the young moderator asked: “So how do you pronounce it — Woad-house or Wood-house?” But in India he has never gone out of fashion. However it’s not just nostalgia for the times of sahibs and memsahibs. Wodehouse’s appeal is that he appears untainted by colonial condescension, nor affected by post-colonial guilt. He is a guiltless pleasure. His books still serve as a masterclass in wordplay, effortless marrying the hifalutin with the silly as he tells us someone looks careworn “like a Borgia who suddenly remembered that he has forgotten to shove cyanide in the consommé, and the dinner gong is due any moment”.
That soufflé silliness that permeates Wodehouse has prevented him from being taken seriously by scholars. Inadvertently, the Maharashtra jail authorities might have given him a gravitas that eluded him in life. But it’s also true that the mischievous wit of Wodehouse feels out-of-sync in a country where stand-up comics can be picked up by the police for jokes they might crack. As comedian Anuvab Pal once said, in India, “the first question in a comedy panel is ‘what will you get in trouble for?’”. So it’s hardly surprising that a book by a humorist raised red flags with prison authorities.
Yet this flap about Wodehouse should not distract us from the real issue at hand. Navlakha, a man in his seventies, was also denied his spectacles and a chair for a bad back. Father Stan Swamy, a Parkinson’s patient, had to fight for a straw and sipper because he could not hold a glass. Lawyer Sudha Bharadwaj had to get a special NIA court order to be allowed five books a month. All of them, guilty or innocent, are entitled to their day in court. Until then, the larger issue is their treatment under incarceration and that, unlike Wodehouse, is no laughing matter.
In 1921, Gandhi’s follower Madeleine Slade aka Mira Behn was incarcerated in Bombay’s Arthur Road Jail. As recounted by Ramachandra Guha in Rebels Against the Raj, she wrote that the sum total of treatment of women prisoners in British jails is “obviously designed to try and crush our spirit”.
In light of that, this exchange between Wooster and Jeeves is more grim than droll.
‘Good evening, Jeeves.’
‘Good morning, sir.’
This surprised me. ‘Is it morning?’
‘Yes, sir.’
‘Are you sure? It seems very dark outside.’
(The writer is a novelist and the author of Don’t Let Him Know)
In his ruminations on India’s engagement with the world, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar states, “India must reach out in as many directions as possible and maximise its gains. This is not just about greater ambition; it is also about not living in yesterday.” (p.42, The India Way). Today, as he advises PM Modi in crafting policy to protect India’s interests in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Jaishankar would feel himself surrounded by the echoes of the past six-and-a-half decades. Indian positions and statements on Russia’s predecessor state, the Soviet Union, and its armed interventions — euphemisms for invasions — in Hungary (1956), Czechoslovakia (1968), Afghanistan (1979) are largely similar to its current, albeit evolving, stand on Russia’s action. On the other hand, India’s responses to the Israeli-British-French invasion of Egypt (1956), the long years of the US’s armed involvement in Vietnam and its Iraq war (2003) followed a different trajectory.
The unfolding of India’s stand on the Russian invasion of Ukraine is best illustrated by its statements at the UNSC. While it has refrained from any direct criticism of Russia and abstained from voting in any resolutions against it, India has dropped any reference to security concerns of states. It now focuses on the need to abide by the UN Charter, respect sovereignty and territorial integrity of states and to resolve issues through dialogue and negotiations.
Russia is happy with India’s abstentions, for that is important for perceptions, but it would have noted the shift in India’s position. Jaishankar said in Parliament on April 6: “If India has chosen a side, it is the side of peace and it is for an immediate end to violence.” This is of course ‘motherhood and apple pie’, but Jaishankar would be aware that it was Jawaharlal Nehru who was called shantidoot, the messenger of peace. The past creeps in, if subconsciously!
India’s 1956 predicament lay inter alia in deciding its approaches to two separate crises. One sprang from the British and French reaction to Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s decision in July 1956 to nationalise the Suez Canal. Till then, the canal was controlled by an Anglo-French company. After a period of desultory talks, both countries, along with Israel, decided to launch a war against Egypt in October. India was outraged by this action of the colonial powers. Nehru condemned the action and remained in contact with the US, which insisted that its allies — Britain, France and Israel — withdraw their forces. They did so but not before the UN General Assembly too sought the same and the US threatened Britain with destabilising its currency.
The Hungarian crisis came to a boil at the same time as Egypt was being invaded. A strong section of the Hungarian political class supported by students and others sought to break away from Soviet domination. It wanted to chart its own socialist path and withdrew from the Warsaw pact. The situation was confused in what became a general uprising. Ultimately, the Soviet Union invaded Hungary and the anti-Soviet forces were brutally suppressed. Unlike his position on Egypt, Nehru initially did not openly speak against the Soviets. The Indian representative abstained in a UNGA motion which was critical of Soviets. Public opinion in India was unhappy with Soviet action and criticised Nehru, who belatedly and publicly acknowledged Hungary’s desire for autonomy despite Soviet threats of diluting their support on the J&K issue which then was an active matter in the UNSC.
Twelve years later, beginning January 1968, Czechoslovakia witnessed a period of socialist liberalisation under a reformist leader. The Soviet Union with other Warsaw Pact nations finally decided that they could not allow this deviation from the accepted Soviet model. Hence, in August 1968, their armies invaded Czechoslovakia. Resistance was limited and the country’s political elite came to heel. The Soviet-led action was criticised in India. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was sympathetic to the plight of Czechs but refused to be swayed by emotion. India abstained from voting on a resolution at the UNSC seeking to condemn the Soviet Union.
In 1979, Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Gandhi returned to power a few days after that. India supported the Soviets at the UNGA. It blamed outside powers for interfering in Afghan affairs, accepted that Soviet forces had entered at Afghan request and India had been assured that they would leave whenever Afghans wanted them to. The Soviet occupation went on for a decade. Through this period, India was unhappy with the Soviet presence but it never really publicly embarrassed it, though privately it advised them to leave Afghanistan.
