Editorials

Home > Editorials

Editorials - 15-08-2022

Politics and economy the world over are moving towards more centralisation of authority. India needs to refashion federalism as amultidimensional framework for nation building, with the BJP being a key stakeholder

A nation mobilised to face a crisis such as an external war or imperial occupation pushes its internal differences to the background. Leaders of the national movement responded to demands of social reforms to the extent that it was essential for, and within the limits of, preserving unity. In the words of Gandhi, “protection of neglected classes should not be carried to an extent which will harm them and... the country.”

Seventy-five years after Independence, India is being mobilised for an era of national resurgence — Prime Minister Narendra Modi calls it the ‘Amrit Kaal’. But this new nationalist fervour championed by Hindutva has unnerved its religious and ethnic minorities. Thus, to manage its diversity and leap forward, India needs a new federalism compact.

The global trend is towards centralisation. Exhausted populations yearn for a strong central authority who solves their problems. Elimination of intermediaries from political and economic negotiations is seen as desirable and achievable. JAM (Jan Dhan, Aadhaar, Mobile) is celebrated for its efficiency and transparency as opposed to the inefficiencies, leakages and delays in federalised governance structures.

2014: A turn more than a rupture

The three decades preceding 2014 had witnessed a weakening of the Centre. Regional parties and the civil society had gained a bigger say in governance. The BJP and the Congress were the alternating axes around which these coalitions of regional and caste outfits took shape. Even foreign policy, earlier out of bounds for domestic politics, opened up for legitimate contestations in this era. The decisive victory of the BJP in 2014 under Mr. Modi brought the curtains down on that.

But to characterise that turn as a clean break from an original republicanism would be an exaggeration. The break has been more in rhetoric than in substance. There was very little autonomy left for Kashmir, but in 2019, the dismemberment of Article 370 and the State itself was turned into a nationalist spectacle. Central laws such as Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which give arbitrary powers to the state, were shaped by the Congress too. The GST regime, which has fundamentally altered Indian federalism, is owned equally by the Congress and the BJP. Both parties may have shown federalist instincts, too. The A.B. Vajpayee government, for instance, added more languages to the Eighth Schedule.

The year 2014, though, was different. India saw the rise of Hindutva 2.0, which has been more responsive to lower caste aspirations and exclusionary towards Muslims than any other political formation. It modified the nucleus of political power, with upper caste Hindus at its social core, and Hindi-speaking regions as its geographical core, where it mobilised lower-caste masses. Today, the BJP has around 250 members in the Lok Sabha without counting anyone from Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, the eight States of the Northeast, the Muslim-majority Jammu and Kashmir, and the Sikh majority Punjab. With 37% votes, it has 55% Lok Sabha seats. But more disequilibrium is coming. After 2031, India is constitutionally bound to enforce the ‘one person, one vote’ formulation, that pious principle of representative democracy, countrywide. Now, roughly 18 lakh people in in T.N. and 16 lakh in Kerala elect a Lok Sabha member; in Bihar and Rajasthan, it takes around 25 lakh. When Lok Sabha constituencies are redrawn to ensure that all of them have roughly equal numbers of voters, T.N. could lose 11 of its 39 seats and Kerala, six of its 20.

Tensions in the organising principles and structure of the nation at this juncture are of two kinds – one, among constituents within the heartland, and two, between the heartland and the peripheries. In the heartland, Hindutva has established a rainbow coalition of all castes. Symbolic empowerment and representation at various levels, such as a tribal woman succeeding a Dalit as President, inspire lower castes. But caste tensions simmer. Muslims and Sikhs, too, are powerless, restive and fearful.

There is disequilibrium in the relationship between the Hindi heartland and the south, the Northeast and Kashmir. Harder border policies; the promotion of Hindi; centralisation of policing, fiscal governance, and policymaking in a range of subjects; and the GST regime are some reasons for this. The Hindi heartland’s relationship with West Bengal, Maharashtra and Gujarat, where regionalism still has mass appeal, is different, though. Regionalism and Hindutva alternate easily here.

Social justice and secularism

There were two frameworks for negotiating power-sharing in the heartland: secularism and social justice. In a deeply religious society, secularism was power sharing between Hindus, and Muslims and other religious minorities, while social justice became a code for power sharing across Hindu castes. The rise of Hindutva 2.0 and the dismemberment of secularism and social justice are mutually reinforcing. Here’s why. The upper caste among the Muslims had monopolised the power bargained on behalf of the community. The rise of Hindutva also corresponded with their political disempowerment. In the current Lok Sabha, there are 27 Muslims members; a proportionate representation would be 80. The median Hindi-speaking Hindu perceives secularism as giving special rights to Muslims, and ridicules their religiosity. A more acceptable approach would be what Thomas Pikkety calls ‘social federalism’.

Where champions of social justice have failed to be more inclusive towards lower castes, Hindutva is promising ‘real social justice’. It thrives on the increasing religiosity among the OBCs and offers them more representation. Of the 22 Rajya Sabha seats it allotted recently, the BJP gave more than half to weaker sections; of the 10 that the Congress gave, eight went to members of upper castes. The BJP has brought the number of its Muslim parliamentarians down to zero.

This does not mean that Hindutva has resolved heartland’s caste conflicts. The RSS has not overcome its historical disapproval of caste quotas; by implementing a 10% quota for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), the concept of caste quotas has been debased. The EWS quota, in practice, is a quota for upper castes. While the BJP is increasing their presence in its tent, overall the OBCs find their political representation shrunken from the heydays of social justice parties. The Centre under the BJP has a particular antipathy towards Ambedkarite outfits. All these contradictions will require resolutions. Social justice as a slogan has lost its capacity to be the vehicle for that conversation, while ‘social federalism’ has that capacity.

Language of trouble

The BJP is pushing for replacing English with Hindi as the link language of the country, while simultaneously promoting regional languages. This creates friction between heartland and non-Hindi regions, and also unsettles the middle class that sees English as emancipatory. Hindi is expanding and its dominance is inevitable — Hindi-speaking regions have higher fertility than the rest. People from these regions will migrate to non-Hindi regions, the centres of economic growth in the west and the south, where native populations are ageing and fertility is declining. The bulk of the popular culture is produced in Hindi. Home Minister Amit Shah’s dream of Hindi as link language is not impossible. English cannot be banished, nor can Hindi be stopped.

India is also on the cusp of a policy-driven population management, which is an essential part of modern state building. The BJP’s plans — the National Population Register, the Citizenship (Amendment) Act — are ambitious and controversial.

Last year, T.N. Finance Minister Palanivel Thiagarajan said it was unfair that T.N. and Goa had the same representation in the GST Council despite the massive difference in the sizes of their economies. Regions and States that contribute more to national economic growth will receive less in central allocation, lose more of their political representation, and have their cultural autonomy threatened, which could lead to instability.

Captured by dynastic elites, concepts of social justice, secularism and regional autonomy face a massive crisis of legitimacy. Federalism, infused with new meanings, and freed from unhelpful connotations, can be the conceptual framework to negotiate challenges. It has to be understood and used as a framework for cooperation, common goals and collective action. Federalism also has to be understood as a dynamic and multidimensional concept for which it will require a whole new set of legal and institutional arrangements – for instance, resolving the questions related to sub-categorisation of quotas and Supreme Court benches in regions.

Federalism cannot be the instrument for elites to capture all power and monopolise all representation, in the name of autonomy. Similarly, Muslim cultural autonomy cannot be a facade to perpetuate gender injustice.

Lastly, federalism is not a blueprint for a political battle between the BJP and non-BJP parties. While the BJP is a hugely centralising force, it also has a high stake in the continuing stability and unity of India. Its commitment to federalism is questioned by its opponents, who often cite Sangh Parivar texts in support of their argument. Relying on original texts and speeches of a political philosophy or religion presupposes that they cannot evolve. But all parties, including the BJP, have evolved.

What Amrit Kaal needs is a new discussion on equitable power sharing and resource sharing across regions, castes, linguistic group and genders. That will be essential for India’s progress, anchored in a new federalism compact.

The rise of Hindutva 2.0 and the dismemberment of secularism and social justice are mutually reinforcing



Read in source website

The present government’s freely displayed unease with constitutional institutions is directly related to its inadequate understanding ofthe linguistic civilisation that India has been

While deciding on the language question in India, the Constituent Assembly had clearly recognised that the unity of India could get adversely affected if the language policy got slanted towards the imposition of any single language over others. The creation of the Eighth Schedule, initially with 14 languages included in it, is testimony to the deep understanding that the Constituent Assembly had of the mutuality of language diversity and the Indian Republic. The number of languages included in the Eighth Schedule went up to 22, but its conceptual framework based on India’s federal structure had never been deliberately violated until recently.

The present regime, driven by the ideology of Hindi-Hindu-Rashtra, has been sending disturbing signals of its desire to ‘impose’ a unilateral linguistic character on other linguistic populations in India. This desire pertains not just to the imposition of Hindi on non-Hindi speakers, but also to an unreasonable promotion of Sanskrit, which is pivotal to its brand of nationalism. The linguistic, cultural and education policies of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government have almost brought the architecture of the Constitution under question.

False assumptions about Hindi

There is a widespread misconception about the place of Hindi in India's linguistic spectrum. It is one of the 22 scheduled languages. It is also the language with the highest number of speakers as per data from successive censuses. However, it is also true that Hindi is not the natural language of a majority of States and Union Territories in India, including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka and Pondicherry in the south; Goa, Maharashtra and Gujarat in the west; Punjab and Jammu and Kashmir in the northwest; Orissa and West Bengal in the east; Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, Tripura, Nagaland, Manipur, Meghalaya and Assam in the northeast. Hindi is believed to be the only or main language in States such as Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Bihar, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh — but a closer look at their linguistic composition shows that they all have their own native regional languages and Hindi functions there as a shared pan-State language. Often, as Hindi becomes the second language for communication with people residing in these States or travelling through them, the impression about it being the primary language of these States gets reinforced. Yet, it is an impression not grounded in factual accuracy.

On Hindi and Sanskrit

The 2011 Census — which is still the latest — had stated a total of 19,569 ‘raw returns’ (read, non-doctored claims) of mother tongues. Of these, close to 17,000 were rejected outright, and another 1,474 were dumped because not enough scholarly corroboration for them existed. Only 1,369, almost 7% of the total claims, were admitted as ‘classified mother tongues’. Rather than placing them as languages, they were grouped under 121 headings. These 121 were declared as the languages of India. The data for Hindi were conspicuously bolstered — shown at 52-plus crore — by adding to its core figure of speakers the speakers of nearly 50 other languages. These included Bhojpuri, claimed by over five crore, many languages in Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana and Bihar, claimed by close to a total six crore persons. At the same time, 17 of the 22 scheduled languages were reported by the census as showing a downward trend in their rate of growth in comparison to the previous decade. The statistical management acquires a deep meaning when seen together with public statements by the BJP’s top brass about the promotion of Hindi, the stringency with which Hindi is being pushed into the administrative functioning of Central/national organisations even in non-Hindi areas and the change of signage on highways, trains and public places.

