India will have to confront bitter facts if it wants to prepare a recovery plan of any credible and practical value

When someone in the family falls sick, all normal routines and arrangements are affected. And then, the deeper problems that lay hidden under the momentum of routine lie exposed and revealed. The same applies to an epidemic. The term currently used is ‘pandemic’ because it covers the whole world, but one cannot forget that even a universal illness manifests itself in regionally specific, local ways, exposing the problems to which societies had become accustomed. In our case, the pandemic has revealed the limits of our wherewithal to look after the collective needs of children during a calamity. A child in the family has a radically different status from that accorded to children as a collective entity in our country. The pandemic has revealed that society and state institutions prefer to ignore the conditions under which the family copes with the demands of childhood.

Peripheral concern

Children’s education and health are two major domains in which welfare policies of the modern state are expected to support and enhance the family’s role. In both these domains, the policy framework reflects a minimalist stance, both in terms of financial investment and institutional strength. In policies as well as in their execution, there is considerable diversity and disparity among the States. The overall picture suggests that childhood is of peripheral concern. Gains made in this context have proved difficult to sustain.

The pandemic’s deep effect

When the Right to Education (RTE) Act was promulgated over a decade ago, it seemed like a breakthrough. This perception was grounded in the structures and procedures created under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan during the decade preceding the RTE. These structures were not perfect, but they marked a new beginning in the direction of local autonomy and devolution of power. These fragile structures required nurturing on a long-term basis. Neglect and decay set in quite soon in regions where the system was weak to begin with, and then came COVID-19. Several recent surveys show that the pandemic has left the entire system ravaged. Even something as basic as a meal for the youngest age group ceased. Teaching switched wholesale to the online mode, leaving it to the family to cope with the demands hidden in this medium. A flat discourse pervaded the ethos, offering few choices or clues to enhance them.

India was unique in the fact that even the very youngest age group was covered by online teaching. With the reopening of schools, the outcomes of prolonged exposure to digital devices in confined spaces have started to be revealed and documented. The vast majority of children from lower socio-economic backgrounds could not access online teaching for reasons totally beyond their control. And among those who did have access to online lessons, rates of comprehension and progress were quite low.

Studies show that academic losses are compounded by emotional problems. A survey carried out by the Vipla Foundation has traced the kinds of stress children experienced at home. Exposure to domestic violence, prolonged hours in front of TV, especially among boys, and addiction to digital sources of entertainment are among the various outcomes of COVID-19 confinement.

A recovery plan

Systemic recovery will undoubtedly prove arduous. The time required for recovery will depend on imagination and resources. A significant beginning has been made in Tamil Nadu. A committee chaired by Professor R. Ramanujam has been asked to prepare a three-year recovery plan and a new curriculum. A major problem this committee will need to address is the addictive effect of prolonged online teaching. Devices such as the smartphone induce small children into a seductive bond that may not be easy to shake off. Restoring children’s innate desire to relate to the world physically and socially surrounding them will constitute a major step towards educational recovery. This will demand de-addiction from digital instruments.

The COVID experiment of exclusive dependence on digital machinery has resulted in a radical expansion of its market. It has also permitted digital activism to mutate into an ideological doctrine of progress. The Ramanujam committee may not find it easy to deal with this doctrine. Its believers and new recruits must be persuaded to listen to child psychologists and teachers of young children. Their voices, feeble though they are at present, offer the best promise of healing our injured system.

It was not a strong and resilient system to begin with. Its key functionaries — the teachers — had little say in decisions and no autonomy to do their best. Distrust in the teacher cuts across the deep divisions that characterise the system. On one side of the divide are government schools of various types, with differential levels of funding but common norms of governance. On the other side are private schools ranging from shoestring budget schools to the well-endowed, elite institutions. What sustains this straggling order of institutional outfits is the grand national fantasy that even an inadequate system such as India’s can generate a sufficient number of good doctors, judges, teachers, engineers, civil servants and so on.

Shifting of children

No description can capture the differential realities of experience that COVID-19 imposed on this vast range of institutions. Nor is there a comprehensive study to tell us how parents belonging to different socio-economic classes coped with their anxieties. We now know that financial constraints have forced a considerable proportion of children studying in private schools to shift to government schools. What this shift implies for the children and for the schools they will now attend needs more than speculation. Indeed, the shift itself remains a raw reality. In a recent webinar, Professor Shantha Sinha, former head of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, spoke about the astonishing demand faced by parents who wanted to transfer their children from a private to a government school. As many private schools run entirely on the strength of the fees they collect, they had to close down during COVID-19. The digital record of children’s enrolment maintained in some States continues to show their names in a private school. Seeking a transfer requires deletion from this record. Prof. Sinha said that many private schools in her region demand recovery of the COVID-19 period fee for granting deletion of the child’s name. This is just one instance of the hundreds of bitter experiential facts we will need to gather from every part of the country in order to prepare a post-COVID-19 recovery plan of any credible and practical value.

Insightful report

For now, the best we can do is to browse through a new United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) report titled “No Teacher, No Class” (https://bit.ly/31HJFKi), and heed its sane recommendations. Prepared by a team of scholars at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, this report tells us that India is facing a shortfall of at least one million school teachers. The report makes several key recommendations. The first is: “Improve the terms of employment of teachers in both public and private schools.” Some of the other recommendations are: value the professional autonomy of teachers, build career pathways, and, above all, recruit more teachers. If sound, research-based advice is what we need for rebuilding the system, it is available in this excellent report.

Krishna Kumar is a former Director of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT). He is the author of ‘Smaller Citizens’

There are signs of the political fight in the Assembly election becoming a bi-polar contest between the SP and the BJP

If one is to go by the number of political parties contesting elections in Uttar Pradesh, it may be seen to be a multi-cornered contest. But the way alliances have been formed, the Assembly elections to be held next year seem to be headed for a clear bipolar contest — between the Samajwadi Party (SP) on the one hand and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) on the other hand. Having formed alliances with various smaller regional parties, the SP has been able to create a strong perception of being the only challenger to the BJP.

The BJP remains a formidable force being the ruling party, having registered three formidable victories in the State, i.e. the 2014 and 2019 Lok Sabha elections and the 2017 Assembly elections. There seems to be some unhappiness with the Yogi Adityanath government, but I do not get a sense of there being strong anti-incumbency against the ruling BJP government, which may be required to defeat this government. The BJP has also managed to form alliances with smaller regional parties which would only help the party in consolidating its support base. The stepping back by farmers in terms of slowly withdrawing their agitation may help in mellowing down Jat anger against the BJP in western U.P., a region that had voted for the BJP in large numbers in the earlier election.

The other contenders for power, the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and Congress, seem to be getting marginalised as except for their core supporters, other voters may not vote for either of these parties as it would be seen as their vote getting wasted. Evidence from surveys conducted by the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) suggest that nearly a quarter of non-committed voters vote for the party which they think is winning an election as they do not want to waste their vote. Since the BSP and the Congress are seen as parties out of the electoral contest, it would be difficult for these parties to attract votes beyond their core supporters.

The SP’s plan

With the election clearly becoming a bipolar one, these are the questions that are being asked: Has the SP established a lead over the BJP? Is the BJP still firmly holding ground? Will U.P. now be a neck-and-neck contest? It would certainly be difficult to say how the U.P. election is pitched at this moment, but various political developments in the State give one a clear picture. When compared to the 2017 Assembly elections, the support base of the SP is on the rise, while the BJP seems to be vulnerable given some unhappiness with the government among various sections of voters.

It is important to note that the SP has formed an alliance with the Rashtriya Lok Dal (RLD), the Aam Adami Party (AAP), Om Prakash Rajbhar’s Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party (SBSP) and Krishna Patel’s Apna Dal (Kamerwaadi). This will help the SP in mobilising votes of various Other Backward Classes castes besides the Yadavs who are its core supporters. An alliance with the RLD would help in mobilising the Jat votes in its favour.

Since Jats and non-Yadav OBCs had voted for the BJP in large numbers, this alliance may be able to dent the non-Yadav OBC and Jat support base of the BJP, as there would be some shift among these voters. An alliance with Om Prakash Rajbhar will help the SP in mobilising the votes of Rajbhar community with its sizeable presence in about 20 Assembly constituencies of eastern Uttar Pradesh. An alliance with the Apna Dal (Kamerwaadi) will also bring some Kurmi votes in its fold.

The SP is also in talks about forming an alliance with the Pragatisheel Samajwadi Party-Lohia headed by Shiv Pal Yadav and Janwadi Party-Socialist headed by Sanjay Singh Chauhan.

Though there have been large crowds in the various rallies of Akhilesh Yadav, crowds do not always turn into voters. There may be strong supporters, but there are also a sizeable number of “hired people”. The proportion of such a “hired crowd” in election rallies may differ from one party to another. A study of rallies by the CSDS during the 2019 Lok Sabha election showed that 25% of those attending election rallies confirmed having been called or brought to the rally by the party concerned based on some promise or other. The study also indicated that nearly a third of those participating in the rally might attend the rally of other parties as well.

Past experiments

Concerns are being raised why the SP’s Akhilesh Yadav did not even make an attempt to form an alliance with the Bahujan Samaj Party or with Congress, or with both these parties to consolidate his position. Would not an alliance with the Congress or the BSP, or both, have helped the SP in mobilising greater support, rather than stitching up an alliance with smaller regional parties?

The experiment of contesting elections based on an alliance with the Congress and the BSP has failed miserably in the past. The SP-Congress alliance managed to win only 54 Assembly seats (the SP 47, the Congress 7) during the 2017 Assembly election with a 28.1% vote share (the SP 21.83%, the Congress 6.25%). Similarly, the SP-BSP alliance failed during the 2019 Lok Sabha election — the SP won only 5 seats and polled 19.26% votes while the BSP won 10 Lok Sabha seats, polling 17.96% votes. Going with an experiment which had failed in the past would not have been a sensible strategy despite looking strong on paper; voters would not have trusted such an alliance. Perception plays an important role in Indian elections.