The Vietnam war was one of the defining struggles of Cold War, which India viewed in anti-colonial and ideological terms. Its sympathies lay with the North, especially after US combat troops arrived in the South in 1965. US armed action, often brutal, using weapons such as napalm bombs, outraged public opinion in India and the government did not restrain it, nor did it cushion its antipathy towards US actions.
The 2003 US invasion of Iraq was based on false premises. The government expressed anguish and Parliament deplored it. India also refused a US request to send peace-keeping forces to the country. These were wise decisions and did not impact the growth of India-US ties.
Despite this government’s full antipathy for Nehru and only a little less for his daughter, in responding to the current Ukraine situation, it is following the matrix set by them.
(The writer is a former diplomat)
Fanatics bore me. I have never met one I could describe as remarkable, intelligent, or attractive. So, it has begun to worry me that in ‘new’ India throngs of fanatics seem to be popping up everywhere. Last week alone we had more sightings of fanatics than can be listed here, but let me give you a short list. One fanatic in Delhi decided that meat shops must remain closed during Navratri out of respect for Hindu religious sentiments. The man who said this was a municipal official, and he was able to shut down meat shops in his limited jurisdiction. This caused huge disruption and loss of business but instead of being reprimanded firmly by his BJP bosses, he was applauded by an MP from his party who said that meat shops should close across India during Navratri.
My second fanatic sighting happened in a video that appeared on social media of a Mahant in Sitapur declaring that he planned to go into Muslim homes and bring out their women so he could personally rape them in public. This monstrous creature made his announcement outside a mosque and was immediately surrounded by a mob that cheered him with cries of ‘Jai Shri Ram’. There were policemen present. They made no effort to arrest this Hindu priest.
My third fanatic sighting was in a video that came from Gujarat of an event organised by the Antarrashtriya Hindu Parishad, where the aide of an illustrious member of the Sangh Parivar used very coarse language to describe Muslim men. He then proceeded to declare that Muslim women were now in search of Hindu men so that they could produce sons like Luv and Kush. My distaste for fanatics increases when extreme religiosity robs them of their boringness and turns them into raving and ranting lunatics.
There was a time in India when fanatics and crazy religiosity were rare. I remember returning to the motherland from reporting trips to Pakistan and feeling an overwhelming sense of relief. In the Islamist Republic next door, religiosity and fanaticism are things you notice from the moment you land at the airport. Bottles of liquor, in long ago days when I could bring them for friends, often got seized at the airport when they were revealed by the x-ray machines.
It was hard to interview almost anyone without encountering religiosity. Sometimes I encountered it from total strangers. I remember being told by women walking by me in a Lahore street to dress more appropriately. I wore salwar-kameez but had forgotten that long sleeves were religiously ordained. On another occasion I remember having words with a mullah who ordered me to cover my head. You do not need to be an alcoholic or heavy drinker to observe the absence of bars in Pakistan, which was a complete contrast to the old India. But, in the ‘new’ India, the Chief Minister of Bihar recently declared that people who drank liquor should not be called Indians.
Fanaticism and religiosity go together, so it is difficult to say whether it has been the extreme religiosity of the past few years that has created this deluge of fanatics, or something else. Perhaps, they always existed in dark corners somewhere and have been emboldened to come out of the shadows because fanaticism has become fashionable in the ‘new’ India? Whatever the reason, it is time for sane Indians to speak out against fanaticism and religiosity, because if there is something that is truly against India’s ‘national interest’, it is these two things. Incidentally, it is also against the fundamental principles of the Sanatan Dharma.
The thing that always made Indic religions superior to the Semitic religions was that none of our religions include such fanatical ideas as apostasy and blasphemy. Is it possible, though, for us to still say proudly that our religions are superior to the Semitic ones? As a Sikh I have been horrified by those incidents of people being beaten to death in gurdwaras on charges of sacrilege. Guru Nanak would have been appalled. Legend has it that he went to Mecca and fell asleep with his feet pointed in the direction of the Kaaba. When he was told off by a mullah, he is believed to have asked in which direction did God not exist so he could point his feet that way.
These are the fundamental traditions and ideas on which India’s religions have been founded. Of course, we had our share of fanatics but usually these were people we treated with contempt and usually they remained hidden away in their own gloomy corners. They did not show up at public events to declare their intentions to defile women. They were never in a position to hand out certificates of good conduct to vegetarians and teetotalers. And it was because of this that religiosity and fanaticism were never India’s defining traits. It is deeply disturbing that these traits have come to loom so large because of political patronage of fanaticism.
What is as worrying is that those who have become more fanatical in recent times justify their idiocy on the grounds that it is a valid and appropriate reaction to secularism. The secularism as practised by the Congress party was flawed, but the answer cannot be extreme religiosity. All that this idea of religion does is to breed fanatics, and fanaticism turns the best people into bores.
In Selvi vs State of Karnataka (a judgement of three judges on May 5, 2010), the Supreme Court considered the Constitutional validity of three tests conducted against the will of a person: Narcoanalysis, polygraph test and Brain Electrical Activation Profile (BEAP).
The Court came to the following conclusions:
In K S Puttaswamy vs Union of India (a judgement of a 9-judge Bench), the Supreme Court held:
“An invasion of life or personal liberty must meet the threefold requirement of (i) legality, which postulates the existence of law; (ii) need, defined in terms of a legitimate State aim; and (iii) proportionality, which ensures a rational nexus between the objects and the means adopted to achieve them.”
Liberty & Privacy
In delivering the historic judgements, the Court was performing its paramount duty of being the ‘sentinel on the qui vive’.
The judgements in Selvi and K S Puttaswamy are still good law. Not, it appears, for the present government of India. If it had realised that the judgements were binding on the government, based on non-derogable constitutional rights (Articles 20 and 21), the government would not have introduced and passed the Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022. The Bill is a brazen attempt to overreach the Supreme Court and to deny the fundamental rights to liberty and privacy, two of the most precious rights in a democracy.