The case of Sanskrit is somewhat different. While it does not have a large number of speakers to its credit at present, and indeed it did not have the necessary numbers in support for most of its long history, it happens to be the linguistic mother for Hindi. Besides, the sacred books of Hindus are in Sanskrit. Therefore, though it does not have the numbers, it enjoys an undisputed psychological preeminence for people who consider themselves as Hindus. These include people who speak Hindi as well as speakers of many other Indian languages. Thus the number of those who consider Sanskrit a ‘sacred’ language is much higher than the number of Hindi speakers.

When preparations for the 2021 Census had started, one noticed a rather unusual open appeal spread through social media. It said that if your language has any words derived from Sanskrit in it, please mention Sanskrit as your second mother tongue. An emotional and communal argument was added to the appeal. It was, if people (Hindus, by implication) did not do so, government funding for ‘foreign languages’ (by implication Persian and Urdu, a completely false premise) would be much higher than funding for Sanskrit. There is no need to say that there is no language, including among the Dravidian languages, that does not have word borrowings from Sanskrit. It is a practice of the Census to include even the ‘second language’ claimed by people in the tally of the ‘total number of speakers’. The last Census showed some 24,000 Indians out of a total 121 crore claiming Sanskrit as their ‘mother tongue’.

Several untenable claims have been made in recent years by votaries of a Hindu Rashtra towards the need for revival of the Sanskrit language. When one claims that Sanskrit has all the knowledge in the world, as a thinking person with at least some knowledge of the world’s history of ideas and respect for knowledge wherever it has sprung up in the world, I feel uneasy accepting the claim. Any given language cannot be made relevant. Either it is, or it is not relevant. A language remains relevant if people conduct their labour, their commerce and their intellectual and social exchanges using it. A language in which people acquire knowledge and develop it further remains relevant. Yet, one needs no Census to know that the proportion of the population which can use Sanskrit competently is negligible in India.

Majoritarian nationalism

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s idea of building a fanaticised Hindu Rashtra has no space for a multilingual nation. In its understanding of nationalism, a single, large majority is the primary constituent of the nation and all others, linguistic, cultural, ethnic and religious minorities, are ‘non-national’ or ‘anti-national’, convenient targets for mobilising the majority. The idea of a nation made of Hindus, with their sacred transactions in Sanskrit and practical transactions in Hindi, is by implication a stark dismissal of all other indigenous languages. This idea of nationalism has in the past castigated the English media and the forms of knowledge that came to India as a kind of historical calamity imposed on India, polluting the ‘great traditions of knowledge produced in Sanskrit’.

All of these assumptions fly in the face of the deep thought and wise reflections that have gone into the making of India’s Constitution. The present government’s freely displayed unease with constitutional institutions has a direct relation to its inadequate understanding of the linguistic civilisation that India has been. ‘Realism’ and ‘ideology-driven politics’ probably make a pair of antonymous terms. When a myopic ideology gets the better of realism in policy matters, immense harm can result to culture and society and a nation starts going back to the past rather than progressing to the future.

The creation of the Eighth Schedule is testimony to the deep understanding that the Constituent Assembly had of the mutuality of language diversity and the Indian Republic



Read in source website

What India needs to do to reverse economic deceleration and growing inequity in a changing global order

Since Independence, India’s economic growth has steadily accelerated, albeit from a low level, with moderating inflation rate. That was until about a decade ago. Breaking free from the colonial stagnation, domestic output (GDP) grew annually at around three-and-a-half per cent during the first three decades — pejoratively called the “Hindu growth rate”. The annual growth increased to about five-and-a-half per cent in the next two decades and 7%-8 % during the 2010s. As the population growth rate declined annually, from over 2% in the 1960s to around one-a-half pre cent, income per head raised even further, reducing absolute poverty. With a moderate balance-of-payment deficit and modest share of external debt to total debt, as ratios of GDP, India — at first glance — witnessed “virtuous growth” in deepening democracy.

Inequitable growth

Not everyone, though, is convinced of such a positive story. The recent growth accelerations are reportedly predatory, snatching away meagre land and livelihood of the marginalised in the poorest States and the socially vulnerable, by plundering natural resources with the active connivance of state power. The growth is thus highly inequitable: many rich Indians joined the Forbes list of global billionaires due to the rise of crony capitalism, giving rise to the term ‘Billionaire Raj’. India has moved from a moderately unequal country to one with extreme inequality (joining the Latin American league). Yet, invoking Kuznets’ hypothesis, optimists may argue that India has a fighting chance to escape the extremes of wealth and deprivation to forge inclusive growth — with rapid growth providing tax revenue for social development.

However, the decade-long output deceleration in the 2010s with an unprecedented fall in the investment rate has put a question mark on the growth story (Figure 1 ). Expectedly, output slow-down (excluding the novel coronavirus pandemic years) has raised unemployment and poverty rates. Employment share in manufacturing declined last decade. The faulty gauges of official statistics have muddied the aggregate economic picture. But, undoubtedly, India seems to have veered away from the accelerating growth path. With declining investment rates, the economy is staring at deindustrialisation (in terms of output) with rising imports: from edible oil to industrial and electronic machinery (Figure 2 ). Not to mention the extreme long-term dependence on imported energy, with solar energy investment making modest headway.

Around 1990, India was “over-industrialised”, with the manufacturing sector’s GDP share above countries with similar income levels. India’s import dependence was the least, excluding Eastern Europe and Russia. Three decades on, manufacturing is now under-sized, with the share of capital goods in industrial output shrinking from 20% in 1980-81 to 8.22% in 2011-12. The ratio for China, which was roughly comparable in the 1980s, has doubled to 30% during the same period. No wonder India has turned import dependent on China. The dependence amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic when China imposed export restrictions, compelling the Prime Minister to announce Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyan (or initiative) to reduce import dependence.

The planning era until the early 1990s, and the market-friendly policy regime after that, following the precepts of the “Washington Consensus” (operating for roughly equal lengths of time), have shaped the long-term outcomes. The policy regimes had their political underpinnings in their respective times. However, with China’s assertive rise based on its economic strengths, renewed global dependence on (the old and new) natural resources, and the ongoing European war in Ukraine, the unalloyed faith in the virtues of free trade and capital flows is now in question.

Closer home, while China and India followed market-friendly policies, China never lost sight of strategic planning to acquire global economic leadership. Both countries were at roughly similar levels of industrialisation when they opened up to international trade and finance over three decades ago. China is now the top industrial nation, contributing nearly a quarter of global manufacturing output, while India languishes at fifth position contributing just about 3%. Their recent border skirmishes have laid bare India’s vulnerability to importing China’s industrial raw materials; mobile phones and capital for the start-up industry have exposed India’s dependent status.

Review economic strategy

After a decade-long output slow-down, deindustrialisation and waning of globalisation (as we knew it), India needs to re-assess its economic strategy. It may need to re-set the economic boundaries of the state and market or reimagine state-led industrialisation. Such reconsideration need not invite criticism of dirigisme or state capitalism of the yore but perhaps should be an opportunity for a more creative combination of government and private initiatives, based on recent global experience.

Consider the success of the U.S.’s “Operation Warp Speed” to develop and manufacture COVID-19 vaccines. Or the ongoing aggressive U.S. drive to reduce import dependence for semiconductor chips with massive state financial support. These illustrate mobilising national efforts under changing political contexts to insulate national economies from the vagaries of global politics.

After Independence, India stood out for its steady growth acceleration (along with China) — albeit from a low level. It abolished the colonial scourge of famines and reduced absolute poverty — in deepening democracy (however faulty) and maintaining territorial integrity in a multi-class/caste/ religion sub-continental country. During the last decade, however, the growth story has come off the rails with decelerating GDP, rising unemployment and poverty levels. This observation holds ignoring the devastating COVID-19 pandemic. The clarion call of self-reliance (Atmanirbhar Bharat) seems a far cry, with India decidedly moving toward a dependent development model, amidst a sharp rise in economic inequalities. In the 75th year of Independence, it is perhaps time to call out for honest soul searching to put the growth story back on the rails, setting aside political and ideological differences. The answer to an economic slow-down may lie in re-balancing the roles of the state and market in economic decision-making over the next quarter century — in line with current global practices, boldly facing emerging realities.

The views expressed are personal

The clarion call of self-reliance seems a far cry, with India decidedly moving toward a dependent development model, amidst a sharp rise in economic inequalities



Read in source website

We have splintered our thinking, split up our feelings. We have become a fractious family. On this defining anniversary, we have to face this searing truth

It was a wet and windy September in London. The year was 1931.

M.K. Gandhi, almost 62 years old then, was there to attend the Second Round Table Conference (RTC) as the sole representative of the Indian National Congress. Called by the British government to discuss the prospect of political changes in India, the conclave was showing up the fissures in India’s polity. In two other Indian barristers — M.A. Jinnah, leading the Muslims at the Conference, and B.R. Ambedkar, the clear leader of the Depressed Classes — the divides stood out.

The only political change Gandhi and the Indian National Congress required was complete independence. Jinnah, Ambedkar and representatives of India’s princes, Sikhs, zamindars and other ‘minority interests’ sought to tear up Gandhi’s claim that the Congress represented an inclusive India which wanted nothing more and could do with nothing less than Swaraj for all Indians, in equality.

On September 18, he penned a statement forThe Daily Mail describing the genesis and goal of the Indian National Congress: “The Indian National Congress is over forty seven years old. It was conceived by an Englishman, Allan Octavian Hume. It has had, besides Hindus, Mohammedans, Parsi and Christian Presidents. It had two women as Presidents, Dr Annie Besant and Mrs Sarojini Naidu. It has zamindars too, as its members.

“The Indian National Congress… knows no distinction between classes or creeds or sexes. It has always championed the cause of the so-called ‘untouchables’...

“But the unchallenged and unchallengeable claim of the Indian National Congress consists in its representing the millions of dumb paupers living in the seven hundred thousand Indian villages who constitute over 85% of the population.

“It is in the name of this great organisation that I claim complete independence for India.”