BJP’s outreach

Despite its getting a number of parties as allies, the SP must note that the BJP too has managed to build similar alliances with various other regional parties. The BJP’s alliance is with the Apna Dal (Sonelal) led by Anupriya Patel, the Nishad Party led by Sanjay Nishad, the Bharatiya Manav Samaj Party led by Kewat Ramdhani Bind, the Shoshit Samaj Party led by Babulal Rajbhar, the Bharatiya Suheldev Janata Party led by Bhim Rajbhar, the Bharatiya Samata Samaj Party led by Mahendra Prajapati, the Manavhit Party led by Krishna Gopal Singh Kashyap, the Prithviraj Janshakti Party led by Chandan Singh Chauhan, and the Musahar Aandolan Manch (also known as the Gareeb party) led by Chandramani Vanvasi. These parties do not have a very large support base but are popular among some marginal OBC castes and Dalits.

In a way, these alliances would help the BJP in counter-balancing the SP’s alliance with smaller parties. Finally, the electoral contest in U.P. remains wide open with the BJP having a slight edge as farmers appear to be satisfied with the Government’s move on repealing the farm laws.

Sanjay Kumar is a professor at the Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS), Delhi and a political analyst. The views expressed are personal

The danger to journalism is not that journalists meet political actors; it is that they don’t meet them enough

A recent meeting of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat with a select group of journalists in Delhi raised a few eyebrows. What should be the desirable terms of engagement between journalists and their interlocutors is a rather complicated question. The fall of journalistic standards is a reality of our times, and too much proximity between journalists and the people they write on — politicians, businessmen, bureaucrats, etc. — is one reason for this. But the increasing tendency to look for sinister conspiracies in such meetings is silly. It is like looking for a scam in every government decision. True, if the invitees at a select briefing are vetted based on their willingness to be pliable in the past, then the meeting is no longer a credible exercise. That said, my complaint about Mr. Bhagwat’s meeting with journalists is not that some people participated in it, but that I was not invited! Let me explain.

The RSS is the most influential organisation in the country today. Its views shape not only our present and future, but also our notion of the past. I have striven hard to meet leaders of the RSS and been occasionally successful. But with Mr. Bhagwat, never. Once, I tried to meet the former chief K.S. Sudarshan without an appointment at the RSS office in Delhi, but was rebuffed by a stern elderly man who lashed out at me for my ignorance about the culture of the Sangh. I tried to reason that I wanted to overcome my ignorance, but it did not cut much ice. To make up for this limited access, I listen to the numerous speeches that Mr. Bhagwat and his colleagues give.

A journalist has no commitment to the person he meets or interviews. Again, it is sad that actors across sectors and political parties try to predetermine the agenda and outcome of their meetings with journalists and vet questions before interviews. This is truer for films and business than politics. Journalists who are competing for a scoop often give in. This has led to the understanding now that if you are meeting someone, that ought to be an act of compromise in itself. The absolute requirement of separation between paid advertisement and editorial content is also being stretched by grandstanders: whether paid advertisement is nationalistic and patriotic enough, whether the advertisement is true or not, whether an ad is moral or not. But how does a platform distinguish between the claim of an advertiser thatkarva chauthis a great tradition and another that proclaims the virtues of a soap or soft drink?

An attempt to understand

I have met convicted murderers, law-evading scoundrels, kidnappers, fraudsters, and underground activists besides several prominent shapers of Indian politics over the years, and all that has helped me understand how they think and function. That is very essential to my own functioning as a journalist and hence, I am relentless in pursuing meetings, even when people are not initially welcoming. Among the people whom I have tried hard to meet but have not been able to until now include Steve Bannon and Mayawati. The RSS chief is on top of the list of the people I would greatly value meeting, but alas!

The danger to journalism or democracy is not that journalists are meeting political actors. The danger is that they are not meeting enough, they are not being allowed to meet, or are being allowed meetings only with conditions. The moral police among the tribe need to take a deep breath and relax.

varghese.g@thehindu.co.in

India must realise Gen. Rawat’s plans for genuine tri-service operational capabilities

India has lost a capable and experienced military leader in the tragic death of the country’s first Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), General Bipin Rawat, in a helicopter crash near Coonoor in the Nilgiris on Wednesday. His wife, Madhulika, and 11 others also perished when the Indian Air Force’s Mi-17V5 helicopter came down in a heavily wooded area. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has announced in Parliament that a tri-service inquiry, headed by Air Marshal Manvendra Singh, Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief, Training Command, of the IAF, will take place into the incident. The IAF chief, Air Chief Marshal V.R. Chaudhari, has already visited the crash site; the cockpit voice and flight data recorders have been recovered, which would give investigators insights into how the crash occurred. It is imperative that the inquiry be done both thoroughly and speedily. Without speculating on the cause, it needs to be stressed that speedy course corrections in training or hardware are imperative given that these Mi-17VF choppers are being used to ferry top military leaders across the length and breadth of the country.

Gen. Rawat had not even completed two years as CDS when the Coonoor tragedy happened. After completing his tenure as Army Chief on December 31, 2019, he slipped into his new role as CDS the very next day. Many of his plans to give India genuine tri-service operational capabilities are still to be realised. In such a situation, the Government should not lose time in appointing his successor to ensure that the plans on the drawing board do not suffer. An aggressive China and a still belligerent Pakistan define India’s security challenges. The situation along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) continues to be tense with Indian and Chinese troops staring down each other. Gen. Rawat, known to have been proximate to the ruling establishment, had never minced words while speaking about the challenges facing the country and had waded into political controversies. Though the concept of having a CDS was recommended by a Group of Ministers in 2000 after the Kargil war, it took another 20 years for one to be appointed. The CDS, who functions as Principal Military Adviser to the Defence Minister, is expected to work in tandem with the three service chiefs who continue to operate in their respective domains — a role and function that is still in the making. To ensure that the new CDS and the service chiefs function as a team, the Government would do well to keep in mind the principle of seniority while choosing Gen. Rawat’s successor.

RBI may need to act to ward off price pressures sooner rather than later

The RBI’s latest monetary policy action, of maintainingstatus quoon benchmark interest rates, the policy stance, as well as the full-year GDP growth and inflation projections, stems largely from a wariness of the risks posed by the Omicron variant of the novel coronavirus. Announcing the bimonthly policy, Governor Shaktikanta Das observed that ‘headwinds from global developments’ were the main risk to the domestic outlook, which was now “somewhat clouded by the Omicron variant of COVID-19”. With the key drivers of demand in the economy — private investment and private consumption — still lacking meaningful momentum, the Monetary Policy Committee had opted to continue with its growth supportive ‘accommodative’ policy stance so as to enable a durable and broad-based recovery, he said. While it may sound churlish to question the MPC’s stand, given that the ongoing recovery from last fiscal’s record contraction is still yet to register an across-the-board expansion from pre-pandemic levels, the fact that one of the six members of the rate-setting panel has dissented on the policy stance for a third consecutive time, cannot be ignored. Positing in October that the ‘upside risks to long-term inflation and to inflation expectations had become more aggravated’, external member Jayanth Varma had at the time cautioned the committee against falling into “a pattern of policy making in slow motion” guided by an excessive desire to avoid surprises. And while his specific reasons for voting against the grain this week are not immediately available, that the MPC is for now prioritising growth over price stability is clear.

Governor Das, who acknowledged the criticality of taming inflation when he asserted “price stability remains the cardinal principle for monetary policy as it fosters growth and stability”, however, seems to be sanguine about the outlook for retail prices. Contending that winter arrivals would help bring down vegetable prices, which had spiked in October contributing to a marginal quickening in headline CPI inflation that month, Mr. Das has banked on optimism in asserting that the ‘slack in the economy’ may limit the pass-through of cost-push pressures that have kept core retail inflation persistently high for 17 months. The RBI’s November round of ‘Inflation Expectations Survey of Households’ shows that households expect inflation to accelerate in the near and medium term. The median inflation expectation of respondents polled in an extension survey earlier this month, in order to factor in both a possible Omicron impact and the softening in fuel prices in the wake of the cut in excise duty, projects the three-months ahead rate at 10.8% and the one-year ahead reading at 10.9%. And though the RBI has begun to slowly tighten the liquidity spigot it opened in the wake of the pandemic last year, a more robust response to ward off price pressures will become imperative sooner rather than later. For a delay risks undermining precisely what Mr. Das said was the RBI’s motto at this juncture, ensuring “a soft landing that is well timed”.

New Delhi, Dec 9: It will be a week to-morrow since Pakistan started a full-scale war with pre-emptive bombing raids on a dozen Indian airheads and intensive shelling all along the border in the West and got it back in full measure on both the fronts. From India’s point of view, the war is proceeding very satisfactorily with very few setbacks or surprises which had not been forseen — and, as expected, with a devastating impact on Pakistan’s capacity to fight simultaneously on both the fronts. According to Indian and foreign military experts here, the overall situation is good and it will get better in the next few days before the fighting on the ground reaches its climax in the west with the virtual conclusion of the fighting in the east. The present position in the eastern front is that except in Dacca the enemy resistance has crumbled and the trapped Pakistani army, now scattered all over Bangla Desh, is no longer an organised force under an integrated command, fighting doggedly to hold its ground or falling back in a disciplined fashion to regroup itself and resume the flight. The trapped enemy troops are either fleeing helter-skelter or withdrawing in scattered groups to make a dash to the exit points to stage a Pakistani-style Dunkirk down the Bangla Desh river system, little knowing that the Indian forces pursuing them are already astride the Padma, the Brahmaputra and the Megna to block their escape.

A huge chunk of the flyover under construction near Sewa Nagar for the Asian Games in Delhi crashed, injuring at least 17 labourers. Four have been admitted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The rest were given first-aid and discharged.

A huge chunk of the flyover under construction near Sewa Nagar for the Asian Games in Delhi crashed, injuring at least 17 labourers. Four have been admitted to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. The rest were given first-aid and discharged. This is the second incident in an Asian Games project site in two days. A labourer was killed on December 7 when a mound of earth fell on him. The workers were too dazed to give a coherent account of what happened to them. The fire brigade and other rescue officials took time to reach the spot. In the meantime, the residents pulled the injured workers from the debris.

Desai Shekhar rift

Sharp differences between Morarji Desai and Chandra Shekhar over Opposition unity may force a confrontation at the Janata Party’s national council meeting. Chandra Shekar is determined to move a resolution at the  meeting on Opposition unity. Desai has been a strong opponent of the merger of the Janata Party’s erstwhile components. Chandra Shekar has threatened to quit as president if the unity resolution is not endorsed.