The purpose of the Bill was to expand the ambit of persons covered under the law; use of modern techniques for taking body ‘measurements’; and provide legal sanction thereto. The purpose is unexceptionable, the mischief lies in the provisions. There are many legal infirmities in the Bill, but let me focus on four sections which violate the two precious rights of liberty and privacy.
Four Questionable Sections
S.2: There is a definition of ‘measurements’. It includes biological samples and their analysis, behavioural attributes or such other examination/tests (referred to in Ss. 53, 53A and 54 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). There are no exclusions.
Question: Does ‘measurements’ include narcoanalysis, polygraph test, BEAP and psychiatric examination?
S.3: Measurements can be taken from ‘any person’ that includes a person convicted of an offence punishable under any law, a person ordered to give security for keeping the peace, a person arrested under any law and a person detained under any preventive detention law. It is shocking that every law is covered and it is more shocking that an arrestee and detenu are clubbed with a convicted person. The section undoubtedly includes any protester who may attempt to cross a police barrier where S. 144, CrPC has been promulgated!
Questions: Is there any MP, MLA, political worker, trade unionist, student leader, social activist or progressive writer or poet who has never been arrested and who can claim that he will never be arrested? (On the day I joined the Youth Congress I was arrested, along with others, for demonstrating near the statue of Minto in Chennai!).
S.4: The measurements will be stored, preserved for 75 years and can be shared with any ‘law enforcement agency’. Mark the words, it is not an agency investigating a crime. An authority such as a panchayat or municipal officer, a health inspector, a traffic constable, a tax collector and numerous others enforce some law or other — and they will be entitled to demand and be given the measurements.
Question: In the absence of a definition, who are the law enforcement agencies mentioned in the section?
S.5 read with S.2: A person is obliged to give his measurements. A magistrate can direct a person to give his measurements and the person shall obey the order. If he refused, a police officer (definition: head constable and above) is empowered to take the measurements and, if the person resisted, he will be punished under S. 186, Indian Penal Code.
Question: Will measurements be taken against will and without the consent of the person concerned?
Non-derogable Right
The Home Minister verbally assured the Rajya Sabha that the techniques prohibited in Selvi will not be employed, but refused to incorporate the assurance in the Bill. The other three questions remained unanswered. The government resorted to the usual binary arguments: If prisoners have human rights, so do victims. The Bill is not about victims but about arrestees, detenus and prisoners. The other argument was, look at our low conviction rates. Of course, look at them, but the low rate is because of negligent investigating officers, poor quality prosecutors, shoddy record-keeping and over-burdened judges. These constraints will not go away by violating the human rights of arrestees, detenus and prisoners.
Liberty is a non-derogable human right. Erosion of a human right is the starting point of its extinguishment. The Bill is a dagger plunged into the heart of Liberty.
The BJP’s highest decision-making body is the parliamentary board, responsible for broad policy in Parliament and state legislatures. Surprisingly, in the elite 11-member panel there are four vacancies. No appointments were made to fill vacancies due to deaths of Arun Jaitley and Sushma Swaraj, elevation of Venkaiah Naidu as vice-president and retirement of Thaawarchand Gehlot as leader of the Rajya Sabha. The seven remaining members are Narendra Modi, Amit Shah, J P Nadda, Rajnath Singh, Nitin Gadkari, Shivraj Singh Chouhan and B L Santhosh. In fact, after Covid, formal physical meetings are rare. Instead, the general practice is for an exchange of ideas only among the big three, Modi, Shah and Nadda. And the decision is communicated over the phone to other members. Although most members get little say in the running of the party, nevertheless a position on the board is much coveted. Followers of Yogi Adityanath have long speculated that he will soon join the prestigious body, but the UP CM, despite his spectacular victory, is still waiting.
Flagging Concern
The rules of the Archeological Survey of India are very rigid. No structure is permitted within 100 metres of the outer boundaries of its monuments. So when the entrance roundabout at Nizamuddin East was dug up to erect a 115-feet-high flagpole next to the 16th century Khan-i-Khanan tomb, the PWD was sent a notice to desist. They, however, refused to fall in line, even after a complaint was filed with the police. Apart from obstructing the view of the historic monument, the disproportionate flag post is an eyesore in the residential colony, particularly as it towers over a striking art installation by Anjolie Ela Menon. The ungainly flagpole is, however, unlikely to be removed since the Delhi CM wants to compete with the BJP in a wasteful xenophobic campaign. The Capital has budgeted Rs 104 crore for its deshbhakti programme which calls for putting up 500 flagpoles to counter the BJP’s rastravaadi campaign.
Losing Enthusiasm
Sharad Pawar indicated last week that he did not want to head any Opposition front, and added that no anti-BJP alliance was possible without the Congress. Actually, it was not Pawar who floated his name but Saamana editor Sanjay Raut, who these days appears closer to the NCP than the Shiv Sena. (In fact, Pawar even met Modi to protest his harassment by Enforcement Directorate authorities). Similarly, it was pollster Prashant Kishor who first floated the idea that Pawar would be an ideal choice for president. However, with the BJP’s decisive Assembly victories, the enthusiasm of all those promoting a political alternative to the BJP, including Mamata Banerjee, is missing. Incidentally, this parliamentary session the Congress avoided hosting Opposition floor strategy meetings, as it did in the past.
Tactical Moves
At the recent CWC meeting, many were taken aback when Rahul Gandhi remarked that the party’s prospects in Gujarat were bright. While the BJP’s position has weakened in Modi’s home state, the Congress is hardly well-placed to take it on, even if it is successful in wooing Naresh Patel, head of the Shree Khodaldham Trust. The Congress’s internal wrangling is less of a handicap than AAP’s growing popularity — its slogan to give it one chance is gaining traction. The BJP, meanwhile, has a time-tested formula up its sleeve. In September it got rid of CM Vijay Rupani and his Cabinet for non-performance and now most sitting MLAs may be axed for the same reason.