An all-important session of the Minorities Committee was to meet on October 8. Waking up at 3 a.m. that morning, after a very strenuous night and only half an hour’s sleep, he wrote out a statement to be read at the Committee: “The Congress has, since its inception, set up pure nationalism as its ideal. It has endeavoured to break down communal barriers… Congress assures the Sikhs, the Muslims and the other minorities that no solution… in any future constitution will be acceptable to the Congress that does not give full satisfaction to the parties concerned.”

Eighty-five years ago

It was a season of excitement. The year was 1937.

In the elections which came about under the Government of India Act, 1935, a fruit of three Round Table Conferences, the Congress won spectacularly in eight provinces on its own or with allies. Independence with minority rights protected was its motto. The Muslim League failed to win any province but it installed Fazlul Huq’s Krishak Praja Party at the head of a Muslim coalition in Bengal. It had done well in Muslim seats (reserved for the community) in Hindu-majority provinces. Its plank was: ‘Congress domination is Hindu domination’. Likewise, Ambedkar’s candidates did well in the Maharashtra region of Bombay. Their plank was: ‘Congress domination is Caste Hindu domination’.

In October of that year Jinnah was asking Muslims in Hindu-majority provinces to recognise ‘Hindu domination’. The Congress’s concept of swaraj and ‘minority satisfaction’ was under strain.

Seventy-five years ago

It was a hot and humid August. The year was 1947.

Amid unparalleled bloodshed, dispossession and tragedy, Jinnah walked away with Pakistan. He had, according to his lights, stopped Hindu domination in its tracks. Ambedkar had reason to be pleased that his supporters had made it to legislatures in good numbers. The Congress, assuming power at the Centre in an independent if truncated India, had unveiled a secular democracy and was moving towards becoming a federal Republic, where religion was separated from the State, caste was not going to be an obstacle for democratic representation. Minority satisfaction was to be the new democracy’s signature.

Today, this topsy-turvy August of 2022, 75 years after Independence, Jinnah’s Pakistan is in an electoral shambles, with Bangladesh having loosened itself out of its untenable yoking to Pakistan. India’s Dalits, as the Depressed Classes of Ambedkar’s time are now more appropriately called, have won a visible political profile in India, though social and economic deprivations remain a torment.

But what about Gandhi’s and the Congress’s ideal of pure nationalism, representative democracy and minority satisfaction? That ideal is in trouble, dire trouble. And this is not just because the Congress as a party today is a shadow of its past self, or because Savarkar’s 1937 ‘warning’ influences several more now than it did in the past. That ideal of pure nationalism is in trouble because majority domination, with caste domination subtly folded into its vocabulary, is being seen by increasing numbers as natural, proper and wholly unexceptionable. ‘If democracy is not majority control, what else is democracy?’ seems to be their understanding of the political dynamics of our nation. That a democracy is meant to re-assure the smallest, the weakest and the most vulnerable is seen as nursery-rhyme idealism.

But who are ‘the minority’? Not just the religious minority but the ecological, ideological, linguistic, ethnic, communities living in the margins of fear, insecurity, uncertainty. But not them alone. Also those who are culturally out-numbered, the life-style singular, the ‘different’, the ‘distant’, the ‘dissenting’ as well. Those who, for instance, would want parity in matters of gender and make the Indian woman feel she is man’s equal, our courts to be completely insulated from executive influence, our media to be free, our economy to be purged of monopolies.

A religious majority is only one among majorities, albeit a politically determining one. India, as Menaka Guruswamy has so memorably put it, is a majority of minorities. India is not about Hindu India and non-Hindu India. It is about the aspirations of peninsular India, Himalayan India, forest India, desert India, littoral India, coastal India. And the India of the two mountain fastnesses that political geography has made distinctive — Kashmiri India and Northeast India.

Gandhi in London in 1931 spoke for all of these Indias. As did his colleagues in the Congress of that time. Can the Congress or any political party make that claim today? We have splintered our thinking, split up our feelings. We have become a fractious family. On this defining anniversary we have to face this searing truth. And retrieve the ‘we’ in us as in ‘we the people of India’, the life-stream of the Constitution of India which protects us and is, in turn, preserved by us. We have to retrieve our unity in freedom and justice. The tricolour being unfurled today on home after home, with its blue in the central wheel of dharma tells us India is home to all Indians equally. ‘But how do we do this?’ is the question. ‘Who is to guide us, lead us?’

The ‘salt of the earth’

I started this article by citing Gandhi in London in 1931. I will close by citing him in London again, in 1914. He and Kasturba Gandhi had come there at the conclusion of the highly successful satyagraha in South Africa, on their way back home. Speaking to a galactic audience which included visiting Indians such as Lala Lajpat Rai, Sarojini Naidu and M.A. Jinnah, he said: ‘We had got the limelight in South Africa but if we merited any approbation, how much more did those who went into the struggle with no thought of appreciation! Harbut Singh was 75 years of age when he joined the struggle and entered prison and died there. The young lad, Narayanaswami, was deported to Madras and on his return, starved and died.

Another Tamil youth, Nagappen, was imprisoned and worked on the African veldt in the bitter cold of winter and died. And Valliamma, a girl of 18, went to prison and was discharged only when she took very ill and died shortly thereafter. Twenty thousand workers had left their tools and work and gone out in faith. Violence was entirely eschewed. It is on these men and women, who are the salt of the earth that the Indian nation that is to be will be built. We are poor mortals before these heroes and heroines.’

Those heroes and heroines have not disappeared. They have only been covered by the dust of neglect and condescension. They are the salt of India’s earth we must salute today in hope, faith and solidarity. It is they, as Gandhi said, who got India her freedom. It is they who will keep it free — and just.

Gopalkrishna Gandhi is a former administrator, diplomat and Governor



Read in source website

China and India will shape Asia in the next decade, but likely in wary opposition to one another

Last month, a United Nations population survey estimated that a milestone may be passed in 2023. For the first time in over two millennia, China will not be the most populous society on earth. Instead India will have the largest population, and China will be second.

It’s a rare example of a global ranking where India sits higher than China, and it’s an ambivalent victory at best: a larger population does not have merit in itself, unless it is well-fed and endowed with economic prospects. China has other number 2 rankings which may raise its standing, such as the second largest economy in the world. It is not second to India but the U.S. This is a reminder of how far the two Asian giants have come since their moments of profound political change in the late 1940s: independence for India in 1947, and the victory of the Chinese Communist Party and establishment of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. In global power terms, China now looms above India, but the fluidity of geopolitics in the 2020s may give India advantages in the world now being shaped.

Different directions

The world of the late 1940s was one where global order was just as much in turmoil as in the present day. India had become the first major British colony to gain freedom, and its new leader, Jawaharlal Nehru, saw the fate of India as important not only for his country’s own people but also for the other, still-colonised peoples of Asia. Although the violence of Partition cast a bloody cloud across the landscape, the establishment of India as a multi-party electoral democracy with a free media was a foundation stone of the secular politics that Nehru embodied, and wanted an independent India to represent. China’s fate at that time was also marked by violence, but it had a very different result. China had fought Japan from 1937 to 1945 during World War II, but was then plunged into a civil war between the ruling Nationalists of Chiang Kai-shek and the Communists under Mao Zedong. Mao’s victory saw the establishment of the PRC, which leaned heavily on the Soviet Union for its economic model. China was kept out of the United Nations for another two decades, and did not open diplomatic relations with the U.S. for three. The years of Mao’s rule saw immense domestic turmoil, with events such as the Great Leap Forward of 1958-62, an experiment in self-sufficient socialism that went horrifically wrong and starved millions of farmers to death, as well as the Cultural Revolution of 1966-76, in which China went to war with itself. Mao’s China also, of course, went to war with India, in a border conflict in 1962 whose after-effects are still very evident today.

Common concerns

Yet, in the later years, the thawing of the Cold War saw both countries change path, and even share some common concerns. By the 1990s, India’s highly protected economy was producing limited growth, and controversial reforms under figures including P.V. Narasimha Rao opened up the economy in various ways, creating a new class of millionaires as well as increasing inequality. In a sense, China had been there first, with the astonishing economic experiment begun in the 1970s with the blessing of Mao’s ultimate successor, Deng Xiaoping. Instead of the command economy that Mao had favoured, China’s senior leader allowed the development of a market economy. This did not follow the model pioneered by Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Bob Hawke, of removing the government as much as possible from the workings of the market.

Instead, the Chinese private sector was given space to develop within a framework controlled by the party. But it worked astonishingly well. China became a manufacturing hub for the world, regularly posting 10% growth rates in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Today, China’s per capita GDP rate is around $9,000 a year, as opposed to around $2,000 for India.

Today, geopolitical tensions mean that China and India mostly sit on opposite ends on major global questions. There are some areas of commonality, to be fair; both are nervous about climate change commitments that may hamper their growth, and both abstained at the United Nations this year rather than condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Lessons to be learned

Yet there are also elements behind their rise that mean that both sides can learn from each other. One of China’s most powerful engines for growth has been its stress on education: 2.4% of GDP goes on research and development broadly defined, and in international university rankings, which mostly rate hard sciences, China has a group of institutions in the top tier, many more than India. Education is not evenly distributed, with urban centres obtaining much more of the pie than the children of the countryside. Yet, there is no doubt that China’s stress on building human capital has had results.

However, China’s current political system runs the risk of losing its gains as it become narrower and more authoritarian. In the last few years, technology entrepreneurs, academics and lawyers have all become victims of political crackdowns by the party, which is concerned about any voices that do not simply follow the line sent down by Beijing. However, societies that suppress questioning voices find, in time, that their capacity to innovate is damaged. India has long had a pluralist system with a variety of voices; the flexibility and capacity to change that such a system can provide should give both China and India pause for thought if neither wants to fall behind in the next stage of global development.

Challenges ahead

The 2020s will provide a set of challenges for both India and China. On the international stage, both countries need to think where they can find new friends. In the case of India, there are plenty of suitors, as the establishment of the Quad naval agreement with the U.S., Australia, and Japan suggests. Yet independent India has always been reluctant to become too entangled in disputes beyond its borders. The growing strength of China has become a source of alarm for India, but it is not yet obvious that New Delhi wants to accept the invitations of the U.S. to become a full-blown ally against Beijing, nor what New Delhi’s reaction would be, say, to a Chinese attempt to take Taiwan in the near future. China is likewise wary of formal alliances, but that is in part because its potential partners are ambivalent ones. Russia and China declared a “friendship without limits” in February this year, but it seems unlikely that Russian President Vladimir Putin shared the full extent of his ambition to invade Ukraine with Chinese President Xi Jinping when he met him at the Winter Olympics.