Indo-China talks

The stage is set for a resumed dialogue between China and India on tackling the full range of bilateral issues, including the boundary question. China has expressed that the talks between the Indian side led by foreign secretary Eric Gonsalves and the Chinese Vice-foreign minister Han Nianlong will proceed smoothly.

England crawl

England squandered two advantages — batting first after winning the toss and a handsome start by Graham Gooch and Geofrey Boycott — in the Bangalore test. At close of play, the English team had crawled to 181 for four wickets.

Most recent protests in the capital have seen food used as a social glue, bringing diverse groups or people together over shared grievances and cups of chai.

Set aside the slogan-bearing placards and the scene could be from any of the picnic spots that sprout up around the Capital at this time of the year. Seated on colourful dhurries and mats at the Gandhi statue outside Parliament House, and sharing plates of idli-sambar-chutney and poha are the 12 Opposition MPs who have been suspended from the Rajya Sabha for the entire duration of the Winter Session for alleged unruly behaviour. There is defiance in the air — they are, after all, protesting their “undemocratic” suspension. But there’s also camaraderie as the MPs bond over food, bringing to the menu a taste of what the region they represent has to offer.

Most recent protests in the capital have seen food used as a social glue, bringing diverse groups or people together over shared grievances and cups of chai. In the bitter cold of the 2019-2020 winter, when the anti-CAA/NRC protest was in full swing in Shaheen Bagh, large vats of kheer and hot rotis at a langar helped keep spirits up and bodies warm. At the farmers’ protests at Delhi’s borders, photos of the protestors sharing rotis, kada prasad and even pizzas, spoke volumes about their sense of fellowship. Here, in fact, breaking bread together symbolised a meeting of minds to such a degree that, at one point, when talks with the government broke down, farmers’ representatives refused to share a meal with Union ministers Piyush Goyal, Narendra Singh Tomar and Som Prakash, telling them, “You eat your food and we will eat our food.”

The scale of it may be significantly smaller, but there is great warmth and fellowship at the Opposition picnic. Shiv Sena MP Priyanka Chaturvedi was heard saying, “We will all be friends for life as we are struggling here together.” An Opposition united by a common political agenda is not easy to put together, but no doubt a crisp sabudana vada or two will ease things along.

This editorial first appeared in the print edition on December 10, 2021 under the title ‘Thought for food’.

Increasing GDP pie, enabling access to education, healthcare can help resolve issue

The latest World Inequality Report — authored by co-director of the World Inequality Lab, Lucas Chancel, along with economists Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman — makes for a sobering read. It details the rising levels of income and wealth inequality across countries. As far as income is concerned, the richest 10 per cent of the global population currently takes 52 per cent of global income, whereas the poorest half of the population earns 8.5 per cent of it. The picture is worse when it comes to wealth inequalities.

India is one of the worst performers. “India stands out as a poor and very unequal country, with an affluent elite,” states the report. While the top 10 per cent and top 1 per cent hold respectively 57 per cent and 22 per cent of total national income, the bottom 50 per cent share has gone down to 13 per cent. It is not just the inequality in income and wealth that plagues India. The report also points to extreme gender and carbon inequality. For instance, at 18 per cent the female labour income share in India is one of the lowest in the world — only slightly higher than the average share in the Middle East (15 per cent) and significantly lower than the average in Asia (21 per cent, excluding China). Similarly, a person in the bottom 50 per cent of India’s population is responsible for, on average, five times fewer emissions than the average person in the bottom 50 per cent in the European Union and 10 times fewer than the average person in the bottom 50 per cent in the US. Inequality is so high in the country that when India is removed from calculations, the global bottom 50 per cent income share rises.

Alarming as these findings are, they are not entirely surprising. That’s because in India’s case the primary instrument — that is, fast economic growth — to reduce poverty and counter inequality has been faltering for a while. GDP growth has been rather iffy since the Global Financial Crisis of 2008 and has completely lost its momentum since the start of 2017. For a relatively poor country such as India, the most durable and dependable way to reduce inequality is to increase the size of the GDP pie. That is the first policy lesson for the government. However, as evidence from across the world has shown, fast GDP growth alone doesn’t help, especially when it comes to tackling inequalities in accessing education and health. That is the second key policy lesson. A good starting point in this regard would be for the government to improve the quality of data on inequality within the country.

This editorial first appeared in the print edition on December 10, 2021 under the title ‘Wealth of nations’.

Engaging the farming community as an equal may help the government to build the climate to reform. All reforms need sugar pills, bitterness doesn't help.

There is relief all around after the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM) announced Thursday the end of its 15-month-long agitation at the Delhi borders against the three central laws. Parliament had annulled these laws at the beginning of the Winter Session but the protestors had insisted that the government commit to their various demands in writing if they were to call off the protest. The government has done that. It has assured the SKM that a committee will study the demand on minimum support price, withdraw police cases against protesters, compensate the kin of those who died during the agitation and suspend the penal action against stubble burning. The farmer mobilisations, particularly in Punjab, Haryana and Western UP, had lingered on for too long. For, the government had decided that its majority in the House and its well-meaning intentions were enough, that those who had questions about the laws were either brainwashed by sinister forces or didn’t know better. The protestors ultimately prevailed and forced the prime minister to publicly announce the repeal of the laws. The government should not see this as a defeat but as a learning. That in a constitutional democracy, reforms, especially in agriculture where land is a key factor, need negotiation and accommodation, humility and generosity.

The fact is that the structural problems that in the first place influenced the government to introduce the farm laws remain. There is consensus that Indian agriculture is in desperate need of reforms. These reforms are necessary for farm incomes to rise, productivity to increase, for better storage and distribution of produce, expansion of the market, and to deal with matters such as declining soil fertility and water tables. Much conversation has taken place even among the protesters on these issues, and there is realisation among stakeholders that a stalemate on farm reforms is not sustainable or desirable. But a dialogue on reforms in agriculture hinges on rebuilding trust between the farming community and the government. Farm reforms is a long haul. The conversation should continue and common ground has to be found on issues such as minimum support price, access to credit, a sustainable paying model for electricity and, of course, the high environmental cost of stubble fires. The government, hopefully, will learn from the perseverance of the protesters that it needs to address their insecurity in a regime where actual price realisation is not easy and harvests are increasingly hostage to weather events. The dependence on MSP and state-led procurement is the consequence of imperfect and underdeveloped markets that impose costs on farmers.

Governments at the Centre and the states have preferred to ride on electoral sops such as free power and enhanced MSPs to win over farmers rather than address the structural issues that plague the sector, which employs a large share of India’s workforce. Engaging the farming community as an equal may help the government to build the climate to reform. All reforms need sugar pills, bitterness doesn’t help. The end of the protests, therefore, should mark a new beginning.

This editorial first appeared in the print edition on December 10, 2021 under the title ‘Beyond barricades’.

Christophe Jaffrelot, Maulik Saini write: This is a clear indication of the communalisation of the police that tends to prevail, irrespective of the ideology of the ruling party.

The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) reports show that in almost all the states of the Indian Union, irrespective of the party holding office, religious minorities are over-represented in jail.

Muslims are a case in point. During UPA II, they represented 21 to 22.5 per cent of the “undertrials” and under NDA II (from 2014 to 2019) 19 to 21 per cent. But law and order being a state subject, this question needs to be scrutinised at this level. Muslims are (and were) over-represented among jail inmates in almost all the Hindu-majority states: In Assam, Muslims, according to the 2011 census, are 34 per cent of the population and they represent 43 to 47.5 per cent of the “undertrials”; in Gujarat, Muslims are 10 per cent of the population and since 2017, they have been about 25 to 27 per cent of the “undertrials” (they were 24 per cent in 2013); in Karnataka, Muslims are 13 per cent of the population and they are 19 to 22 per cent of the “undertrials” since 2018 (they were 13 to 14 per cent in 2013-2017); in Kerala, they are 26.5 per cent of the population and 28 to 30 per cent of the “undertrials”; in MP, Muslims are 6.5 per cent and 12 to 15 per cent of the “undertrials” since 2017 (they were already 13 per cent in 2013); in Maharashtra, Muslims are 11.5 per cent of the population, and their percentage among the “undertrials” peaked at 36.5 per cent in 2012 (it went back to its 2009 level, 30 per cent, in 2015); in Rajasthan, Muslims are 9 per cent and they represent 18 to 23 per cent of the “undertrials” (they were 17 per cent in 2013); in Tamil Nadu, Muslims are 6 per cent, and 11 per cent of the undertrials since 2017; in Uttar Pradesh, Muslims are 19 per cent of the population, and 26 to 29 per cent of the “undertrials” since 2012; in West Bengal, Muslims are 27 per cent of the population, and they represent more than 36 per cent of the “undertrials” since 2017. The only major state where Muslims have been under-represented among the “undertrials” is Bihar, where the latter are 15 per cent when Muslims constitute 17 per cent of the population.

The over-representation of Muslims in jail is to some extent a reflection of the communal bias of the police. In many states, the percentage of “convicted” Muslims is much lower than their percentage amongst “undertrials”. Take 2019: The percentage drops from 47.5 per cent of “undertrials” to 39.6 per cent of “convicted” in Assam; from 19.5 to 14 per cent in Karnataka; from 31 to 27 per cent in Kerala; from 12 to 10 per cent in MP; from 30 to 20 per cent in Maharashtra; from 18 to 17 per cent in Rajasthan; from 29 to 22 per cent in UP. These data show that when the judiciary, at last, take up the cases of many “undertrials”. the judges realise that there is not enough evidence and they release people who have spent a lot of time — years sometimes — incarcerated for no reason. The police and judiciary are, therefore, somewhat at cross purpose in many states, to such an extent that the share of the convicts is not much larger than the share of the Muslims in many states, including Karnataka, Kerala and even UP. At the pan-Indian level, the proportion of Muslim convicts was 2.5 percentage points above the percentage of Muslims in the population, according to the 2011 census (14.2 per cent).

The police and the judiciary are on the same page in only a few states. The percentage of Muslim “convicts” is equal to the percentage of Muslim “undertrials” in only one state, Tamil Nadu (11 per cents) and the former are more than the latter in only three states: Gujarat (31 against 25 per cent), West Bengal (38 against 37 per cent) and Bihar (18 against 15 per cent).