Loyalty Unrewarded
The Congress made it a matter of principle that it would field no defectors during the recent Goa Assembly elections. In the last Assembly, the party had been decimated by defections, with its strength eventually coming down from 17 to 2 MLAs. (Of the two MLAs, Pratapsingh Rane also turned turtle by refusing to stand for re-election and permitting his daughter-in-law to contest on a BJP ticket from his seat. There is now talk of him being appointed a governor.) But the last man standing in the Congress was not rewarded for his unwavering loyalty by being chosen as leader of the opposition in the Assembly. Michael Lobo, a BJP defector who helped the Congress secure four seats in Bardez taluka, including that of his wife Delilah, was appointed. Digambar Kamat was not even made Goa party chief to replace Girish Chodankar. His only reward was to be made a permanent invitee to the CWC. Recent events have shown that the committee’s role is largely of a cheer squad for the Gandhis.
The consumer price index (CPI), which serves as the inflation yardstick for policymaking in India, is a rough approximation of the consumption basket for a person earning the per-capita income of around ₹1.5 lakh a year. Food, naturally, predominates the basket and the government uses a plethora of devices to keep prices in check - from subsidised farming to evening-out food price volatility. Other items in this basket, like fuel and housing, receive their share of attention although intervention is not as pervasive. Prices of services like health, education and transport are also kept in check through state provisioning.
This consumption basket undergoes a rapid change as income levels rise, and the weights assigned to each category in the CPI become irrelevant for the top decile of the population. For an individual earning ₹1 crore a year, CPI ceases to matter as a barometer for inflation. The rate of price rise for this segment in housing, education, health and recreation is of an order in excess of three times what the 'ordinary' Indian is subject to. These items of inconspicuous consumption for the rich include corporatised healthcare, Ivy League education, a condominium life in a swish neighbourhood, upscale dining out and vacations abroad. Market forces are at their uninhibited, elastic best here, and prices tend to rise faster.
Then there is conspicuous consumption. Designer handbags and inordinately aged scotch whisky fall in a category of goods that bear no correlation to the cost of production. Demand for Veblen goods - named after Thorstein Veblen who identified this effect on consumption - rises with price. Luxury goods tend to stretch the price frontier, but their inflationary effects are swept aside by minuscule consumption. India, by some accounts, has three quarters of a million-dollar millionaires. Yet, their spending does not show up in expected places like luxury houses and cars. This could be an indicator of how fast prices are rising in the basket of goods and services the rich in India consume.
( Originally published on Apr 10, 2022 )<
Read in source website
Starting Sunday, the 'precautionary' dose programme began for India's entire adult population. The programme's expansion, so far limited to healthcare workers and those above 60, comes when a new Covid-19 variant, XE, has emerged. Given the clear benefits of vaccination, basic protocol and booster vaccination must be delivered for all quickly.
GoI's decision to leave the booster shots solely to private providers could, however, be a problem. At ₹225 for the third vaccine, with an additional ₹150 for service charge for the jab itself, could push a sizeable section of the population to opt out. GoI should create a targeted drive, drawing on data of the free ration programme or Ayushman Bharat, that would cover the most vulnerable sections under a state-funded vaccination. This would mean that those without means to pay for the booster will not be left out. This third dose is not optional. Studies have shown declining efficacy of vaccines over time. So, universal and complete - triple-shot - vaccination. India is opting to repeat the primary vaccine as a 'booster'. Studies demonstrate that an mRNA vaccine as a booster is more effective. Also, in many jurisdictions, 'complete vaccination' specifies this definition. There is a need to publish assessment studies demonstrating comparable efficacy of the Indian vaccination protocol. This is central for its recognition and equivalence. Without it, travel outside of the country would be difficult.
The pandemic is not over. Mask mandates are being dispensed, travel and work are resuming, making vaccination even more critical. Alerts have been issued to the five states with rising cases. This is the time for GoI to lay out a complete, universal vaccination programme with urgency and care.
( Originally published on Apr 10, 2022 )<
Read in source website
On Friday, the government announced that a paid precautionary dose, or a booster shot, of Covid-19 vaccines will be available to everyone above the age of 18 years starting Sunday. Till now, India has allowed only people above the age of 60, those in health care services or deployed on the Covid-19 frontlines to get a booster shot. The decision to further expand India’s vaccination drive comes at an opportune time. Global studies, both in laboratory settings as well as those that analysed real-world data, have pointed to the need for this expansion in the face of waning immunity. They have shown that vaccine effectiveness starts decreasing after a certain period, widely believed to be around four to six months after people were administered the second dose. Data shows that nearly a third of Indian adults (around 34.4%) received their shots more than six months ago. This expansion also comes at a time when there has been a widespread rollout of such booster doses across the world.
On the domestic front, booster shots for all adults offers a significant advantage — continued protection. While India saw its third wave at the start of 2022, two reasons contributed to the relatively fewer deaths in this surge: The milder nature of Omicron variant and vaccine coverage. While the first factor, the nature of Sars-CoV-2 mutations, may be impossible to predict, the second factor remains a matter of policy. The decision to allow booster shots is a correct one, and comes at the right time. It may end up being one of the pivotal moments that defines how the country performs in a possible fourth wave, or against another variant of the virus.
In the end, Imran Khan didn’t even deliver on his repeated promise to play till the last ball in the constitutional crisis of his own creation. The cricketer-turned-politician wasn’t in Parliament on Sunday when Opposition lawmakers unseated him as the premier in the first successful no-trust vote in Pakistan’s history. This was preceded by bizarre efforts by Mr Khan to desperately cling to power, with the parliamentary speaker putting off the vote on one pretext or the other and a reported attempt to remove the Pakistan army chief, as uncertainty in political circles sowed the seeds for chaos of the sort Pakistan can do well without at this juncture. Mr Khan’s behaviour has been anything but sportsmanlike since the combined Opposition brought the no-confidence motion against him a week ago. First, he colluded with the deputy speaker, also from his party, to get the trust vote rejected, and then he got the President, another party acolyte, to dissolve Parliament and order fresh elections. It was then that the Supreme Court stepped in and ordered the holding of the vote and set Pakistan back on the constitutional track.