There is little doubt that the actions of both China and India will shape Asia in the next decade. But it is likely that they will continue to do so in wary opposition to each other, and not as part of a wider Asian power bloc of the sort that Nehru might have imagined back in 1947, even if they continue to remain the first and second most populous societies on earth – in whichever order.

Rana Mitter is Professor of History and Politics of Modern China, University of Oxford

The 2020s will provide a set of challenges for both India and China. On the international stage, both countries need to think where they can find new friends



Read in source website

Neither authoritarian arrogance nor fomented hatred must be allowed to undermine the unity of the Indian people

The world’s largest democracy is soon to become the most populous country on earth. Therefore, the celebration of 75 years of Independence brings a special responsibility to set global standards in the protection and the promotion of individual and collective freedoms. While every Indian will proudly salute the flag as it flies high, the Tricolour must also remind us of the composite culture which makes us a uniquely great democracy in the world. On this historic occasion, we must resolve to never let our freedoms be robbed by authoritarian arrogance or allow fomented hatred to undermine the unity of the Indian people. That is the best tribute we can pay to our flag.

A unity that is precious

India emerged from the chokehold of colonial rule to build a nation from a wide scatter of British-ruled territories and princely States. This unity did not magically materialise overnight. It was the freedom struggle, inspired by Mahatma Gandhi and led by the Indian National Congress, which united Indians across the land to seek an end to foreign rule. This movement united Indians across multiple identities of language, religion, caste, gender and social status. That unity is precious to India and should not be frittered away through communally divisive, linguistically chauvinist, callously casteist and gender insensitive campaigns that will fragment the Indian identity. Such ploys may pay temporary political dividends, by setting Indians against Indians, but they will create craters on India’s path to progress as a great nation.

We were robbed of our riches by colonial rule and began our life after Independence as a poor developing country. We rose from that level to become one of the world’s leading economies, whose growth is essential to the stability of the global economy. The policy of economic liberalisation, initiated in 1991, had a galvanising effect on our economic growth. At the same time, poverty reduction and the bridging of economic inequalities became a cardinal principle of public policy. As we pursue the path of inclusive economic growth, we should not permit only a select few among India’s business leaders to reap the benefits of prosperity while income gaps keep widening.

Flag divisive politics

Jobless growth is not a safe bet for any economy. Unemployment not only does not permit the optimal use of our human resources but also creates the breeding ground for social discord and divisive politics. As we move ahead towards the next 25 years of independent India, we must aim to optimally utilise the demographic dividend of a young population through education, skilling, suitable employment and support to young entrepreneurs and innovators. This requires easy mobility across the country for education and employment. Communal and linguistic barriers will hinder such mobility and adversely impact growth. Captains of Indian industry must recognise this danger and raise their voice for national unity, not remain mute spectators when divisive politics are posing a threat to the economy.

Uphold scientific tradition

India adopted excellence in science as a path to progress since the early years of Independence. The national science policy was forward looking. Great institutions of scientific learning and research were established. India’s various institutes of technology have won world renown, with many of their graduates leading global enterprises of repute. Our space, oceanography and nuclear programmes have placed us in a select group of nations whose scientific prowess and technological excellence are respectfully acknowledged by the whole world. It would be unfortunate if our scientific institutions, universities and research bodies are undermined through the induction of sub-optimal leadership, whose given mandate is to pursue cultural revivalism at the cost of academic integrity. India has had a proud scientific tradition since ancient times, but that should not become the camouflage for pseudo-science that brings discredit to our scientific community.

In the comity of nations, India won respect for adopting principled positions, opposing colonial rule, leading the Non-Aligned Movement when two power blocs were seeking global domination, espousing human rights and promoting the cause of peace. Our relations with most of our neighbours were cordial. Even when we had conflicts with some, we tried to build bridges of understanding to enable peaceful co-existence. We need to maintain these positions, even as the world witnesses new conflicts and alliances. It is essential for us to be regarded as a reliable and respected friend in most countries of the world, but especially in South Asia. We should not let our foreign policy wobble through dependence on personalised gestures for the camera but follow clear-headed initiatives through wise leadership supported by able diplomats.

Well-being of the young

India must focus on enhancing the health, education and skilling of young persons. The recent National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) reminds us that stunting, under-nourishment and anaemia continue to afflict a large percentage of our children and women in the reproductive age group. We need to ensure that the nutrition-specific programmes deliver, even as we advance nutrition-sensitive policies in other sectors, especially water and sanitation.

COVID-19 revealed several weaknesses in our health system. From disease surveillance to provision of health care, we need to strengthen the capacity of health services. There are marked differences in the capacity and performance of health systems across different States. It is essential that States invest more in health and also that centrally sponsored programmes aim to provide greater support to States whose health indicators are lagging. Providing needed health services to all persons, with adequate financial protection, must be the goal of universal health coverage. We must achieve this uniformly across the whole country.

For the citizen to ponder over

As a young boy of 14, I experienced both the exhilaration of newly gained independence as well as the painful tragedies that marred the country’s partition. I hoped that India would grow strong as a nation without ever again having to experience such discord. Today, I am proud of what India has achieved and am optimistic about the future of this great nation. However, I am also worried about the sectarian slogans and communal slurs that are vitiating social harmony and dividing the people. Alongside, there is also a weakening of institutions which must safeguard democratic freedoms, uphold norms of good governance and shield electoral politics from the onslaught of money power and co-opted state agencies. It is for the citizens of India to protect and preserve the hard won gains of our freedom. Let each one of us reflect on that duty as we raise and salute our flag.

Dr. Manmohan Singh was Prime Minister of India from 2004 to 2014



Read in source website

All politicians in India promise development, yet the state apparatus and political factions in control cause inequality

Economic development is a primary means by which the Indian democratic project has legitimated itself. Given an electorate of mostly poor people, no government has been elected without making development — the uplift of the downtrodden through service provision, the creation of individual freedom, and collective opportunity inherent in economic transformation — its primary objective. Unlike archetypal developmental states such as the Republic of Korea, the Indian state after Independence had to accomplish its mandate of development in the context of a diverse and fissiparous democracy that had endured centuries of British colonial domination and the expropriation of its wealth.

This historical context, and the bureaucratic and political processes surrounding the delivery of development outcomes have generated growth but also created significant structural inequities that have taken different forms across India’s post-Independence history. The inequity associated with the actions of the developmental state, the corruption, and moral outrage that constitute the state’s broken promises to the people has been the driver of waves of political conflict in the Indian polity since Independence. The moral failings of different phases within the trajectory of India’s developmental state have inspired collective challenges to the establishment throughout its history.

Critiques of underdevelopment and the promises of development were at the heart of the nationalist movement against colonial rule. For early nationalist thinkers, the idea of India itself was suffused with a claim that it was one economy and one nation, suppressed in the fulfilment of its destiny by an imperial apparatus that sought to keep it divided, while draining its wealth and sending it overseas. The Congress party, when taking the reins of power, legitimated its rule primarily through a solemn promise that it would redress structures of political, economic, and social inequality by deploying the state to implement far-reaching programmes of development. Jawaharlal Nehru, in his famous “Tryst with Destiny” address, pledged the service of a sovereign government to “the ending of poverty and ignorance and disease and inequality of opportunity”.

There was a disconnect

There was, however, a profound disconnect between the promises and actions of the developmental state in the first quarter-century after Independence. The Planning Commission, chaired by Nehru, drew up ambitious plans for development that entailed significant public and private investment in industry and the encouragement of cooperatives to transform agriculture. For poor peasants and aspirant workers, the solemn promises of development and the dismantling of inequality rang hollow. Structures of domination and pervasive social inequality reigned in practice as the conservative colonial-era bureaucracy and politicians, business elites, and dominant landowners benefitted the most from this developmental state. The abject failures of community development programmes, and sclerotic economic growth led to the political turmoil of the mid-to-late 1960s.

Indira Gandhi changed the nature of the developmental state. She effected a populist resurgence from within the Congress to address the gap between lofty promises of the state and degraded reality. Her appeal, which ended up splitting the party and transforming the nature of party competition, did deliver an overwhelming electoral mandate to her Congress. Indira Gandhi’s slogan ‘Garibi hatao (eliminate poverty)’ and the subsequent 20-point programme conceived of the direct intervention by an empowered and enlarged state. The politicised state apparatus was now to address social inequalities through land reform, enforcement of the minimum wage, nationalisation of key industries, and extension of agricultural credit, among many other policies.

Controlling state resources

A main legacy of Indira Gandhi’s left-populism was that the state presented itself as the antidote to social and economic inequalities. The developmental state now looked different. The state apparatus was engorged, from the national to the State and local levels. Multiple public sector companies emerged at all levels of the economy, from the Centre to the States. Financial institutions — banking and insurance — were now in the hands of state apparatchiks. This system fostered corruption, rent-seeking and the capture of the institutions and resources of the state for the benefit of influential clients.

The increased demand for public resources to satisfy an ever-growing number of clients proved financially unsustainable. The economy underwent several rounds of liberalisation that dismantled some elements of state-directed development in the 1980s, but the basic pattern remained the same. The developmental state was now a state whose resources were allocated by and through political compulsions. And as political fragmentation grew, the pressure to control the remaining state resources for political gain expanded.

The storied liberalisation of 1991 renewed promises of dismantling inequality. Liberalisation offered a new idiom of increased opportunity. When combined with political fragmentation, neoliberal reform yielded crony capitalism, ineffective service delivery, and distrust of the system. Self-help and rights-based discourse now emerged as part of a new language of development. The United Progressive Alliance government expanded welfare-based rights, such as the Right to Education and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. But the ambitiousness of these centrally-planned schemes achieved only middling outcomes on the ground, as petty bureaucrats and local rent-seekers influenced their implementation for their ends, thus failing to build a political constituency among the poor around them. The middle classes protested this new developmental state which had created a state-facing inequality, where being “known to” the state and the politicians controlling it increasingly determined life chances and the economic prospects for India’s striving citizens.

Change in 2014

In 2014, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Narendra Modi won a parliamentary majority by promising to restore opportunity and clean up politics. His main slogan was, ‘together, development for everybody.’ He attacked the Congress leadership for its corruption, projecting himself as a humble “chaiwallah” and servant of the people. While Hindu nationalist themes were never far from the surface and have become dominant in the BJP’s discourse since the 2019 elections, the right-wing populist moment of the 2014 election brought together a broad and unlikely coalition of upper-middle-class professionals and lower-middle-class strivers. These groups were promised the end of inequality of opportunity, which had come to characterise many citizens’ interactions with the state in India’s “known-to” democracy. While Mr. Modi’s treatment of what ails the Indian body-politic has been tremendously polarising, and his own government has been wanting in delivering economic growth, his politics — echoing that of regional populists in India, from N.T. Rama Rao to Jayalalithaa and Mamata Banerjee — tapped into a mood of widespread discontent toward the state’s development project.