If Muslims are overrepresented among jail inmates in most of the Hindu-majority states — among “undertrials” more than “convicts” — Hindus are overrepresented among jail inmates in the only Muslim majority state, Jammu and Kashmir. In this state, where Hindus represent 28.5 per cent of the population, they were 34 to 39.5 per cent of the “undertrials” between 2014 and 2019 and were even more over-represented among convicts — between 42.6 and 50.5 per cent. Muslims, 68.3 per cent of the state population, followed the opposite trajectory: Their percentage of “undertrials” (between 60.5 per cent and 56 per cent) was much higher than their share of the “convicts” (between 53 and 43 per cent). Similarly, in Punjab, Sikhs — 58 per cent of the population — tend to be under-represented among the undertrials at 51 per cent in 2019 and 52 per cent in 2018, whereas Muslims (2 per cent of the population) are over-represented at 4-5 per cent.

These detailed figures suggest something very disturbing: In almost every state, the minorities are over-represented in jail and the majorities are under-represented. This is a clear indication of the communalisation of the police that tends to prevail, irrespective of the ideology of the ruling party. One of the only ways to correct this state of affairs could be the recruitment and promotion of policemen from minority communities. Indeed, Muslims are under-represented among the IPS officers, except in J&K.

This column first appeared in the print edition on December 10, 2021 under the title ‘Majority in jail’. Jaffrelot is senior research fellow at CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS, Paris, professor of Indian Politics and Sociology at King’s India Institute, London and Saini is a Data Analyst & Researcher on Indian politics

CJI N V Ramana: Law students, young lawyers cannot remain aloof from social reality.

The father of our nation, Mahatma Gandhi, once remarked, “Youth are agents for transformation”. The history of modern India would be incomplete without acknowledging the role played by students and youth of this country.

Many social revolutions and changes were brought about through politically conscious and socially responsible students, who raised their voices against existing inequities. Students have been the face of the Indian independence movement. In fact, the youth have often taken up certain causes and inspired many political parties to take up the same subsequently.

Education has a social agenda. The agenda is to develop our human resources, which meet the requirements of society. An educated citizenry is the greatest asset for any democratic society. Students are known for their readiness to fight for all the right causes because their thoughts are pure and honest. They are always at the forefront, questioning injustice. Any keen observer of Indian society would notice that in the past few decades, no big leader has emerged from the student community. This appears to be correlated with diminished participation of students in social causes after liberalisation. The importance of students’ participation in a modern democracy cannot be played down.

It is necessary for you (students) to take part in current debates. You must have a clear vision. It is essential that more and more well-meaning, forward-looking, and upright students like you enter public life. You must emerge as leaders. After all, political consciousness and well-informed debates can steer the nation into a glorious future as envisioned by our Constitution. A responsive youth is vital for strengthening democracy.

It is, therefore, necessary for students to realise the importance of their relationship with society. Students are an integral part of society. They cannot live in isolation. Students are guardians of freedom, justice, equality, ethics, and social equilibrium. All this can be achieved only when their energies are properly streamlined. When the youth become socially and politically conscious, the basic issues of education, food, clothing, healthcare, shelter, etc. would come into focus in the national discourse. The educated youth cannot remain aloof from social reality. You have a special responsibility.

Consider this: Nearly one-fourth of our population still lacks access to basic education. Only about 27 per cent of those in the age group of university students are enrolling for university education. While most of you leave these institutes with degrees and titles, always be aware of the world that you are a part of. You cannot remain self-centred. Do not allow narrow and partisan issues to dominate the nation’s thought process. This will ultimately hurt our democracy and the progress of our nation.

The youth of today is driven by idealism and ambition. Idealism without ambition may not achieve any positive results. Ambition without idealism can be dangerous. Combine the two in the right proportion and enable our country to emerge as one of the most powerful and harmonious.

The learnings of my generation were different. In addition to formal learning in school and college, tough circumstances taught us many valuable lessons. When we left college in search of a livelihood, the change was not abrupt. There was freedom for us to experiment, work, play and learn from society.

Unfortunately, the focus nowadays is on professional courses to the total neglect of equally important subjects such as humanities and natural sciences. In an anxiety to secure highly remunerative and profitable job opportunities, children are sent to exile in privately-run residential schools and coaching centres. The formative years of budding talents are spent in a suffocating atmosphere that unfortunately resembles prisons. The harsh reality is that even after the students enter professional universities, the focus is on classroom learning, and not on the world beyond the classroom.

My general observations on the power and responsibility of students and the youth are even more relevant when it comes to all of you who are graduating today. You are all law graduates of one of the premier law universities in the country. All of you have a special responsibility to society.

Lawyers cannot be strangers to socio-economic and political realities. With countless tools at your disposal, all the knowledge and information in the world a click away, you are in a privileged position. While it is not wrong to choose a life of convenience, I hope that you choose a life of service as well, for the future of this nation.

Be aware of prevailing inequities and ask yourselves: Can I be a part of the solution? Particularly, in a country like India, you need to be social architects. The legal profession is not about profit maximisation. It is a service to your client. Remember your duty to the court and to the law. Carry out your sacred task with utmost sincerity and honour.

When you enter the profession you will take an oath on the Constitution. Always remember your solemn duty to uphold the Constitution. You all are aware, independence of the judiciary is sacrosanct in ensuring the rule of law. As officers of the court, you must always guard the institution during testing times. You must always remain vigilant about possible attacks. This is our collective responsibility towards the Constitution.

It is for you to shape the future of this country. The opinions you write, policies you draft, pleadings and submissions that you file in Court and the ethics that you hold dear, will have a far-reaching effect.

As the former US President John F Kennedy famously said: “Ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.”

This column first appeared in the print edition on December 10, 2021 under the title ‘No country for ivory towers’. The writer is Chief Justice of India. This article is an edited excerpt of the Convocation Address he delivered at National Law University, Delhi, on December 9

P D T Achary writes: It relies on broad interpretation of parliamentary procedure, and should bother democratically-minded citizens

The sittings of Rajya Sabha are being disrupted every day after the suspension of 12 of its members on the first day of the Winter Session, which began on November 29. These members were suspended because of their alleged involvement in the grave disorder in the House on the last day of the previous session. The motion to suspend the members was moved under Rule 256 of Rajya Sabha’s rules of procedure. This rule provides for the suspension of a member who disregards the authority of the chair or abuses the rules of the council by persistently and willfully obstructing the business of the House. Persistent and willful obstruction of the business of the House is the crux of the offence. When this happens, the chairman may name such a member, which will be immediately followed by a motion for his suspension. Upon the motion being adopted by the House, the member would stand suspended. Suspension can be for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session. This would mean that if the member is suspended on the last day of the session, the period of suspension will be only a day. So, even if a government would like to suspend such a member for a longer period. it would not be possible under the present rule.

An issue that has aroused the curiosity of Parliament watchers is the suspension of these members now for a disorder that took place in the last session. Is it possible under the rule? The only source from which an answer can be found is the rule under which the suspension motion has been passed by the House. There are no precedents to go by.

Every legislature has the power to suspend its members if they cause disorder and obstruct the business of the House. But the rule of suspension is rarely invoked in parliaments in mature democracies. In legislatures, suspension is regarded as a serious punishment. Suspension for a whole session is an extreme punishment.

Whether the present cases of suspension for a disorder that took place in the previous session is right or wrong, that question stood disposed of the moment the House adopted the motion. Unless the House itself revokes the suspension nothing can be done about it. The decision of the House is final.

However, there is a question of academic interest that arises — whether the existing rules permit such a course of action. For this purpose, we will have to do a little dissecting of Rule 256. It says that the chairman may, if he deems it necessary, name a member who either disregards the authority of the chair or abuses the rules of the House by persistently and willfully obstructing the business of the House. What follows is very important. After naming such a member, the chairman puts forthwith the question of suspension before the House through a motion. Sub Rule 2 of this rule is of very great importance in the context of the main question, namely, whether a member can be suspended in the next session for creating disorder in the previous session. It clearly says no adjournment is allowed, which means the matter of suspension cannot be adjourned to a later period. It needs to be decided then and there. The scheme of the rule is absolutely clear. A member who abuses the rules of the House by persistently and willfully obstructing its business needs to be punished swiftly. No adjournment is allowed at all.

So, from an academic point of view, it can be said that the rule under which the members were suspended does not actually permit it. But the House is supreme in these matters and the chair has absolute powers to interpret the rules. The judiciary has time and again clarified that the House has absolute powers to regulate its internal matters. Suspension of a member is such a matter. The judiciary will intervene only when a patently unconstitutional act is done by the House.

Nevertheless, resorting to a doubtful procedure to suspend MPs for an entire session will continue to bother democratically-minded citizens at a sub-conscious level. The solution to disruptions does not lie in suspension. That is the lesson we should learn from past experience.

This column first appeared in the print edition on December 10, 2021 under the title ‘A worrying suspension’. The writer is a former secretary-general of the Lok Sabha

D.S. Hooda writes: As CDS, he brought energy and purpose to military reforms. It must be ensured that the momentum is not lost

The horrific helicopter crash that cut short General Bipin Rawat’s life has left the country shocked. It is also a profound personal loss for some of us who had known General Rawat and his wife, Madhulika. When someone holding a key position is suddenly and tragically lost, the inevitable question is: What is the legacy he left behind?

General Rawat was an extremely competent military officer who reached the pinnacle of his profession as the Chief of Staff of the Indian Army and then as the first Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) in the Indian military. There are many vital contributions to his name throughout his career, but his most significant influence has been in the area of military reforms.

General Rawat’s duties as the CDS included bringing about jointness in the three services and carrying out reforms with the aim of augmenting the combat capabilities of the armed forces. As part of the reforms,General Rawat very vigorously pushed for the creation of integrated theatre commands. Currently, India has 17 service-specific commands, in addition to the tri-service Andaman and Nicobar Command and the Strategic Forces Command that is responsible for India’s nuclear assets.

Each service-specific command, apart from those responsible for training and maintenance, carries out its individual operational planning, with coordination being done at the Service Headquarters. This stovepipe approach has often resulted in sub-optimal synergising of operational plans between the three services. While it was accepted that joint warfighting is essential, there was a reluctance to shift from the existing commands to integrated command and control structures.