Mr Khan came to power with lofty promises of building a “naya Pakistan” that many of his followers had bought into. A charismatic leader who continues to draw huge crowds and to rally the youth, Mr Khan’s performance in delivering on those promises was dismal. His government did little to increase Pakistan’s manufacturing capabilities or to push sustainable development and address a serious balance of payments crisis. Instead, there was the same old culture of turning to China and Saudi Arabia for handouts. More worryingly, Mr Khan used an anti-graft campaign to go after political opponents and stifled the media while his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party injected hate and toxicity into Pakistan’s body politic that will linger for a long time.
There is no one Mr Khan can blame for his fall but himself. The new government to be formed by the combined Opposition will certainly have its work cut out for it. It was one thing for Opposition parties to come together to oust Mr Khan, but it will quite another for them to remain united to address challenges ranging from a resurgent Pakistani Taliban to an economy on life support. Indian policymakers will certainly be wishing for the success of this experiment to ensure much-needed stability on the western front.
In the early years of the 20th century, French criminologist Edmond Locard discovered a principle called trace exchange. Locard, who would come to be known as the pioneer of forensic science, argued that a criminal always leaves something identifiable at the crime scene and carries something from the spot. Decades later, American scientist Paul L Kirk called the principle a silent witness against the criminal.
Whatever the wrongdoer touches or leaves behind, such as fingerprints or footprints, hair strands, cloth fibres, marks from tools used, blood or semen, are factual evidence that can be instrumental in solving a case. Physical evidence cannot be wrong, cannot perjure itself, cannot be wholly absent, he argued. “Only human failure to find it, study and understand it, can diminish its value,” he said.
Newer and advancing technologies are crucial to an investigating officer – take, for example, CCTV systems capturing movements of people, videos and photos of criminals, and access control mechanisms of large complexes recording the signature, fingerprints, iris or retina scans. These evidences can be used forensically in two ways.
One, they can help in establishing that the person caught has committed the crime as fingerprints, DNA and handwriting samples may be matched with physical and biological evidence found at or near the crime scene. Second, they can be used in searching the data bank of fingerprints, palm prints and biological characteristics of criminals from the past.
Unfortunately, in India, we have not maintained data banks (except fingerprints and palm prints) due to an inadequacy in the legal system. The Identification of Prisoners Act, 1920 was the only law that allowed the collection and storage of fingerprints and palm prints of criminals. Each state operated its individual fingerprint bureau which kept a record of fingerprints of people previously involved in crime in that particular state.
But the law didn’t address two significant issues.
One, the fingerprint bureaus are stand-alone databases and are not connected to each other. If a man has a criminal record in state A but has committed a crime in state B for the first time, his fingerprints will find no match in state B as he has no previous record there. This highlights the need for a centralised database connecting all the bureaus currently working in silos. Information centralisation and exchange will also improve the time taken to solve cases and prevent the commission of more crimes by the same people.
Two, this Act covered only fingerprints and palm prints. Criminals also leave traces in the form of physical and biological evidence. There was a need to include these recognisable traces, including unique identification like retina scans.
The Criminal Procedure (Identification) Bill, 2022, which was passed by Parliament last week, addresses these difficulties and provides cohesive tools to investigating officers through better forensic support. This Act permits collecting identifiable physical and biological samples (including retina and iris scans), signatures and handwriting of criminals and storing them in national data banks.
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) will be the nodal agency responsible for recording and maintaining the records of criminals from anywhere in the country, making it impossible for criminals to take advantage of inadequate and fractured data banks. This new Act is a commendable step in leveraging technology to streamline forensic aid to investigation, improve crime working out ratios and reduce future crime incidence rates.
Karnal Singh is a former chief of the Enforcement Directorate
The views expressed are personal
The Russian invasion of Ukraine has posed a challenge to India-United States (US) relations. We know the divergent positions of India and the US. The puzzling part is that if both have a common interest in balancing China, this divergence should not exist. And yet it does. The current war can end in three possible scenarios for Russian president Vladimir Putin. In each scenario, we will see that India and US interests are quite aligned.
In scenario 1, Putin ends up a much weaker leader than before. This could be because the underwhelming Russian performance can lead to greater domestic dissidence. The sanctions could also cripple the Russian economy, eroding Putin’s ability to distribute resources among his selectorate. However, given his grip over the State apparatus, pre-installed coup-proofing procedures, and control over the flow of information, Putin would still continue in office. This scenario is bad for India because Putin would be overly dependent on China to keep the Russian economy afloat. Beijing might even earn a veto over Russian transfers of defence equipment to India. This scenario is not great for the US as well. While Russia would indeed get weakened, the ultimate winner would be China — America’s number one adversary. There are a number of defence technologies in which Russia holds an upper hand over China, for instance, nuclear submarines. Vital technologies might fall into Chinese hands too easily in this scenario. Chinese companies may also get to control a share of Russia’s hydrocarbon production.
In scenario 2, Putin ends up stronger. This looks extremely unlikely at the moment but we must consider it for theoretical completeness. The war may suddenly turn in Russia’s favour. The sanctions may not damage Russia’s economy much. The US and Europe might realise that Russia as a source of energy is not easily replaceable. The fillip in energy prices might more than offset the loss due to various other sanctions. This is a good outcome for India. Russia’s global standing would be enhanced and it would not be dependent on China. Russia could actually cooperate with India in balancing China. The decrease in Chinese leverage over Russia will also be good for the US. China would not acquire coveted defence technologies easily. In the past, we have seen Russia crack down on Chinese attempts to steal defence technologies and we might see that even more. Better India-Russia cooperation will complicate China’s strategic environment and perhaps dissuade it from taking reckless actions in the Taiwan Strait or in the South China Sea — known areas of interest for the US.