Since 1991, the Indian state is no longer in the business of keeping the solemn promises of dismantling inequalities. The state now focuses on growth and passing handouts to voters — a policy honed to perfection in Tamil Nadu by the various iterations of the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam.

A developmental ideology is inextricably associated with democratic politics in independent India. The nation’s founders made solemn promises to deliver the people from inequity and subjugation — the real meaning of development for democratic India. These ideas have been honoured more in the breach than in observance. Nehru’s developmental state could not redress inequalities and failed to grow the economy quickly enough. Indira Gandhi’s policies placed the state at the centre of political life. The state was the agent of growth, yet, despite the rhetoric, addressing social and economic inequalities took a back seat. Even while speaking in lofty tones about development, the current regime does not emphasise the state as central to changing social norms and addressing income inequalities.

All politicians in India promise development as a part of democratic deliverance. Yet, the state apparatus and the political factions that control it reproduce inequality. From time to time, populist leaders shine a light on these hypocrisies. Their electoral mobilisations dramatically transform Indian politics without changing the state’s ability to deliver on political promises. This highlights the idea that development is the most powerful idiom of Indian democracy, an ideal on which ordinary people across social stations hold governments to account. Development, in other words, is as much a moral commitment as a technocratic undertaking. Development is inextricably linked with the meaning of Indian democracy.

Adnan Naseemullah and Pradeep Chhibber teach at Kings College, London and the University of California, Berkeley, respectively



Read in source website

Nearly 30 years since the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments came into force, politicians have failed to keep their word on the true devolution of powers, responsibilities and accountability

One cannot strike a cheerful note when contemplating the state of India’s panchayats and municipalities, 75 years after Independence. True, the local government system obtained constitutional status only through the 73rd and 74th constitutional amendments, which mandated panchayats and municipalities, devolved a range of powers and responsibilities and made them accountable to the people. Some say that it was lucky that those amendments were passed at all; they were tabled in Parliament on the day that the Babri Masjid was attacked by a mob on December 6, 1992. The mind of the country was somewhere else then.

These amendments, which came into force in 1993, were revolutionary; they changed the scope and extent of India’s democracy. From a mere 4,000 MLAs and MPs, the number of our elected representatives exploded to nearly 3.2 million. We progressed from being representationally sparse to one of the most intense democratic participatory systems envisaged. Scope was provided for the participation of women and the marginalised sections of society in government. These reservations were not merely extended to the elected seats but to the leadership positions as well.

In the nearly 30 years since these amendments were incorporated into our Constitution, politicians have mouthed the rhetoric of power to the people, but failed to keep their word on the true ‘devolution’ of powers, responsibilities and accountability to local governments.

While many scoffed at enabling women, SCs, STs and OBCs to occupy leadership positions, politicians of all hues were alive to the significance of these measures.

Nitish Kumar, in 2006, enlarged women’s representation in Bihar’s panchayats from the minimum mandated level of one third to half of the elected seats and leadership positions. Other politicians quickly followed suit; such provisions exist in the majority of States now.

Say of bureaucrats

Bureaucrats, insulated from political compulsions, remain steadfastly opposed to strengthening local governments. That is natural; they would lose their pre-eminent positions of power over where, how and when government money is spent, if they actually devolved power to local governments.

“Local governments have no capacity,” they proclaim, waving their hands at the lakhs of elected members who had stood for elections and won them — something no bureaucrat had the capacity to do.

There is a cabal forged between top-level politicians and such bureaucrats. The strategy is simple: let’s spout the talk, but let’s not walk it. Let us starve local governments of staff and money. That is exactly where we stand at the moment.

A three-pronged strategy is used to cripple the local government system.

Every local government needs to have organisational capacity, by way of staff such as engineers, office staff and social mobilisers. Staffing of local governments is scanty. In some States, many panchayats share a single secretary, who operates from a shoulder bag, ajhola , carrying all the books. The sub-district staff are still controlled by the Collector, seen as the head of an anachronism, the district ‘administration’.

The line departments are loath to allow their local institutions — schools,anganwadis , primary health centres, veterinary hospitals and so on — to be placed under the control and supervision of panchayats. Yet, in a delicious paradox, one cannot hold any higher-level bureaucrat to account for the abysmal quality of local services.

Second, local governments are starved of money. The Union Finance Commissions have made desirable recommendations, but the pitifully low finances that are devolved to local governments, not more than 5% of the divisible pool of Union taxes, come with conditionalities that bind them to specific uses.

Furthermore, these funds are tied down by restrictive procedures that give officers control over local government expenditure decisions, through cheque signing conditionalities.

While local governments have their own tax resources such as property taxes, in many States, there is no emphasis given to their collection. Where they are collected, officers exert control over how local governments use their funds, by committing these to aggregate purchases tendered and arranged at higher levels. Last, in a diabolical twist of the public finance system, funds meant for the mandated duties of local governments are diverted to parallel corporate structures that perform these duties without accountability to, or consultation with the people. The Smart City ‘Special Purpose Vehicle’ is a particularly ill-reputed example.

Third, technology is a much-loved tool of bureaucrats to centralise the delivery of local services, much to the detriment of local decision-making. Guess why centralised beneficiary selection, payments and location decisions of public utilities are so popular with bureaucrats? They take away from local, nuanced decision-making and put enormous powers in the hands of higher-level officers and politicians. Thus, beneficiary lists prepared throughgram sabhas are subverted by MLAs acting in concert with higher-level officers who, in spite of their claims to professional neutrality, are unable to resist political pressure from above.

The new battleground

What of the coming years, in the light of these dismal practices which have eclipsed the constitutional vision? I see a few trends emerging. First, urban governments will be the new battleground. The 74th amendment was the poor cousin of the 73rd, with weaker provisions, particularly regarding the enabling of peoples’ participation in governance. However, the continuous breakdown of urban services is igniting interest amongst urban citizens — most have been indifferent in the past — to engage with and combat bad governance. Over the past decade, urban NGOs have sprung up, which educate and exhort urban citizens to take a greater interest in urban governance. There are many good examples of local action in practice.

Second, there is a growing failure of local services being delivered by line departments. Earlier, in many States, line departments were unwilling to devolve decisions on location of new infrastructure — that is where the powers of patronage existed. However, as India closes the infrastructure gap, line departments seem more willing to hand over the day-to-day management of local services to local governments. One of the outcomes of the pandemic lockdowns was how panchayats rallied around to keep local institutions going, even as higher-level officials were unable to supervise and manage them. That phenomenon, hopefully, has assured line departments that local governments have the capability to manage their own essential services, if they could be treated with less condescension and greater respect.

In the final outcome, local governments cannot be ignored. For us, the Indian people, our independence for the most part lies in strong local governments that are responsive to our needs and wants. Local governments are much more than our garbage collectors and street-light managers. They are our most effective vaccines against the pandemic of big government.

T.R. Raghunandan is former Joint Secretary, Ministry of Panchayati Raj, Government of India



Read in source website

The challenge today is to define a unique foreign policy identity and shape the country’s engagement with a chaotic world

At 75, India — a younger state and an older nation — stands at a critical juncture in its relationship with the world. The world in which India won indepdence in 1947 has changed beyond recognition, from a bipolar U.S.-U.S.S.R. world to a brief unipolar moment of American hegemony to one that is moving toward another bipolar competition between China and the United States, distracted by the illusions of a multipolar world. For India, the challenge today is to define its unique foreign policy identity, and shape the contours of its engagement with an increasingly chaotic world. India can address this by reclaiming its moral leadership in the region and beyond.

A post-normative turn

India at 75 appears to have become a ‘normal country’ (or just another country if you will) with its claims of a moral or political exceptionalism increasingly ringing hollow (or being abandoned), and its national interests articulated in a more unembarrassed manner. There is an abiding feeling within much of the Indian strategic and political elite that its moral claims have not served the country’s interests well. This post-normative turn in India’s foreign policy, with its attendant aggression, a new language of self-interest and growing balance of power temptations, is likely to define India’s attitude towards the world going forward. India has long given up on non-alignment, and its legatee concept ‘strategic autonomy’ is devoid of any normative connotations, unlike its predecessor.

While this post-normative turn has helped better clarify the country’s national interests to itself and others, the moral argument is no longer viewed as a powerful foreign policy tool. There is an enduring grievance in contemporary India that the moral arguments it consistently made since (and even prior to) its independence have not taken India very far. While it is not wrong to argue that in an increasingly chaotic world, self-help is unavoidable, and moral arguments or policies alone will not take nations very far especially those located in hard geopolitical situations, it is also not inaccurate to argue that nations and leaders who can provide moral leadership have a special place in the comity of nations.

So, the question that countries such as India (because the world still, albeit occasionally, looks up to us for moral leadership or as a peace-builder) should ask is whether it is possible to uphold the norms and values in foreign policy pursuits without necessarily sacrificing its own national interests. As the historian E.H. Carr powerfully argued in his masterpiece,The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 1919-1939 , “any sound political thought must be based on elements of both utopia and reality”. India may have become a ‘normal country’ today, but there is no reason for us to stop being a normal power with a moral persuasion.

India and global institutions

Another important factor in India’s relationship with the world is its role as an institution builder (or the lack thereof). India has followed seemingly contradictory policies. It has been keen on participating in global institutions, including the UN Security Council (which it has been kept out of), it has made significant contributions to various types of international organisations, international or inter-governmental, and it has been a keen participant in various global efforts at addressing common global challenges. And yet, despite our keen desire to be a part of global institutions and governance structures, have we made, sustained or supported such institutions in our own region? I agree it would not have been easy and would have involved compromises.

Let us dig a little deeper. Even as we fought for sovereign equality and non-intervention in the affairs of other countries globally, and dismissed hegemony or the dominance of any one power, we have done pretty much the opposite in our own region (once again, I get it — ‘it’s complicated’). Notwithstanding the double standards, the point I want to stress is that we lost an opportunity in our own region to lead by example. Once a site of India’s primacy, South Asia is no longer ‘India’s region’, and so India has lost the opportunity to build cooperative institutions and norms in the region, and to sustain its political influence in it.

The impact of such a lost opportunity is becoming evident today. India’s reluctance over building institutions in its ‘periphery’ which can sustain democratic values and economic integration has come back to haunt the country given how Beijing’s predatory economic practices have managed to sway the region so effortlessly. So, we must reimagine our approach to global and regional institutions and norm-building.