General Rawat’s plan for restructuring the military called for the creation of integrated theatre commands, which would have the necessary elements of all three services under its operational control. It was proposed to create a Western Theatre Command responsible for the western border, an Eastern Theatre Command responsible for the northern border, a Maritime Theatre Command to look after the maritime threat, and an Air Defence Command that would be responsible for the defence of India’s airspace.

There are some reservations, particularly in the Indian Air Force, on how the restructuring is planned. These issues need to be resolved through quiet, professional interactions. The creation of an integrated theatre commands is absolutely essential if the idea of joint warfighting is to be brought into reality. Once this principle is accepted, ways will have to be found to make it work.

Service-specific planning also created another operational deficiency. The services were focused on enhancing their conventional capability in traditional platforms like ships, aircraft, tanks, etc. Capabilities that straddled the three services were often ignored. These included areas like information warfare, cyber, and psychological operations.

It is now widely accepted that information is a new domain of warfare, and information dominance will be the key to winning both conventional and “grey zone” wars. While the Indian military has been a late starter in this field, the creation of a Defence Cyber Agency under the CDS has been a good step. As integration takes place, information warfare and cyber will find their appropriate place in the joint warfighting doctrine.

General Rawat was also responsible for assigning inter-services prioritisation to capital acquisition proposals. The budgetary demand of the three services always exceeds the money that is allocated by the government. In the past, this would lead to the services competing with each other to push through their own proposals. Theoretically, this could lead to a lop-sided capability development with some services not modernising at the same pace as others.

The CDS office would ensure that the priorities of the three services were given equal weightage. Looking holistically at the three services, it would also be easier to develop a long-term capability development plan that is in line with the joint warfighting doctrine.

Bringing about jointness also meant that the three services should be able to combine certain logistics and training facilities to avoid duplication. In this direction, General Rawat oversaw the operationalisation of three Joint Logistics Nodes at Guwahati, Port Blair and Mumbai. In times of stressed budgets, much more needs to be done to avoid duplication in facilities by individual services.

As we look at the security landscape, there are troubling signs. On our northern borders, a more aggressive Chinese military is turning the Line of Actual Control into a contested border. Pakistan remains an intractable foe engaged in a proxy war in Jammu and Kashmir. The situation in Afghanistan has the potential to spill over and impact the entire region. The growing presence of China in the Indian Ocean will at some stage challenge the current domination of the Indian Navy.

Under these circumstances, there is no option but to look at the current structure of the Indian military that could inhibit the adoption of joint warfighting practices. There is also a need to comprehensively analyse the type of capabilities that are required to be built up based on a realistic assessment of budget availability. All this calls for deep reforms.

In less than two years after he was appointed the CDS, General Rawat initiated a series of military reforms that are highly significant in scope. With his drive and determination, he would have ensured that the process is taken forward. Now that General Rawat is not at the helm, it must be ensured that the momentum is not lost.

The new CDS and the three service chiefs must take the military towards greater integration. Inter-service issues must not take precedence over necessary reforms. In case there are irreconcilable differences, the political leadership must step in. The Goldwater-Nichols Act reorganising the US military came when the policymakers lost faith in the ability of the military to overcome service parochialism. Hopefully, that stage will not come.

This column first appeared in the print edition on December 10, 2021 under the title ‘General Rawat’s legacy’. The writer retired as General Officer Commanding-in-Chief of the Indian army’s Northern Command

Patricia Mukhim writes: The Northeast is not only less understood by distant Delhi but also considered ‘alien’ to the nation.

The sight of a dozen or more coffins being laid in a row while young, helpless widows and elderly grief-stricken parents come to terms with their loss is an image that is both outrageous and painful. The dead were ordinary citizens going home to their village in Nagaland after work. In one shattering moment, their lives were extinguished; just like that. For the Army’s special unit, it was an intelligence error to which they overreacted. What’s the source of that information? Surely, the government cannot hide behind the smokescreen of “classified information”. There have been too many killings based on such wrong intelligence in Nagaland, Manipur and Assam.

With every such encounter in which the innocent are mowed down, the clamour for revocation of the draconian Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) grows strident — but is rarely sustained. Some years ago, all the northeastern states had come together to demand the annulment of this Act. That remained in the realm of yet another “demand”.

How can a country adopt a colonial Act meant to counter the Quit India Movement of 1942 to fight its own people? How can independent India impose an Act that gives legal protection to the armed forces to shoot down anyone on “suspicion” of being a terrorist/extremist/insurgent? In 1997, after Nagaland’s most enduring insurgent outfit, the National Socialist Council of Nagalim (NSCN), led by Isak Swu and T H Muivah, first decided to talk peace with the Indian government, the Naga Peoples’ Movement for Human Rights (NPMHR) had approached the Supreme Court for revocation of the Act. But the apex court had then upheld its constitutionality, and said it was an enabling legislation that confers minimum powers on the army to operate in situations of widespread internal disorder. Public memory is short and it’s important to jog that. Irom Sharmila of Manipur had undertaken a 16-year fast against the law, with the state insisting on keeping her alive through regular medical intervention. Sharmila gave up her lonely battle in 2017 when she decided to contest the Manipur Assembly elections. Why did it take over 60 years for AFSPA to become an election issue? It was only in 2016, after many PILs were filed in the Supreme Court, that the court sought details of the 1,528 cases of alleged extra-judicial killings between May 1979 and May 2012 by the Manipur Police and the armed forces. The CBI was asked to go into a few of those cases. But in its report filed in March this year, it said it had no conclusive evidence and, therefore, closed the cases.

The unasked questions remain: Why are the northeastern states of India and Jammu and Kashmir singled out for imposition of AFSPA? Aren’t there internal rebellions in the rest of India too, such as “left-wing extremism?” Why are those areas not termed “disturbed areas” followed by the invocation of AFSPA? The reality is that the Northeast is not only less understood by distant Delhi but is also still considered “alien” to the nation because of racial and cultural dissimilarities. Nation-building in the region is work in progress; insurgency is the result of a colonial power — the British — being replaced by a power that people in Nagaland see as akin to its predecessor.

Many are wondering if the peace talks between the NSCN (IM) and the government of India now lie in tatters. Unfortunately, the media has focussed exclusively on the NSCN (IM) and ignored the other Naga National Political Groups (NNPGs), who have been brought on board because they are Nagaland-based and speak exclusively for Nagaland. The NSCN(IM) is led by a Tangkhul Naga from Manipur and the majority of its cadres are also Nagas from Manipur. The NNPGs and the Gaon Bura Association of Nagaland doubt NSCN(IM)’s ability to bring lasting peace in Nagaland. They know that the NSCN(IM) is not an organisation with whom dialogue is possible or which is in the habit of examining its conscience and regretting its actions. It exists to recruit resentment and to direct that resentment against the usual target — Delhi or India.

It is important to take stock of the situation on the ground as it has existed since 2015. NSCN(IM) cadres, although living in a designated camp at Mount Hebron near Dimapur, move around freely with arms and extort with impunity. In the past, they have mercilessly gunned down rival factions but there has been no reaction because the people of Nagaland are a traumatised lot. Having faced the wrath of state and non-state powers, they had lost their voice, until a few years ago when people started expressing their anger against such killings and extortion over social media.

Since 2015, the Nagaland Gaon Bura Association, the apex body of Nagas which includes all the 16 recognised tribes and the NNPGs barring the NSCN (IM), have sent several memorandums addressed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah, asking that whatever terms are agreed upon with the NSCN (IM) should be concluded and the remaining issues be resolved through peaceful means. Why has the Centre ignored these petitions?

These representatives of the Naga people do not demand a separate flag or constitution because they understand these are tenuous demands. It is a settled issue that there will be no territorial rearrangement and the Naga-inhabited areas of Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam will not be reorganised for that would unleash a Frankenstein’s monster. These groups have also never raised the sovereignty issue. The working committee of the seven NNPGs, roped in to join the peace talks, are also opposed to the idea of changing interlocutors as and when the NSCN (IM) decides.

Today, the people of Nagaland are being held hostage by governments both at the state and the Centre. People question why the Centre is pandering to the NSCN (IM) at the cost of the people of Nagaland. Why continue to use the army and AFSPA when killings have reduced considerably? The apex body has specifically mentioned that they want to be delivered from the gun culture. Why is the Centre not responding to that call? In fact, the GoI is seen as pandering to the political leadership of Nagaland, which is alienated from the people, instead of responding to the aspirations of the Naga people. It’s a given that if the state uses armed forces, there will be excesses because the army is trained to kill the enemy. Deploying the army means that the Government of India considers the areas where AFSPA is invoked and the people who live there as the enemy.

Countering insurgency in the Northeast is fraught also because of the Free Movement Regime (FMR) between India and Myanmar. India shares a 1,643 km border with Myanmar. The FMR signed between the two countries allows movement up to 16 km inside each other’s territory for trade and commerce. But it is misused by militants to smuggle drugs and arms. The FMR was suspended in March 2020 due to Covid — but smuggling has only increased. This border is the most difficult terrain to police. These issues need to be addressed for enduring peace to prevail.

This column first appeared in the print edition on December 10, 2021 under the title ‘End the impunity’. The writer is the editor of Shillong Times

After over a year of protests in which they practically ceded no ground and stumped BJP’s formidable political management skills, farmers under the Samykuta Kisan Morcha banner are vacating their protest sites along various border crossings in Delhi. Having forced GoI to withdraw the farm laws, there is little likelihood of the farmers striking maximalist positions on the MSP-for-all demand. After all, most paddy-wheat farmers in Punjab and Haryana. the main catchment areas of the protest, do succeed in selling their produce at MSP rates or close to it.

For BJP, the losses are many. A longtime ally, Akali Dal, has been lost, the BJP government in Haryana has to rebuild bridges with Jat farmers, and in western UP the SP-RLD alliance along with tacit BKU support is putting up a spirited fight in the run-up to the upcoming elections.

Another worry for Centre and state governments is the newfound unity between a number of farm unions and their success in putting GoI on the backfoot. The SKM is suggesting that it will stay put as a permanent forum to push farm causes. While its electoral heft remains to be seen, such a body leading the resistance to corporate participation in farm trade poses a real barrier to farm reforms, even when similar policies are undertaken at the state level.