In scenario 3, Putin ends up getting replaced by another leader. If the new leader is someone like Putin, we will end up with scenario 1. But it is unlikely that Putin will be replaced by someone like himself. The circumstances under which he will be replaced — coup, public protests or externally-aided regime change — make sure that the replacement is likely to pursue a different path, which should manifest in a more pro-western foreign policy. The unfolding of this scenario carries the risk of nuclear weapons-use by Putin. If nuclear weapons do not come to be involved, this is the best-case scenario for both India and the US. A pro-West leader in Moscow would mean that India could get Russian arms without fear of sanctions and the US would have achieved two prizes: A victory over Putin and a new partner to balance China. This is the scenario Beijing would like to avoid at all cost.
If the interests of India and the US are so aligned in all scenarios, why do we see such divergence in policy positions and public rhetoric? This divergence could be stemming from one or more of the following three reasons: First, the US regards Russia as a near-peer competitor, not far from China. The underlying assumption in all three scenarios mentioned is that China is the ultimate challenge for the US and Russia is a distant second. Perhaps, the US doesn’t see it that way and it regards rivalry with Russia a close second after China. If that is the case, scenario 1 is great for the US and very bad for India. Scenario 2 is exactly the opposite.
Second, the US might see its actions vis-à-vis Russia in this war as a demonstration of resolve to China. It might be aiming to show China that any attempted use of force across the Taiwan Strait would see a similar response in terms of harshest punishment possible. In this line of thinking, China remains the US’s biggest rival and the purpose of America’s involvement in Ukraine is to deter China’s future adventures.
Third, the US might be interested not so much in who the primary rival is but in protecting a norm of territorial sovereignty. Of course, the US has a bad record here. It invaded Iraq, did not follow the international court verdict on Diego Garcia and allowed China to get away with salami slicing in the South China Sea. However, it might still be willing to draw a line when an aggressor aims to capture an entire country — like Russia in Ukraine or Iraq in Kuwait. If the US thinks this way, China can expect to get away with a lot if it doesn’t try to get that whole lot in one big attempt.
Indian policymakers should sit with their American counterparts and try to ascertain which among the above motivations are in play. If it is the first, India and the US may have convergence only if Putin gets replaced — a low-probability event. If the other two motivations are at play, there is still an opportunity to narrow the divergence between India and the US on Ukraine.
Kunal Singh is a PhD candidate at the Security Studies Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
The views expressed are personal
During a recent Rule 193 Discussion in the Lok Sabha on the situation in Ukraine, after recalling time tested Indo-Soviet ties and the help provided to us by the erstwhile Soviet Union in December 1971 during the war for the liberation of East Pakistan, now known as Bangladesh, I stated, “…But then Mr Speaker Sir, friends also have to be told if they are wrong that they possibly need to get their act together. Forty days into this war and, Mr External Affairs Minister was smiling, what I meant to say was that they have been told privately or would have to be told privately because after forty days of this conflict, Russian war’s aims appear to be ill-defined or, at best, muddled. Does Russia want to split Ukraine at the Dnieper river? Does it want a regime change? What does it mean by de-Nazification of Ukraine? Does it want to create a land corridor between the Donbas region and Crimea or is it testing the Anglo-American power? For Ukraine joining Nato is at best a cat’s paw. It has been on and off the table since the Bucharest Summit in 2008.” You can watch the full speech at https://bit.ly/3NVQ2gh on YouTube.
Why did I say friends have to be told if they are wrong alluding to Russia? For the simple reason that nation is on a self-destructive path that has implications economic, political and social far beyond Russia itself. The Russians would do well by reflecting upon some aspects of their own history.
In October 1962, after the Cuban missile crisis, the knives were out for the Soviet premier and general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) Nikita Khrushchev. By October 1964, Khrushchev was gone. An article published in the Los Angeles Times on May 20, 1989, headlined “Fearful Brezhnev Shook in Ousting Khrushchev in ’64” narrated that story as follows: “In an interview with the weekly Argumenti i Fakti published Friday, Vladimir V. Semichastny, who headed the KGB state security service from 1961 to 1967, gave an intriguing insight into the coup that ousted Khrushchev, whose flamboyant behaviour and reform schemes met with mounting criticism within the leadership. ‘While Khrushchev was away on holiday in October, all the members of the Presidium (Politburo) of the (Communist Party) Central Committee got together at the Brezhnev’s and it was decided to summon Khrushchev back from Pitsunda (on the Black Sea coast) to Moscow,’ he said. ‘We decided to telephone him. Who should do it? Brezhnev, of course. It took us great effort to persuade him. We dragged him, almost by force, to the telephone.’” Almost overnight after that coup, Khrushchev became a non-person in the erstwhile Soviet Union until his death on September 11, 1971.
After the disastrous occupation of Afghanistan from December 24, 1979, to February 15, 1989, when the remnants of the Soviet 40th Army finally withdrew across the Friendship Bridge on the Amu Daraya, that extends from Hairatan on the Afghan side to Termez, a town then situated in the Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, with General Boris Vsevolodovich Gromov, the last commander of the Soviet 40th Army, literally being the last man out; it also heralded the collapse of just not of the Soviet Union but also virtually the entire Soviet sphere of influence across the world. Mikhail Gorbachev who presided over the liquidation and finally the formal dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 26, 1991, is virtually a non-entity in the powerful empire that he once ruled over.
This is not to say that a similar fate awaits either President Vladimir Putin, or Russia. However, with the war in Ukraine now entering into its seventh week, the Russian leadership would do well to reflect upon the consequences of the Frankenstein they have unleashed. There are murmurings of Russian elites conspiring to replace Mr Putin. Given the fact that the source of these reports is the Ukrainian intelligence service, obviously much credence cannot be given to such speculation. However, the fact does remain Russian “oligarchs” are smarting under Western sanctions that are biting into their fortunes.