India is also a power caught between the deep desires of being a great power and the material incapacities of being unable to become one. That was perhaps a reason why the country’s ‘early leaders’ sought to project India as a moral great power, cognisant of its debilitating material incapacities to be a ‘normal’ great power. Seventy-five years since Independence, India is perhaps neither — a moral great power or one in the standard material sense.

Our loss (or wilful renunciation) of moral agency in foreign policy has a number of consequences. For one, our ability to build peace or mediate for global peace has vastly diminished (not that there is much appetite for doing so in New Delhi even if material ability were available). Second, contemporary India’s pursuit of its interests is hardly backed by normative arguments but by material power (which it does not have a great deal of) or exploitation of great power contradictions or playing the balance-of-power games.

As the incumbent Foreign Minister writes in his book,The India Way , India seeks to advance its “national interests by identifying and exploiting opportunities created by global contradictions”, using “competition to extract as much gains from as many ties as possible” and soliciting or manipulating stronger forces to its advantage. Surely these are standard practices of statecraft and India cannot be faulted for adopting them in an uncertain world. And, yet, this line of thinking belongs to a passive state unwilling to proactively shape the outcomes of international politics. Can we not do better than that?

Here is a related question: when India seeks a place at the global high tables, what does it bring to the table? If the answer is one that is premised on the argument of sheer size, that is a lazy one. Consider this: India will soon become the most populous country in the world, but it will hardly be a demographic superpower; it is set to be the world’s sixth-largest economy but it is still too poor to spend for global peace, stability or maintenance of world order. So, what exactly can we offer the world if we want to proactively shape the global order? That is precisely where normative arguments and moral leadership are important.

Elusive peace and stability

Another major aspect of India’s engagement with the world is its search for peace and stability. New Delhi’s insistent references to ‘terrorism’ in its statements in various forums is a partial indication of this deep desire for a stable neighbourhood. Despite enjoying regional primacy for a long time, India failed to pacify the region, and its own actions have often contributed to regional instability. But there is a larger issue here pertaining to India’s moral agency: our attitudes and policies toward the outside world will also be a function of who we are internally. OurWeltanschauung cannot be seen to be divorced from who we are internally as a nation. Put differently, can India truly build peace externally without building peace internally? Good foreign policy starts with good domestic politics.

We must reclaim our moral leadership in the comity of nations, but it has to begin from within the country and neighbourhood. The argument is not that India must relinquish its hard national interests, but that moral arguments have the power to highlight the appeal of our national interests even more.

Happymon Jacob is Associate Professor, Centre for International Politics, Organisation and Disarmament, School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Once a site of India’s primacy, South Asia is no longer ‘India’s region’... India has lost the opportunity to build cooperative institutions and norms in

the region....



Read in source website

The meanings of caste have transformed — as a system regulating life chances, as a mode of political mobilisation, or as a socio-cultural identity

Caste today is active in three main ways. First, it is a system that regulates the distribution of material opportunity or life chances, and hence it is a source of enduring inequalities. Second, it remains one of the primary modes of political mobilisation, even though caste politics is now far more disaggregated, complex and uncertain than it used to be. Third, and perhaps most elusive, for everyone except a small upper-class, upper-caste elite caste continues to be a form of community offering a sense of kinship, belonging and identity. The contexts of caste have changed in ways that affect all three modalities.

A rise and fall

The story of caste as a mechanism for regulating material opportunities in independent India can be told in terms of the rise and fall of what might be called the reservation-merit system.

In its original form, ‘reservation’ was a pre-Independence idea emerging from the Poona Pact of 1932 and codified in the Government of India Act of 1935. It was intended to be an antidote for caste discrimination rather than a remedy for backwardness. But, by the time the Constitution of the new Republic was adopted in January 1950, the idea had changed fundamentally.

The new Constitution abolished caste in principle but did not interfere with its practice. Reservation was now positioned as the exception to the general principle of castelessness, and seen as a kind of unearned ‘benefit’ provided by the state to certain castes. The rest of society was seen as the domain of ‘merit’, where privileges were assumed to have been earned through talent and hard work. In other words, caste-based allocation of opportunities continued unchecked except for a portion of government jobs and seats in public educational institutions. Unsurprisingly, the benefits of economic development — in both the state as well as the non-state sectors — have flowed in accordance with the caste hierarchy, with the upper castes getting the lion’s share. The reservation-merit system was founded on a dichotomy that has now collapsed, as shown by the quota for the Economically Weaker Sections, which effectively provides reservation for merit-walas . Today, the role of caste in reproducing economic inequality is plainly visible.

The story of caste as a form of political mobilisation began with its suppression in the years before and after Independence. Caste politics was first confined to the campaign around untouchability and then strangled by the Poona Pact, which effectively ensured that only Dalit representatives acceptable to the upper castes would be elected. Invocation of caste in public was frowned upon in the Nehru era, and the Congress always downplayed caste issues, even rejecting the First Backward Classes Commission report of 1955.

However, universal suffrage had its own logic. Backed by the irresistible force of numbers, backward caste politicians began mobilising their caste constituencies in the 1960s. But the “Congress system” confined them to the regional level, leaving the upper castes free to control national politics as they had in the freedom struggle.

After decades of consolidation in the States, backward caste politics made a dramatic entry onto the national stage in the 1990s. The Mandal turn not only made caste a national issue; it also shattered the myth of caste-as-exception that the Nehru era had nurtured. But the intervention proved unsustainable — the 1990s were marked by unstable coalition governments.

The rise and retreat of lower caste politics at the national level highlights the formidable challenge of aggregating local-regional caste constituencies to capture power at the Centre. This challenge is made more daunting by the increasing internal differentiation within all caste groupings, especially the Other Backward Castes. Another worry is the rapid transformation of the federal structure under the Narendra Modi regime, with the Centre usurping the financial and political powers of the States. A recent example is the repositioning of the Enforcement Directorate as a kind of super-agency, with sweeping powers under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, endorsed by the Supreme Court of India.

At a time when regional politics is seen as the last hope against an authoritarian and majoritarian regime at the Centre, events such as the change of government in Bihar may bring hope. However, it is hard to overlook the stark contrast today between the successful consolidation of an essentially upper-caste politics at the Centre against the challenges facing lower-caste politics when its State-level strongholds are being undermined.

Identity-based mobilisation

The story of caste as a form of cultural identity has been overtaken recently by the phenomenal rise of Hindutva as a passionate, aggressive and almost pan-Indian form of identity-based mobilisation. The idea of development which emphasises shared interests was the ideological cornerstone of the Nehru-Indira-Rajiv Congress era, and also the main plank of Narendra Modi in 2014. The 2019 Modi regime has inaugurated a phase of Hindutva which emphasises a shared adversarial identity. This weaponised form of Hindutva would be expected to be the natural enemy of lower-caste politics because of the inevitable tension between horizontal Hindu unity and vertical caste hierarchy. Moreover, given that both the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Sangh Parivar are dominated by upper castes, Hindutva has traditionally been marked as upper caste.

Demographic compulsions require Hindutva to seek substantial support from the lower castes. The central question of our time is whether it will succeed in this quest. How far will the upper-caste core supporters of Hindutva be willing to go to persuade lower-caste Hindus to join their movement? Until now, concessions made to lower-caste sensibilities have been limited to tokenism, ranging from the highlighting of Narendra Modi’s nominal OBC identity, or the noisy appropriation of national icons such as Ambedkar or local ones like Suheldev. Will more substantial gestures be made? Will the lower castes accept these overtures and agree to be foot-soldiers?

The answers to these questions will determine the directions that caste will take in the near future.

The contexts of caste have changed a lot in the last 75 years, transforming its meanings, whether as a system regulating life chances, a mode of political mobilisation, or a form of socio-cultural identity. But whether it is the lower castes who resist Hindutva or the upper castes who lead it to hegemony, caste itself will retain its central role even if it is enacted behind the curtain.

Satish Deshpande teaches sociology at Delhi University. The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

Asymmetrical federalism will continue to have its relevance; various groups need to be accommodated and provided with a share in governance

As India completes 75 years of Independence this August, the time is apt for us to look at the constitutional, institutional, political and fiscal arrangements that take into account the plurality of our country. It is a nation where four major religions of the world find abode; its Muslim population is the third largest in the world; and Indians speak languages belonging to five different families. Such diversity and plurality call for an arrangement that can pave the way for accommodation and integration reflected in the existing system of asymmetrical federalism.

India is not the only country with asymmetrical arrangements in its federal setup. Belgium, Germany, Canada and Spain are among other such examples. Thus this normative idea is neither new nor only locally relevant. As a matter of fact, in the neoteric time, we see governments formulating federal policies to deal with State-specific issues and concerns. And if one looks clinically at the Indian model of asymmetrical federalism, one can gauge it based on the principle of weighted and differentiated equality. This principle calls for equal treatment of all States while being mindful that some States are more equal and unequal than others. So, the capacity to accommodate various social groups and their interests makes India a thriving federal democracy as it displays enormous asymmetric characteristics.

Protecting diversity

While constructing an asymmetrical framework, our founding fathers chose the salad bowl approach instead of the melting pot approach. Recognising the existing pluricultural society in India necessitated such a choice. Recognising the distinctive cultural differences in the country and permitting self-rule within the scheme of a shared rule to territorially concentrated minorities is how asymmetrical federalism works in India. Such functioning pertains tode facto andde jure asymmetry, where the former is abundant while the latter is limited. Furthermore, such an arrangement only proves that an asymmetrical constitutional setup is indisputably necessary for a multicultural and multinational country such as India to protect the rights of the community and the minorities. This setup facilitates the accommodation of multiple yet complementary identities.

In this regard, it is necessary to understand the distinction made by Ronald Watts between political and constitutional asymmetry, both of which exist in our country. While in every federal nation the former is based on the territorial and demographic sizes of the constituent units, the latter characterises the Constitution’s extension of legislative and executive powers to the constituent units. So when we find representation of States in the Rajya Sabha based on their population, it is a political asymmetry. That is why States such as Uttar Pradesh have 31 seats in the Rajya Sabha, whereas Meghalaya and Mizoram have just one each.

Self-rule within shared rule

We find constitutional asymmetry in Article 370 (now diluted) and in the special provisions and powers extended to Nagaland, Mizoram and others in the omnibus Article 371. The parliamentary statute cannot be implemented in the northeast States mentioned above without the consent of the legislatures of these States. Specifically, the provisions under Article 371 requiring the State legislature’s permission before implementing any parliamentary law exemplify asymmetrical provisions protecting the religious and social practices, customary laws and procedures of Nagas and Mizos. In addition, creation of the Autonomous District Council as per the Sixth Schedule also acknowledges the socio-cultural, political and historical rights of the tribes of the Northeast, thereby facilitating the provisions of self-rule within the scheme of shared rule.