Farmers picketing Delhi’s periphery to oppose the 2020 farm laws package are set to exit after GoI conceded their key demands. But that can’t be goodbye reforms. Policymakers need to find ways to change the status quo. And learn from botched attempts like the badly drafted farm laws. One lesson is the importance of attention to detail. In intent and overarching vision, the package of farm laws got it right. But the design of the legal framework limited the potential impact of such a far-reaching reform.

To illustrate, a smooth dispute redressal system is a basic need in deepening the market of any product. A poorly designed dispute settlement method was a weakness in the repealed farm package. In this context, it’s important to go back to the reform effort of 1991. Their success did not hinge only on the backing of the political executive. A capable team of bureaucrats, many with domain knowledge, shepherded the reforms right through the decade. Reforming complex economic structures calls for teamwork. While the political executive needs to provide the impetus, implementation will inevitably require credible teams that have bought into the need for change.

GoI has for sure tried to crystallise important changes in the economic structure. But a common thread running through many of them is inadequate attention to detail and follow through. One of the first big changes tried was in the Railways. It’s been over six years since a committee under Bibek Debroy submitted a report. It even spelt out the sequencing of changes to unlock the potential of private participation in Railways, which began almost 30 years ago. However, key measures such as cleaning up the accounts and setting up a regulator endowed with operational autonomy are still pending.

Of all reforms initiated by this government, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) is perhaps the most significant. However, the creation of a bad bank to help commercial banks offload their NPAs raises questions on the efficacy of IBC. Is the relatively slow process – 73% of ongoing resolutions having crossed the extended timeline of 270 days – nudging banks to seek alternatives? Given the importance of an effective IBC to India’s fragile financial sector, GoI needs to ensure this reform realises its full potential. An attendant benefit is that it will become easier to convince stakeholders of future reforms when there’s success to showcase.

Bipartisan support, at least in the Lok Sabha, has again surfaced for a National Judicial Appointments Commission. The commission was supposed to replace the collegium system of judges’ appointment. But the law was struck down by a five-judge Supreme Court bench with a 4-1 majority in 2015. The current support for NJAC is a good context for all stakeholders to review the debate. The political class rightly critiques the principle of “judges appointing judges”, which has virtually no precedent anywhere. Collegium-backers cite instances of executive overreach and suspicious government interest in judicial appointments in the 1970s and 1980s. Those misgivings led to the collegium system, its rules formalised through the Second and Third Judges Cases in the 1990s. But the collegium has attracted credible suspicions of nepotism, it also displays manifest opacity, and on occasion, ignores obviously meritorious candidates.

On paper, the six-member NJAC – the Chief Justice of India as chairperson, two seniormost SC judges, Union law minister, and two eminent citizens, the last two nominated by a panel comprising the Prime Minister, CJI and leader of opposition – was to be a transparent constitutional body. But thanks to SC swinging the axe, we never got a chance to observe this experiment. But now that there’s some political momentum behind the idea, let’s lay out what a good NJAC should be.

First, the rule in the earlier NJAC Act that any two commission members can veto a candidate raises suspicion this is a backdoor attempt to give GoI primacy. This rule should go. Then, the choice of two civil society members of NJAC must pass the smell test. Politics is polarised. So, both the PM and the LoP, members of the panel choosing these two commission members, must rise above their politics – a tall order. The collegium system doesn’t work. But the NJAC solution can be better.

In fantasy sports, a player has to allocate a finite budget across players who command different fees, depending on their proficiency, to assemble a performance-optimising team. That calls for skill. In a card game, the hand you are dealt is chance, but how you play your hand is a matter of skill. Even when gambling stays banned, games primarily of skill should be exempt from the gambling label.

The online gaming industry is much larger than the global movie business, and is expected to cross $250 billion (₹18.9 lakh crore) by 2025. It is a vital, growing part of the information technology universe, in which a country like India, with a huge workforce that has missed the manufacturing bus of the labour-intensive kind, can hope to make a place for itself. This calls for, apart from education, creativity, technology and communications infrastructure, a sound, coherent regulatory climate. And that last bit is where the government, and government alone, can play a decisive role.

A segment of the gaming universe is a combination of skill and chance, and involves monetary stakes. Whether this is deemed to be gambling and so banned is a crucial question that calls for definitive regulatory clarity. The Kerala High Court recently ruled that online rummy was essentially a game of skill. The Karnataka government thinks otherwise and has banned the game in that state. The ban is under challenge in the courts. For the purpose of settling such disputes, it is not necessary to go into the question as to whether online betting, per se, should be banned. After all, India's official ban on betting, whether on cricket matches or election results, has only resulted in loss of tax revenue from a potentially rich source, and in pushing betting underground and into the hands of shadowy operators. Several Indian states permit betting on horse races, probably because that was allowed by the former colonial power; and its seeming genteelness has outlived the colonial power itself. India must abandon its schizophrenia on betting, legalise it, make it transparent and tax it.

In fantasy sports, a player has to allocate a finite budget across players who command different fees, depending on their proficiency, to assemble a performance-optimising team. That calls for skill. In a card game, the hand you are dealt is chance, but how you play your hand is a matter of skill. Even when gambling stays banned, games primarily of skill should be exempt from the gambling label.

Political empowerment is the first key ingredient of poverty removal. People with political agency will demand and obtain education and healthcare. It will also erode the structural inequality and sectarian divides in society. Social cohesion and individual agency together make for broad-based growth that emancipates.

We join the lament over the high levels of income inequality in India. However, we would like to point out that obsessing over inequality should not be at the expense of recognising that broad-based growth that delivers people out of absolute poverty is more important than keeping a lid on inequality. The latest World Inequality Report's finding that India is among the most unequal countries is disconcerting. Inequality, exacerbated by the pandemic, is potentially damaging for a society. But even more damaging would be low growth keeping people trapped in poverty, even if inequality remains static.

Updated data for 2021 in the report authored by Lucas Chancel, co-director of the World Inequality Lab, and coordinated by French economist Thomas Piketty, among others, shows that the top 10% hold 57% of the total national income. This includes 22% held by the top 1%, while the bottom 50% hold just 13%. The income gap between the top 10% and the bottom 50% in India is 1 to 22. The gap is wide, but sustained high growth that prises the poor out of the sub-human drudgery of poverty and sets them on a path to realising their innate human potential trumps low rates of growth if that comes combined with static income inequality. The challenge is to create the physical and social infrastructure needed to combat poverty, and create a regulatory framework that promotes, rather than stifles, creativity.

Political empowerment is the first key ingredient of poverty removal. People with political agency will demand and obtain education and healthcare. It will also erode the structural inequality and sectarian divides in society. Social cohesion and individual agency together make for broad-based growth that emancipates.

This week, United States (US) President Joe Biden held a two-day zoom conference (which ended on December 10) to save democracy around the world. The Summit for Democracy, as it was called, was met with a fair amount of derision before it had even begun. The fact that the administration held the Summit is not a surprise — even when a presidential candidate, Biden talked of an alliance of democracies.

What is surprising, however, is, many have pointed out, which countries Biden officials think constitute a democracy. Pakistan was in, Bangladesh was out — Pakistan ranks a dismal 130 of 139 on the World Justice Project’s Rule of Law Index, while Bangladesh is higher at 124. Iraq was in, Turkey was out.

Eyebrow-raising at the choice of invitees aside, experts also pointed out that many countries, including India, and indeed even the US, have seen significant democratic backsliding. Given such criticism, it was fair to ask whether a “Summit for Democracy” rang hollow, and whether the Presidential Initiative for Democracy Renewal launched at the Summit is a doomed proposition.

However, naysayers missed one crucial point. The Biden administration’s goal in organising a Summit for Democracy or launching the Initiative isn’t simply about bolstering democracy around the world. It is about bolstering democracy to sideline a rising non-democratic country, and highlight its contrasting authoritarian ideology — China. And one could say that, in that it succeeded. A quick glance at the Chinese news media over the past month suggests that China is very conscious of this goal, and is definitely on the defensive.

China’s objections to the Summit can be boiled down to three complaints: America has problems; China too is democratic; what is democracy anyway, and why does the US get to decide?

The first focuses on a myriad of issues with respect to the US. One of the repeated points is that the model of American democracy is, as the ministry of foreign affairs spokesperson, Zhao Lijian, put it, “broken.” The reasoning behind this is not just the Capitol riots of January 6, but also America’s race problem (People’s Daily), American’s own distrust of their democracy (Global Times), the vast and corrupt amounts of money poured by US corporations into favoured electoral candidates (Pengpai Xinwen), and poverty rates and Covid-19 deaths (Global Times).

The second is a claim that China exemplifies democratic norms. Sometimes this is implied in statements that ridicule “facts” about the US: In China, it does not take $14 billion to choose a president (Zhao Lijian); no Chinese official like “anti-China Congressman [Ted] Cruz” could or would filibuster health care reform by reading from a Dr Seuss children’s book (Pengpai Xinwen). But other times it is explicit: That China has 5,000 years of civilisation with “people-oriented” thinking, that its development is booming, and living conditions are vastly improved (Xinhua). Or as vice-minister, Le Yucheng put it, there is no doubt “China is a true democracy, [its] model fits in well with its national conditions…it enjoys the support of the mass people.”

The final is the questioning of just what democracy is, and who has the right to define it. The definition of a democracy is never made clear, except for the claim that democracies “seek happiness for the people”, but the Chinese press does outline many issues which they say exemplify what it is not: The bombing and devastation of Afghanistan are not democratic and, therefore, logically, not the action of a country that is a true democracy; social disorder and the refusal to wear masks or get vaccinated are not democratic; racial discrimination is also not democratic (Xinhua).

Finally, the press is firm and unanimous on the point that America, at any rate, certainly does not have the right to define democracy. Particularly, since the US routinely talks about democracy in the same breath as human rights, and given that human rights in the US are routinely violated as per previously stated problems, the sheer hypocrisy of America organising a democracy club is astounding.

And, in fact, what the US is doing with this Summit is not protecting democracy so much as reasserting a Cold War-era mentality of ideological division (Xinhua).

The most belligerent voices on the Summit come from the usual places such as the Global Times; the most nuanced from outlets such as Pengpai Xinwen or Caixin. But across the board, two things are clear: China has no doubt that the intent of the Summit was to sideline it into a category of undesirable global actors, and that the very idea of a democratic club as a tool of containment has forced it onto the back foot to try and avoid that sidelining. In that alone, if nothing else, the Biden administration can count the Summit as a success.