For starters there seem to be no clear cut war aims or political objectives delineated for the one unleashed on Ukraine as enunciated right at the inception of this piece. If the Russians thought that they would run through Ukraine like a hot knife through butter they have been nastily disappointed. Ukrainians are fighting hard and resisting. The horrific killings, torture and rape of civilians in Bucha, Irpin, Hostomel, Borodianka and other suburbs of Kyivare being laid squarely at Russia’s door opening it up to serious charge of “war crimes”. Not only has Russia been suspended from the United Nations Human Rights Council but its continued prosecution of the war is making life difficult for nations like India that have been trying to walk the narrow edge of the wedge in maintaining its credibility as a democratic nation that stands for certain values and its historic partnership with Russia.
However, what Russia must also consider is that if it comes out humiliated from this conflict which it most certainly would, given that it has had to withdraw its forces from in and around Kyiv and is now trying to refocus on the eastern region of Donbass and the southern coast of Ukraine, it would only be playing into the hands of China. For a weakened Russia as a junior partner of China plays very well into the Middle Kingdom’s dream of global domination. Russia should seriously think about the consequences of being China’s wingman to his historical appreciation of itself as an ancient civilisation.
Moreover, the reputational damage to Russia for brutalising a fellow Slavic people bound together by centuries of civilisational ties going back to the days of Kievan Rus from the ninth to 13th century will also not play well even in Eastern and Central Europe itself, what to talk of the rest of the world. Already, ordinary Russians who may not agree with Putin’s War are being subjected to increasing degrees of opprobrium around the world. Coupled with that is the exclusion of seven Russian banks from the Belgium-controlled SWIFT transaction system and the threats being bandied about by the Western Alliance to proscribe other nations who are trying to devise alternative means of financial settlement for trade with Russia that would eventually end up economically isolating Russia.
Thus to save Russia from itself, India as a friend that has so far maintained strict neutrality even at the cost of annoying its own friends in the West, must strongly emphasise on Russia that it is in its best interests to extricate itself from the mess it has created.
Everyone knows that April 14 is Ambedkar Jayanti, the birth anniversary of B.R. Ambedkar, the father of India’s Constitution. It is also not hidden from anyone that in his lifetime and even afterlife, his relations with political leaders across the spectrum, from the dominant Congress, or the fringes on the Right as well as Left, were strained, to put it mildly. Contrast this with Dr Ambedkar’s being one of the most sought-after legacies in Indian politics now. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has personally led this new-found public embrace and appropriation of Dr Ambedkar’s legacy. His associates, the leaders of Sangh Parivar affiliates, take turns in eulogising the dalit icon despite no camaraderie, of even a pretentious sort, ever existing between him and the RSS in his lifetime. In fact, Ambedkar’s steadfast advocacy of the Hindu Code Bill had angered the RSS and others in the saffron camp because they were of the view that he overzealously campaigned for outlawing polygamy, introducing the concept of divorce and granting women property rights. Ambedkar’s push for modernising select sections of traditional Hindu law was opposed by the Sangh Parivar vehemently.
In the early 1980s, the Sangh Parivar leaders who preceded Mr Modi decided consciously to enlist Ambedkar into the pantheon of their icons. But, despite their resolution to stop disparaging Ambedkar’s legacy, actual steps by RSS-BJP leaders were taken only following V.P. Singh’s implementation of the Mandal Commission award and after his government awarded the Bharat Ratna to Ambedkar. Mr Modi has taken the invocation of Ambedkar’s legacy one level higher and increased its frequency too.
The highlight of 2022’s Ambedkar Jayanti (his 131st birth anniversary) is going to be a tad odd. To grasp this, we need to recall the awkwardness with which Jawaharlal Nehru and Ambedkar worked and interacted with each other. Nehru and Ambedkar being unable to see eye to eye had a lot to do with the latter’s intense differences with Mahatma Gandhi for decades, at least from the early 1930s, from days before the Poona Pact. Ambedkar levelled substantial charges against Nehru when resigning from the government. At his death, the Prime Minister somewhat returned the favour by saying that his former law minister had been a “very controversial figure in Indian politics”.
Everyone knows all this. Consequently, Mr Modi’s decision to inaugurate the Pradhan Mantri Sangrahalaya, a museum dedicated to India’s Prime Ministers, on April 14 is loaded with political symbolism. The chairman of the drafting committee of the Constitution had no formal link with the office of the Prime Minister, so why is a museum to celebrate all 14 of the previous PMs being inaugurated on Ambedkar’s birth anniversary?
In the calendar, April 14 is less than 10 days after the BJP’s foundation day on April 6. Since 2014, every anniversary has progressively become more grandiose. This year, several days following the day is marked as “Samajik Nyay Pakhwada”, and the decision to inaugurate the museum of PMs in this period is aimed at connecting the BJP to Ambedkar and all Prime Ministers. It goes without saying that by changing the character of the Teen Murti complex from earlier being a memorial to Jawaharlal Nehru exclusively into one that gives space for all PMs so far, Mr Modi has brought down Nehru from being the first among equals to one of all. The additional building that has been built in the complex where Nehru lived till his demise reflects the ongoing Modi project — the erasure of another symbol of “Nehruvian colonisation”.
Further, the decision to inaugurate the new “expanded” museum that will not be “exclusive” for Nehru’s memory has been fixed for April 14 after rejecting two other dates considered by the government — December 25 and January 26, the first being Atal Behari Vajpayee’s birth anniversary and the other being Republic Day. The advantage of the inaugural now is that it enables the BJP to integrate the unveiling with the celebrations to mark its foundation day.