Furthermore, the Indian asymmetrical setup has evolved to include another type of asymmetry, i.e. Union Territories (UTs). Their establishment is in line with the spirit of federal asymmetry. These are special federating units that have been created multiple times. However, the reasons for their creation have been different. UTs were too small to be declared as States or could not be merged with a neighbouring State due to prevailing cultural dissimilarities, inter-State indifferences, extensive isolation and other specific needs, as in the case of National Capital Territory (NCT). Among all the UTs, Delhi, Puducherry and Chandigarh are distinct examples. Since 2019, we now have Jammu and Kashmir as a UT with a legislative assembly and Ladakh as a UT without.

Delhi’s case is in itself a remarkable example of asymmetrical federalism where we witness the appointment of the Chief Minister of Delhi by the President of India on the recommendation of the Lieutenant Governor (LG). This provision is in line with the special status of Delhi as the NCT. However, the difference between Puducherry and Delhi lies in the scope of their jurisdiction. While Puducherry has law-making power over subjects such as land, police and civil services, this is not the case with Delhi. And although there has been a long pressing demand for extending statehood status to Delhi, the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Act of 2021 has not solved the conflicts between the LG and the Council of Ministers of the Government of Delhi. On the contrary, the Act makes it mandatory for the Delhi government to undertake any action after permission from the LG. However, for the smooth functioning of the asymmetrical federal setup, it is imperative to carry out the NCT’s administration through cooperation, not confrontation.

On fiscal arrangements

Another significant asymmetry is the fiscal arrangements enshrined in the Constitution. When transferring funds from the Centre to States, statutory transfers are made based on the recommendations of the Finance Commission. Also, while the Central government entirely funds specific Central sector development schemes in India, the cost of implementing Centrally sponsored schemes to bring about welfare is co-shared by both the Centre and sub-national units. In the NITI Aayog era, the Centre has considerably reduced the share of its revenue to implement the Centrally sponsored schemes.

Since 2019, many have questioned asymmetrical federalism’s pertinence, ignoring its effectiveness in recognising and promoting self-rule in multiple territories across India. It all began with the dilution of Article 370 in 2019 and the subsequent debates and discussions over the dilution of the omnibus Article 371. These provisions in our Constitution are special arrangements reflective of asymmetrical features.

We must remember that the idea and arrangement of asymmetrical power-sharing can be unsettling if not utilised properly. Such features in our Constitution are neither marginal nor merely provisional. These features touch upon a considerably large number of States. And without these features and provisions, it would not have been possible to undermine the secessionist tendencies of a highly diverse society. Asymmetrical federalism will continue to have its relevance in the future because to pave the way for cooperative federalism we must be able to accommodate various groups and provide them with a share in the governance of the country at the same time.

Rekha Saxena is Professor at the Department of Political Science, University of Delhi, Honorary Vice-Chairperson, Centre for Multilevel Federalism, New Delhi, and Honorary Senior Adviser, Forum of Federations, Ottawa



Read in source website

As the nation celebrates‘Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav ’, with the accompanying slogan, ‘Har Ghar Tiranga ’, we must, while saluting the flag, ponder over the events that led to the birth of this great national emblem. The Constituent Assembly made an invaluable contribution in giving us this great national flag. The debates and events that took place in its adoption were thus. On July 22, 1947, Jawaharlal Nehru moved the following Resolution before the Constituent Assembly of India: “Resolved that the National Flag of India shall be horizontal tricolour of deep Saffron (Kesari ), white and dark green in equal proportion. In the centre of the white band, there shall be a Wheel in navy blue to represent theCharkha The design of the Wheel shall be that of the Wheel (Chakra ) which appears on the abacuse of the Sarnath Lion Capital of Asoka... The diameter of the Wheel shall approximate to the width of the white band and the ratio of the width to the length of the Flag shall ordinarily be 2:3.”

The event marked the culmination of a freedom struggle across over 100 years, in which millions of Indians, men, women and children, sacrificed their lives and livelihood. The national flag was a slight changeover from the swaraj flag which was first hoisted at the Indian National Congress Session in Calcutta in 1911 by the late Dadabhai Naoroji. The flag was adopted not by a formal resolution, but by popular acclaim and usage, adopted much more by the sacrifice that had surrounded it in the past few decades. Nehru declared, with hope and trust, amid cheers, that this flag was not “a Flag of Empire, a Flag of Imperialism, a Flag of domination over any body, but a Flag of freedom not only for ourselves, but a symbol of freedom to all people who may see it”.

The original flag had acharkha but it had a wheel on one side and spindle on the other, and if one looked at the flag from the other side, the spindle would come the other way and the wheel the other, making the flag look disproportionate. Looking at this practical difficulty, thecharkha was replaced by thechakra (wheel), being a symbol of “India’s ancient culture”; “a symbol of the many things that India had stood for through the ages”.

Seth Govind Das dismissed some thoughts attributing a communal angle to the colours by saying, “I would remind you of the war of Independence of 1857. At that time, the colour of our flag was green and under it we fought that battle. It was at that time not the colour of Muslims alone or of Hindus but of all those who fought the war of Independence.”

S. Radhakrishnan said, “The Flag links up the past and the present. It is the legacy bequeathed to us by the architects of our liberty. Those who fought under this Flag are mainly responsible for the arrival of this great day of Independence for India....”

Saiyid Mohammad Saadulla said, “In my opinion the Flag symbolises the evolution of our aspirations, the fulfilment of our struggles and the ultimate result of all our sacrifices.” In his view, the white portion of the flag was a reminder that we should be pure not only in word but also in deed, and that “purity should be [the] motto of our life — individually as well as in connection with the State... TheDharma chakra of Asoka reminds us of the condition of the people at the time of that great Buddhist Emperor of India. He ruled not for his personal aggrandisement but for the contentment, peace and prosperity of the people under his charge....”

Pandit Govind Malaviya put the debate on a higher pedestal by declaring that “...The flag may be of a piece of white cloth of any other insignificant material, but when it is accepted as a National Flag, it becomes the emblem of national self-respect.... It becomes its dearest object.”

“Remember,” said Sarojini Naidu, “under this Flag there is no prince and there is no peasant, there is no rich and there is no poor. There is no privilege there is only duty... and sacrifice. Whether we be Hindus or Muslims, Christians, Jains, Sikhs or Zorostrians and others, our Mother India has one undivided heart and one indivisible spirit. Men and women of reborn India, rise and salute this Flag! I bid you, rise and salute the Flag,” she said, amidst thunderous cheers.

The President of the Assembly, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, at the end of the lively and sombre debate, put the resolution to vote and the motion was adopted, with the whole Assembly standing.

Let us hope India continues its progress for generations to come under the aegis of the Flag, “Vivat ,Crescat ,floreat India (May India under the aegis of this Flag live, grow and flourish)”. Article 51A describes Fundamental Duties of every Citizen of India including “to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national Flag and the National Anthem” as also “to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom”.

Let us hope and pray that the National Flag is revered at all times in light of the spirit under which it was born.

Dushyant Dave is a Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India and a former President of the Supreme Court Bar Association



Read in source website

The evolution from within the structures of India’s traditional film industry to the digital age has been spectacular

In the filmDharavi (1992), the hero, Raj Karan Yadav (played by Om Puri), strives to find a better life for himself, one that is free from debt and drudgery. After unsuccessful attempts to buy his own taxi, he approaches moneylenders to borrow money and set up an illegal factory. Once again, he is unable to pay the money back to them and unwittingly becomes embroiled in a gang war. As he meanders through his life with frustratingly little agency, the character, Dreamgirl (played by Madhuri Dixit), appears — a beautiful, serene mirage that becomes his only source of comfort. This encapsulates what cinema means to India — an escape from mounting bills, equated monthly instalments and infuriating socio-politics.

A good film, they say, is one that allows each one of its viewers to see a different film. A popcorn film, on the other hand, in its desperation to be understood by all, is typically understood to be tropey, allowing for little to no nuance. A perceived crowbar separation existed between the two, until recently.

In the years after Independence, several members of the Progressive Writers Association (PWA) and the Indian People’s Theatre Association (IPTA) took the Hindi film industry by storm. Donning the roles of writers, lyricists and film-makers, they embedded radical reformist themes into mainstream cinema and discourse. These set the template for plot and character definition of Indian heroes, male and female, for decades.

Some of these became high grossers and the others, festival favourites. The holy grail — a combination of the two — remained numerically few. And, down south, the Kerala People’s Arts Club (KPAC) determined much of the popular culture in Kerala and beyond. Anti-imperialist and socially progressive themes formed the crux of several commercial films of the time. Remakes of successful films across industries saw the building of a certain pan-Indian ethos that embraced ideas of Nehruvian socialism.

In the 1970s and 1980s, disillusionment with the system was at an all-time high. Audiences lashed out against an oppressive system vicariously through the ‘angry young man’. The need for ‘black and white hero defeats villain’ narratives arose. For movie villains, it was a golden age. Uni-dimensional, megalomaniac despots were stand-ins for authority figures. ‘Mogambo’ and ‘Gabbar Singh’ were the catch words. Censorship ensured that important themes had to be ‘smuggled into’ the consciousness of the nation, and not spelt out. As a genre, horror, though not yet mainstream, thrived. The Ramsey brothers made films that had better initials than star vehicles at the time.

The ‘crossover’ age

In the 1990s, with the advent of globalisation and privatisation of channels, a new kind of Indian film was born — the ‘crossover’ film. The characters, who were mostly urban, spoke in English with a smattering of the vernacular language. The genre-definingHyderabad Blues featured Varun, a non-resident Indian, who was both baffled and struggling to navigate a now alien socio-cultural landscape to court his Indian love interest. The entry of the multiplex liberated the film-maker from having to create cinema that spoke to everyone. A film that resonated with only a niche audience could also guarantee a return on investment. This also gave rise to a new breed of producers who were willing to back less conventional projects that were not necessarily ‘festival’ or ‘award’ films.