Manjari Chatterjee Miller is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and research associate at the University of Oxford. She is on leave from the Pardee School, Boston University where she is associate professor

The views expressed are personal

Omkari’s family was scandalised when she told them she wanted to learn how to drive. This is not women’s work, they protested. Better stick to the odd tailoring job at home.

Omkari, who uses only one name and has studied till class 10, persisted. The battle was won once she convinced her husband, who runs a decorating business, to visit the Azad Foundation office where she would be learning. Dedicated to “sustainable livelihoods with dignity for resource-poor women in transport to create a safe and equal world for all women”, the foundation would teach Omkari to drive and then get a job.

It wasn’t easy, waking up at 4 am to finish her household chores, then rushing to learn. But it was worth it. Her first job was with a doctor. Then, she got herself a commercial licence and began driving taxis.

The step to get a licence to drive heavy-motor vehicles seemed like a logical progression. In December 2020, 10 years after getting her first licence, she applied. But jobs for women bus drivers at the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) are proving to be elusive. So, while she waits, she teaches other women drivers.

An October 2014 survey on the world’s most unsafe cities for public transport for women, ranked Delhi the fourth-worst. Hiring women drivers and conductors will certainly instill confidence and enable more women to use public transport. But as of August, only 2.7% of DTC’s 28,949 DTC employees, including conductors, were women.

DTC hired its first woman driver, V Saritha, in April 2015 with announcements to hire more. Six years later, Saritha remains its sole woman driver.

“We want more women drivers in public transport,” says Delhi’s transport minister Kailash Gahlot.

So what’s the hitch?

The first is a minimum height requirement. Earlier when buses had fixed seats, this was 162 cm (5 feet, 3 inches). Now, with low floor buses and adjustable seats, women must be at least 159 cm (5 feet, 2 inches) to qualify.

The second is that drivers must have licences to drive buses for at least five years. But, Amrita Gupta, director of research and advocacy, Azad Foundation says: “If there are no opportunities for women, why would they apply for such a licence and then sit at home for five years?”

Maharashtra has set a precedent. In August 2019, the state transport corporation inducted 163 women to drive buses. Height requirements were relaxed to 153 cm, and women with a year’s experience of commercially driving taxis could apply.

Himachal Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have begun inducting women bus drivers. This year in February, Uttar Pradesh announced that 19 women are undergoing training after which they’ll serve a 17-month probation period.

“All women want is a chance,” says Gupta.

Omkari has not given up on her dream to one day drive a bus. Driving, she says, is her ticket to mobility and knowledge. “It gives me wings,” she says.

Namita Bhandare writes on gender

The views expressed are personal

On December 1, West Bengal chief minister and Trinamool Congress chief Mamata Banerjee stood next to Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) chief Sharad Pawar, mic in hand, and made a comment that has since dominated political conversation, particularly among a scattered opposition. The UPA, the powerful coalition that ruled India for a decade under a Congress Prime Minister from 2004 to 2014, had ceased to exist, she said.

If her words were important, though not altogether surprising given the national push the TMC has been making since their victory in West Bengal, what is perhaps equally significant was that Pawar, the old warhorse, his party in an alliance with the Congress in Maharashtra stood next to her. Equally important was what the Shiv Sena, the third partner in the MVA government in Maharashtra did when Mamata met them. Unlike Pawar, their stance was clear, and at variance with their Maharashtra ally. There could not be an opposition front that could take on the BJP without the Congress, party MP Sanjay Raut said. Within days, Raut seemingly underlined the Sena stance even further, meeting Rahul Gandhi and then Priyanka Gandhi Vadra a day later. After meeting the latter on Wednesday, Raut declared, “We are thinking of working together in Uttar Pradesh and Goa.” There is also the possibility of a Sena Chief and Maharashtra chief minister Uddhav Thackeray and Rahul Gandhi meeting in the end of December, when the Congress has planned a rally in Mumbai.

These political moves then throw up an intriguing question. Why is the Sena, long seen as a natural BJP ally till their fallout in 2019 so firmly backing the Congress and the Gandhis in particular, at a time when the grand old party seems at war from within, is losing leaders by the day, with that weakness opening up other claimants to the leadership of the opposition space? The answer is both local and national, and has to do with the Sena’s political vision both within Maharashtra and outside.

The Stability of the MVA

First, chief minister Uddhav Thackeray does not want to disturb the current political equation in Maharashtra where he is running a government with the NCP and the Congress. He is acutely aware that he needs to keep both allies happy and as such it is important to make clear that he does not agree with Mamata Banerjee. Though the Congress is a junior partner in the three-party coalition, its support is crucial for the government. The MVA have 170 seats in the 288 member assembly, with the Congress share 44 seats. Clearly, without the Congress, the government will fall.

Further, Thackeray wants to establish direct contact with the Congress leadership. Instead of relying on state Congress leaders, with Thackeray not exactly a fan of state Congress president Nana Patole who keeps talking about the party’s plan to win power on its own, the chief minister wants to create a hotline with the Congress leadership in Delhi so that any sticking points can be discussed and resolved at that level. “If he is running a government with NCP and Congress, Thackeray would prefer to talk directly to the top leadership if needed. He has a direct communication line with Pawar. Now he has established contact with Gandhi siblings who are practically in charge of the Congress now,” said political analyst Hemant Desai. “This is what Sharad Pawar had done when his party was in power with the Congress in Maharashtra between 1999 and 2014. Pawar used to speak directly to Sonia Gandhi,” he added.

The national ambition

The third reason is Thackeray’s desire to expand the Shiv Sena’s footprint nationally. The party has made clear that it wants to contest assembly seats in Goa and Uttar Pradesh where assembly elections are scheduled to be held next year. In Goa, there is likely to be a multi-cornered fight with the BJP, Congress, Aam Admi Party, Trinamool Congress and local parties in the fray. The Sena believes that it can make its presence felt in a state where a significant section of population speaks Marathi. While thus far efforts have been unsuccessful there is the belief that as part of a Congress-led alliance may bring better fortune. The party also wants to contest in Uttar Pradesh, where in 2017 they had fought in 57 seats, but only managed to get 0.20% of the total votes. Much of this enthusiasm has been bolstered after the party won the bye-election for the Dadra and Nagar Haveli Lok Sabha seat, its first outside of Maharashtra.

“Unlike his father and Sena founder Bal Thackeray, Uddhav is interested in playing a role in national politics and thinks this could be the right time to do so,” said a senior Sena leader who did not want to be named. “Besides, our stand is also a clear signal that we are not going with the BJP. After what happened in past two years, it is difficult for us to go with the BJP unless there is a strong reason. Raut’s meetings with Gandhis is a clear indication of the same,” he added.

“Sena joining forces with Congress can help the latter too. The party seems to be taking a subtle Hindutva line in UP. Sena’s identity as a party that believes in hardline Hindutva can help the party deflect the BJP’s attack on it as an anti-Hindu party,” opined Desai.

The civic polls

Another crucial reason for the bonhomie is the upcoming Mumbai civic polls, scheduled for February 2022. Politically significant, the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation has an annual budget of over ₹30,000 crore and has been ruled by the Shiv Sena for over 25 years. The civic body has been pivotal to the party’s strength and influence but it is now facing a strong challenge by the BJP. So far, Sena has retained power in the BMC because of its Marathi vote bank, a little less than 30% of the population, but it is here that the BJP seems to be making a dent. The Raj Thackeray led MNS too is trying to take away a chunk of Sena votes and may even tie-up with the BJP. In any case, the BJP has strong support among north Indians who are second largest group of voters after Maharashtrians in the city.

To counter this, the Sena will need support from traditional Congress voters such as minorities and Dalit voters in Mumbai, and is considering either a formal electoral alliance or an informal understanding. Congress leaders in Mumbai however are not keen for such a tie-up, and therefore, the relationship with the Gandhis, the Sena hopes, will help tide things over.

The Pawar question

But then, will this growing camaraderie between Thackeray and the Gandhis affect the relationship with Pawar who was the architect of the three-party coalition in Maharashtra? Seems unlikely.

Experts believe that the Sena and the NCP will need to stay together in Maharashtra, given the composition of the MVA government. “Raut has also been suggesting that Pawar should be made convener of the UPA to get more allies to the Congress-led front. Besides, the Sena and NCP both need each other in Maharashtra. As long as their interests are aligned, there is unlikely to be any bitterness between the two parties,” opined Desai.

In fact, while Pawar may have stood next to Mamata as she said what she did, and Raut met the Gandhis, their stance on the opposition looking forward to 2024 have not been all that different. Publicly both have maintained that there must be one joint front to take on the BJP, another indication that the leadership of both parties do not want to upset the applecart in Maharashtra.

Shiv Sena MP Arvind Sawant said, “If Uddhavji is running a three-party coalition government, he will ensure that the relationship between the three is cordial so that the government performs well.”

‘Justice for the Judge’, the memoir by former Chief Justice of India (CJI) Ranjan Gogoi that was released this week, lays bare an assortment of crucial events during his tenure as a judge of the Supreme Court and shares his perspective on the controversies that seemed to follow him in his tenure as the head of the judiciary between October 2018 and November 2019.

The autobiography makes new revelations that add to the very public discourse around these events. It is also the first time that a retired Supreme Court judge, particularly a former CJI, has chosen to jot down in detail the reasons for why he did what he did.

Here are some of highlights of Justice Gogoi’s tell-all book:

Conflict of Interest

Writing on perhaps the biggest storm that rocked his tenure, Justice Gogoi calls the sexual harassment allegations leveled by a woman staff member “unfounded, unfortunate and unprecedented”. On finding out that a petition was to be filed in the Supreme Court seeking to restrain him from functioning as CJI until an enquiry was completed, Justice Gogoi wrote that he rung up attorney general KK Venugopal and solicitor general Tushar Mehta as well as the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association. It was Mehta who requested that a bench be constituted to decide whether such judicial orders should be passed. “I reflected upon the matter and soon concluded that aggression would be the best form of defence in the circumstances. I had no options,” he writes in the book.

The special bench was thus constituted on the morning of April 20, 2019 with justice Gogoi presiding over it and framing the allegations as being an attack on the independence of the judiciary.