The day after Mr Modi was first sworn in as Prime Minister on May 26, 2014, was Nehru’s 50th death anniversary. The new PM provided an indication of his intention to take down the first PM from the pedestal he has occupied since 1964 by not making the customary visit to Shanti Van. No effort has been lost since then to undermine Nehru. In 2017, Anant Kumar Hegde, then a Cabinet minister, stated controversially in Parliament that Nehru had “marginalised” Hinduism in public life and he pursued policies “favouring” Muslims. Earlier, taking the cue from Mr Modi staying away from Shanti Van, Haryana’s new BJP government trimmed school textbooks in history. These had space for inversing history by portraying the Rajput king as victorious at Haldighati, but overlooked the existence of Nehru as well as Gandhi’s assassination.
Allowing Nehru to remain in the pre-eminent position that is rightfully his — Nehru was not just Prime Minister for 17 years, but also a towering national movement leader or freedom fighter for three decades prior to that — is an anathema for this government. The sheer span of time that Nehru occupied national mind space and stayed politically relevant from the pole position weighs on Mr Modi’s mind and forces exaggerated claims regarding his own (Modi’s) accomplishments — for instance during the JP movement or in the Bangladesh liberation war.
One of the key narratives of this government its its claim that “nothing” good or positive was done in India prior to 2014, and that all development and growth is after that period. The irony of the move to make Nehru one among all is that effort merely underscores that Nehru’s colossal personality and accomplishments (there were failures too, but gratefully acknowledged even by his admirers) continues to occupy considerable space in the political discourse.
The problem for this government is that the more they attempt to leave Nehru and his ways behind, the more emphatically do his methods come back as being relevant for this day. Witness, for instance, the Indian government’s efforts at maintaining equidistance on the Russia-Ukraine conflict. If this is not neo-nonalignment, then what is it?
Likewise, much of economic measures that have electorally returned the BJP to office in election after election have their genesis in Nehruvian ideas. Years ago, Arun Shourie lambasted the government as being nothing but “Congress plus cow”. He may wish to make an amendment, replacing Congress with Nehru. Teen Murti becoming a “shared space” may actually be lauded by Nehru’s ethereal likeness, for he believed in sharing kudos and not garnering them solely for himself.
Spring is here. But that means April showers, high winds and occasional sunshine. However, along with the sun — the Extinction Rebellion (XR) activists are back on the streets, reminding us that the world is not a safe haven in any way, and the earth continues to be impacted by our “grasshopper” policies.
Shouldn’t we be looking at climate change more seriously? But this time the protesters are not as virulent as before. In the past they would glue themselves to the street or refuse to leave. But this time as they squat or lie on the streets — disrupting traffic around Oxford Street, or around Hyde Park— and it was like one large group of protesters on a picnic, as many had brought their lunch along. But we know that they are determined to save the earth by forcing us to rethink the way we use fossil fuels, or our consumeristic lives. So let’s see what they do next! Blocking Regent Street and Oxford Street may not be enough…
However, yes, I fear that the Extinction Rebellion may be on its way out (forgive the bad pun), particularly as Londoners are terribly distracted — battling with many other types of chaos in their lives.
The worst among the chaos is the escape they had planned for their Easter vacation. After two years of staycations — we are back to the traffic jams on the roads to Dover, and the long queues at the airports as Londoners push and heave and struggle to get out of the country. This was, of course, a regular scene in the pre-Covid era — but we have forgotten it. And then, flights have been cancelled, due to the return of Covid, adding to the rising tempers and rising temperatures.
However, for me, there is nothing prettier than London in the summer — and after the lockdown, it is now time to explore the London we had forgotten — the pubs, the theatre, art exhibitions, the walks along South Bank. Sometimes I feel I am in a film, with the buskers providing the musical sound track!
Yes, we know that new strains of Covid are snapping at us — but fortunately lockdowns seem to be a thing of the past. Nothing as beautiful as London in the summer! And I wonder if friends from India will start flocking here again as they did in the past! This was the “Simla” of those who could afford to fly. Though now with the war in Ukraine and flight prices zooming high — perhaps the usual Indian tourist will think twice.
And yes, in other bad news. Whichever way you look at it, Londoners are stuck with higher prices all around — their gas bills, daily food items, taxes on their incomes and houses if you were buying one. So we can always rely on Boris Johnson to cheer us up, or to distract us from our woes.
Off he went, therefore, to meet the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy — and even the Ukrainian embassy released the photo of the meeting between the two heads of State (one a former comedian-turned-hero — and the other a former, err….. ok, I think I will skip that) with a winking emoji saying “Surprise!”. More millions were donated to the embattled country, and more restrictions placed on Russians in the UK, but it is difficult to escape the past.
With Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the anger has been visited upon the Russian “oligarchs” in London. It is a strange word since these “gentlemen” have no political power but just a lot of money. They buy insurance by donating money to political parties, usually the Conservatives. You can buy a title — Lord, for instance for a million or two. One Russian “oligarch” owns two newspapers and was elevated to the House of Lords. Now he has become an embarrassment for the Prime Minister who was warned that the man could be a security risk. So far he has not been harmed.
But others have had their houses seized and their assets frozen. Russians — once much sought after — have become persona non grata.
But when the going gets tough, the tough get going. And we know that anytime soon, we shall see the tousle haired Prime Minister Johnson heading to India — and what a love fest that is going to be! I have met countless people in India who have such fond memories of him in his previous avatar when he was our son-in-law, married into the one of the best known Sikh families in the country. At that time his wife was Marina Wheeler — and friends recollect him dancing wildly at weddings, turban all askew — and recently someone was telling the amusing story of him eating all kinds of food at, at…guess where (no, not the Taj) but at Lajpat Nagar.
Of course, this visit will be far more sober, and we know that the lovely UK High Commissioner, Gaitri Kumar, has already headed back to make arrangements for the Prime Minister’s Indian summer.
So Namaste India beckons and I do not doubt he will show up in a sherwani one evening with a turban to rival that of the Indian Prime Minister — like a long lost “damaad”. Welcome home, Boris!