On Thursday, the former CJI told HT in an interview that he now believes that he should have ideally avoided sitting on the bench which initiated the suo motu proceedings. His memoir narrates this incident as, “My presence in the bench, which in hindsight could have been avoided, was the expression of indignation roused on the spur of the moment by an accusation which was beyond belief and comprehension. Though I was on the bench, I did not sign the order. In fact, no effective judicial order was passed on that day.”

Judge in his own cause:

The in-house committee, which comprised justices SA Bobde, Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra, cleared the former CJI of the sexual harassment charges in May 2019 following a confidential inquiry in accordance with Supreme Court rules and the full court resolution of 1999. Gogoi was, however, accused of choosing the members of the committee as the sitting CJI.

The book however claims that justice Gogoi on April 21, a day after websites published reports on the complaint by the woman, requested justice Bobde to deal with the matter being the senior most judge at that time. “Accordingly, I request you to look into the matter and take appropriate action as may be considered fit and proper,” he wrote.

Two days later, the in-house committee was set up by justice Bobde, comprising him, justices Ramana and Banerjee. The book says that the composition of the panel was ratified by all the sitting judges of the Supreme Court after justice Bobde sought their approval. The full-court resolution was signed by 25 judges while one judge gave his approval telephonically.

This committee, however, had to be re-constituted after the complainant sought the recusal of justice Ramana over his proximity with justice Gogoi. Justice Ramana withdrew himself. The committee then had justice Malhotra as its third member and this time too, all 26 judges of the Supreme Court gave their written approval. The book notes that this is “an important fact that did not get reported or highlighted anywhere.”

Loneliness at the top

Interestingly, justice Gogoi does not mince words when he says in his book that not only was he lonely as the CJI, there were also some judges in the Supreme Court who worked against him when he was embroiled in controversies.

As he thanks his wife and children for standing with him in adversity, justice Gogoi wrote, “People, including near and dear ones, distanced themselves. Many of my ‘friends’ and ‘well-wishers’ disappeared. Some of my colleagues, while putting up a facade of support and sympathy which I did not seek, actually worked against me behind my back.”

He added, “I wish there was more camaraderie and brotherhood amongst the judges. There was this colleague who during my troubled days in April 2019 came to me with some Ayurvedic preparation which he advised me to take to relieve stress. Behind my back he was doing just the opposite by acting against me.”

Ayodhya -- “a job done”:

The book says that the Ayodhya case was an occasion for India’s judiciary to make an invaluable contribution to the odyssey of mankind because the court was expected to lay out a vision and inspire the will in communities across the world to seek peaceful judicial closure for such interfaith conflicts.

Justice Gogoi mentions that there were several attempts made to derail hearings. “At one point, he (senior advocate Rajeev Dhavan) also mentioned that none of the judges except justice Chandrachud had either read the papers or understood the case. I requested all my brother judges to remain silent and not to respond as it could have resulted in scuttling of the hearing... as the CJI, I had to constantly bring the ship back to course,” reads the memoir.

Underlining the criticism by activists and lawyers on the “misplaced priority of the Supreme Court” and the undue haste in deciding a case like Ayodhya, the former CJI writes, “Even some of my colleagues were highly skeptical. Why has this madman put the reputation of the Supreme Court at stake, was the topic of several private conversations amongst the judges.”

“An unusual feature of the three-month hearing was that no judge on the bench availed of casual leave even for a day...Every day after the hearing all five judges would meet in the chief justices chamber for a cup of tea...It was only in the last few months of the hearing that there appeared to be unanimity of opinion building up that the disputed land should go in favor of the Hindu party for constructing the Ram temple and the Muslim party should be allowed a five-acre alternative plot in a suitable and prominent place in Ayodhya for building a mosque,” the book reads.

Justice Gogoi, asserting the unanimity of all five judges on the bench, writes that he circulated a draft judgment to all the other judges as the presiding judge of the bench. “The written approval of all the four judges was received by me. The acknowledgements make for very interesting reading and perhaps settle all doubts and questions raised about the authorship of the judgment,” he adds.

After delivering the judgment on November 9, 2019, justice Gogoi recollects he took the four other judges – justices Bobde, DY Chandrachud, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer for dinner at a five-star hotel. “We ate Chinese food and shared a bottle of wine, the best available there. I picked up the tab, being the eldest,” he said.

“This is how the most protracted and fiercely contested case in Indian judicial history came to an end. I was least worried about the possible ramifications that the court’s verdict would have, if any on India’s political, religious or social canvas. To me, the Ayodhya case was a challenge inherited by me from my predecessors, a challenge I chose not to avoid or shirk but to face head-on and complete within a time frame,” records the book.

The judges’ press conference of January 2018:

When the PIL relating to suspicious death of judge BH Loya, who was trying the Sohrabuddinn Sheikh alleged encounter killing case, was marked by the then CJI Dipal Misra to justice Arun Mishra, judge number 10 in seniority at the time, justice Gogoi recalls, “a volcanic eruption took place”.

He received a call from justice Madan B Lokur and it was decided that the four senior most judges (justices J Chelameswar, Lokur, Gogoi, Kurian Joseph) will meet the Chief Justice with a request to withdraw the case from justice Mishra’s bench on January 12, 2018. Justice Misra, however, did not entertain their request. “We thereafter went to justice Chelameswar’s chamber and he said that we should address the press on the issue. This was on the spur of the moment. We all agreed,” the book says.

Justice Gogoi says that he had however not expected cameras and OB vans when he agreed to meet the press but understood this as meeting “a few journalists”. “I did not expect this... not that I wanted to make a retreat; I had committed to addressing the press and I believe till today that given the circumstances it was the right thing to do though very unusual. We strongly felt that things were not right in the Supreme Court and we were proved correct by a series of remedial steps taken by Justice Misra himself. Thereafter, he became careful and conscious while exercising the power of allocation of cases,” he wrote.

No time to hear Article 370 and Kashmir-related habeas corpus cases:

Justice Gogoi recounts that he passed initial orders in three habeas corpus cases filed by Sitaram Yechury and Md Aleem Syed, and the one filed by the daughter of Mehbooba Mufti within a month of abrogation of Article 370 on August 5, 2019. He heard these cases until September 30 when he remarked that he did not have time to hear the Kashmir cases.

“I realised that it was not feasible for me to keep entertaining and hearing the Kashmir matter as I was in the midst of the Ayodhya hearing. Therefore, by an administrative order on September 30, I assigned all the Kashmir cases to the bench of the senior most judge available,” Gogoi said.

“My statement in court on September 30 that I did not have time to hear the Kashmir cases was correct. I was in the midst of the Ayodhya hearing. What would have been the credibility of the Supreme Court as an institution if they Ayodhya matter was to remain inconclusive on the date of my retirement? I did make such a statement but as the administrative order extracted in the previous page shows, all the Kashmir matters were assigned to another bench and was listed on the very next day,” it adds.

National Register for Citizens (NRC) in Assam and the vote bank politics:

Justice Gogoi, who belongs to Assam, writes in his book that infiltration of illegal immigrants continued unabated in Assam until early 1970s “because of vote bank politics”. It was in April 2013 when the case first came up before justice Gogoi in a bench where he was the junior judge. After the senior judge retired in March 2014, justice Gogoi started examining the case with justice Rohinton F Nariman.

“This is how I came to deal with the matter until the day of my retirement. The journey from Court number 13 to Court number 1 with justice Nariman by my side, to say the least, was a remarkable experience. What was correct was not spoken and what was spoken was not correct. This was in respect of both the Union and the state of Assam,” he says.

The book underscores that “the bench was convinced that neither the Union nor the state government wanted the NRC exercise completed”.

“One day, a very senior serving bureaucrat of the Government of India came to meet me at my residence. To my utter shock, he indicated that I go slow on the NRC matter. I told him with all the politeness at my command that I did not like interference in my judicial work,” the book reveals, without naming the official concerned.

“There are many others who have criticised the exercise of updation of the NRC. Such criticism has been built on an entirely academic basis, ignoring the decades of struggle and sacrifice of a race to preserve and protect its cultural and linguistic identity. These critics ensconced in comfortable spaces in Lutyens’ Delhi have no connection with ground realities. They ignore the feelings and aspirations of the people of a northeastern state which still reels under a strong wave of anti-national feeling and of separation from the rest of the country...It is such criticism and thinking that generate and nurture sentiment which is contrary to nation’s interests and integrity,” Gogoi wrote.

Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Canada have joined the United States (US) in a “diplomatic boycott” of the 2022 Winter Olympics in Beijing, to begin in February, over the country’s poor human rights record. A diplomatic boycott is not the same as a boycott of the Games — the countries will participate in the competition, but they will not send any government officials to the event. For example, US president George W Bush attended the opening ceremony of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, despite his government’s opposition to China’s actions in Tibet, but Joe Biden will not be in Beijing in 2022.

It’s a strong statement to make — many countries have spoken out against China’s treatment of its ethnic Uighur minority describing it as “genocide”, or the crackdowns against protests in Hongkong, and in the last few weeks, there has been growing concern for Chinese tennis player, Peng Shuai, who disappeared from public view after making sexual assault allegations against a top government official and reappeared to post scripted videos after governments and sporting bodies raised a hue and cry. Yet, it’s not nearly enough. China can brush off the diplomatic boycott as inconsequential. As long as the athletes come and the Games go ahead, there is little to lose for China. It is unlikely to have an influence on, say, the millions of dollars in sponsorships that the Games attract. None of the over 20 major sponsors — including US corporations such as Visa, Coca Cola, Intel or P&G — have spoken out against China’s human rights record.

But even a full boycott of the Games — and the Olympics have seen their fair share of boycotts — usually does not achieve much. In 1980, the US boycotted the Moscow Olympics in response to the erstwhile Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. The then USSR, in retaliation, boycotted the 1984 Los Angeles Games. It had little effect on the ground. Afghanistan remained under Soviet occupation till 1988. Last year, the chief executive of the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee issued an apology to US athletes for the 1980 boycott, saying, “it’s abundantly clear in hindsight that the decision to not send a team to Moscow had no impact on the global politics of the era and instead only harmed you — American athletes who dedicated themselves to excellence…” These are not simple decisions, even with the benefit of hindsight. The 1936 Berlin Olympics were not boycotted and became a massive propaganda coup for Nazi Germany. But it also saw the making of a legend named Jesse Owens.