At the other end of the spectrum was Bollywood’s version of the NRI film. In the expensively mounted, wildly successfulDilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge , Raj, the NRI hero, was seen chasing Simran, his NRI love interest, to India in order to convince her to break off her engagement with her Indian fiancé and marry him. The first half of the film featured a highly aspirational Europe trip that two young adults take on their own, while the second half hard-sold ideas of a traditional India where young adults could only meet in secret or in the company of elders This was a period that was also rife with war cries about there being ‘threats to Indian culture’ and laments that children of the MTV generation were rejecting their roots. Themes of nationalism and tradition, often couched in modernity, punctuated cinema across industries. The overseas sales of Indian cinema — notably Hindi, Tamil and Telugu — rose exponentially. Films such asDangal andBaahubali also drew non-Indian viewership, signalling the opening up of hitherto unexplored markets.

A demystification

The year 2010 and beyond saw the popularisation of digital film-making in India, where all of a sudden it was possible for anyone to make a film. Student film festivals and ‘make-a-film’ competitions sprung up across the country. It also led to a demystification of the process that made it possible to make films even outside the structures of traditional film industries. Access to different kinds of technology made it possible for film-makers to experiment with themes.

It is now the age of over-the-top (OTT) platforms and the rise of social media. There are algorithms that diligently (and alarmingly) track audience behaviour in real time. Earlier, while there were gaps in understanding that steered producers towards creating homogenous content (that guaranteed super hits), today, there is a more layered understanding of what an audience needs and wants, and also overlaps in markets that can be further exploited.

There is the understanding that someone who watches a film for ‘young adults’ may also watch a film about an expedition before even switching to fantasy. Notions of ‘good’ and ‘mainstream’ are constantly being reassessed and redefined. Audiences today have more agency than ever before in determining the kind of content that gets created.

They can choose exactly what they want to watch to escape mounting bills, EMIs and infuriating socio-politics.

Shalini Ushadevi is a writer and director who won the Best Screenplay Award at the 68th National Film Awards in 2022 for her work on ‘Soorarai Pottru’



Read in source website

India’s transformation is nothing short of spectacular

India represents one sixth of the world and is today the third largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity. Even in terms of nominal exchange rate of the dollar, India is the sixth largest economy. It has grown at an average rate of 7% per annum for the past 40 years, growing from a size of $189 billion in 1980 to nearly $3 trillion today.

This growth rate is about 2% lower than that of China over the same period but represents a higher rate of return when compared with the investment rate of the GDP.

Until the year of the COVID-19 pandemic, India did not have a single year since 1980 when its economy contracted.

It was continuously expanding, with peak rates of 9% to 10% in between. As we celebrate our 76th Independence Day, it is worth reminding that at birth, the newborn nation was highly impoverished, thanks to centuries of colonial exploitation. It was critically dependent on foreign aid for food and forex and had an average life expectancy of only 32 years. The level of illiteracy was very high.

The sheer scale of economic transformation of this nation from bottom to top league is nothing short of spectacular. Today’s India is not only self-sufficient but also an exporter of food. It holds the fifth largest stock of foreign exchange and is a net lender to the International Monetary Fund, a far cry from having to go with a begging bowl to the IMF on the brink of forex bankruptcy in 1991.

Confident foreign investor

Foreign investors have cumulatively poured in half a trillion dollars into India in the past three decades, after the economy opened up. This reflects their confidence in the growth potential. India is the rare Asian country with a persistent current account deficit, as imports always exceed exports. And yet, foreign investors, undeterred by trade deficit, pour investment dollars into factories and businesses as well as into capital markets, leading to a consistent balance of payment currency surplus for India.

The foreign investor is confident that even with twin deficits (fiscal and external), the growth of the economy, driven by demography and dynamism, can pay for the deficits. Thanks to that consistent economic growth, the level of extreme poverty is down sharply from nearly 50% to possibly single digits, and life expectancy has more than doubled since 1947.

On the political front too, India’s robust democracy stands in sharp contrast to the authoritarian regime of its more affluent northern neighbour. Surviving for seven decades, nay flourishing in once piece, despite its immense diversity in every conceivable dimension, be it religion, race, language, culture or cuisine, is a minor miracle in itself. Many large countries such as the USSR broke up into smaller splinters. That is not to say that India’s democracy is perfect. Nevertheless, since the first national election, the country has witnessed largely bloodless and peaceful transfer of power — 16 times — something that other former colonial, developing countries can only envy.

India’s early post-Independence economic strategy had to factor in the extreme poverty, the scarcity of growth capital, a low tax base and an export pessimism begotten possibly by suspicion of colonial powers.

India was more inward looking and influenced, if not enamoured, by the Soviet planning model of development. One could argue, with hindsight, that it should have been abandoned much earlier than when we actually did. But in light of early conditions, the initial import substitution-led industrial strategy, supported by low wage goods (i.e., food prices), which, in turn, necessitated input subsidies to agriculture, did pay dividends in terms of infrastructure and green revolution. It just stayed longer than it needed to. India also missed the bus, unlike her East Asian neighbours, on capitalising on labour intensive export-led growth. But after the shock of 1991, the economy opened up dramatically.

India’s trade to GDP ratio, an indicator of its openness is higher than the United States. It is now the world’s leading exporter of software and an outsourcing powerhouse.

Indian workers send nearly 100 billion dollars of inbound remittance, which strengthens the Indian economy. In an indirect way, it is like India’s labour export income.

The economy has a large domestic momentum, which can only grow once per capita income rises above $3,000 or $4,000. The other signs of strength are in terms of proliferation of unicorns (valued highly by equity investors), exponential growth of e-commerce and digital payments, and a widening industrial base.

Agriculture is much less dependent on the vagaries of the weather, and diversification towards more climate, soil and market-appropriate crops is evident, as is the huge growth in the animal husbandry and dairy sector. India is also meeting its very ambitious targets of renewable energy, especially of solar energy, ahead of schedule. The marriage of cheap solar electricity and of large-scale hydrogen economy holds the tantalising promise of an energy surplus, not deficient, and import-dependent economy.

Negative aspects

The economy’s glass is more than half full, but we cannot ignore the negative aspects. Unemployment remains a huge challenge, as the youth still scramble for government jobs. The government disclosed in Parliament recently that 220 million Indians had applied for just seven lakh government jobs in the past seven years.

Besides, labour force participation rate is low, alarmingly so for women. Job creation is priority number one, even as nearly 70% of industrial jobs are vulnerable to becoming extinct, thanks to automation and robotics. Despite running the world’s biggest and longest-running free foodgrain distribution programme, India’s ranking in the world hunger index is abysmal, signifying the lopsided distribution of economic growth. Inequality in income, wealth, access to quality education and health facilities is widening.

Hence the tilt towards more welfare spending, which increases fiscal pressure. To generate 10 million jobs annually, we need lakhs of new enterprises to be born. That calls for ease of doing business, especially in areas such as dispute resolution and contract enforcement. But the judiciary is clogged with nearly 50 million cases. Judicial reform is as urgent as job creation. India is the fastest-growing large economy, proud of her democratic foundations, but much work remains to be done.

Ajit Ranade is an economist based in Pune



Read in source website

The values envisaged by the builders of India need to be imbibed for sustained progress

Seventy-five years ago, on this day, India’s first Prime Minister Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru made these remarks in his stirring speech on India attaining freedom at midnight: “The achievement we celebrate today is but a step, an opening of opportunity, to the greater triumphs and achievements that await us. Are we brave enough and wise enough to grasp this opportunity and accept the challenge of the future?” These words ring true even today just as when Independence unshackled India from British rule — a milestone that, in some cases, inspired the birth of other new nation-states across the world, freed from the yoke of colonialism. Independent India embarked upon a new journey, imbued with the vision of its freedom fighters and a mission set on course by the members of the Constituent Assembly who worked on its unique liberal democratic Constitution. There have been significant achievements — a constitutional scheme guaranteeing rights that included freedom of speech, religion and a secular state, implementation of universal adult franchise in periodic elections, a thriving legislature, establishments allowing for a formal separation of powers, a quasi-federal union of States that were reorganised on a linguistic basis, the building of institutions (industrial, educational, medical) that heralded progress, and the unleashing of knowledge and communication sectors that tied India beneficially to the world economy. There have also been missteps and failings — the inability to eradicate extreme poverty and marginalisation even though these did come down dramatically since 1947, the strains in implementing the constitutional order and values, burgeoning communal majoritarianism, which was decidedly rejected by both the freedom fighters as well as the framers of the Constitution, the incomplete nature of decentralisation of power, and rising economic inequality. Today, on the one hand, India stands tall as one of the world’s emerging economies with an advantageous demographic dividend, a vibrant democracy that ensures enthusiastic participation in elections, a diverse polity, and a diversified economy. But it also faces humongous challenges. Its people live in a more chaotic world where cooperation and liberal trade relations have taken a beating and where climate change is a challenge. Also, the emergence and consolidation of a dominant political force that seeks to centralise power and homogenise the idea of India has threatened to unravel the constitutional structure of recognition of diversity and inclusion as the means for overall progress. Economic progress through inclusive growth — a process that was accelerated following comprehensive reforms in the early 1990s and the institution of a rights-based approach towards welfare in the mid-2000s — has slowed down in the last few years. Meanwhile, there is an exacerbation of inter-State disparities, with southern and western India delivering better outcomes in education, health care and thoroughgoing economic growth than other regions, an issue that requires careful deliberation in the near future.

The successes and failures of the earlier generations in post-independent India have provided the nation with the pathways to address the challenges of the future. For one, it is clear that neither a statist nor a market-only emphasis on development and growth is ideal. India must continue policies, framed in the 1990s, of allowing entrepreneurial energies to flourish while relying on comprehensive welfare with a rights approach, which was given impetus in the late 2000s, to help utilise its demographic potential. In the early years of Independence, many modern institutions of higher education, industry and health care were built and endured but India missed out on a strong focus on primary health-care and education, a weakness that has led to the persistence of poverty and social marginalisation on the basis of caste. A bottom-up approach to development that should focus on building capabilities of the citizenry through both affirmative actions and state responsiveness would lead to better release of productive forces in the economy. States getting more fiscal latitude and local governments being empowered to implement programmes could go a long way in achieving this. While, since the reforms in 1991, interdependence in a globalised world allowed for the export sectors to flourish, the lack of diversified employment and increased labour productivity in comparison to other countries such as China or South Korea is a failing. As the world transits towards a new industrial revolution in its reliance on technologies such as 5G, the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, robotics, and green technologies, India must embark upon building significant capabilities in these in a way that does not just result in a few corporations gaining but which allows for more gainful employment and diversification of the economy. In external relations, while India must continue to skilfully navigate the contradictions emerging in the international order with an emphasis on its interests, it should not disavow the time-tested adherence to values — of non-interference, building an equanimous world order and striving for peace — that allowed it to emerge as a leader of the non-aligned world. India has come a long way since 1947 in finding its footing among the comity of nations, but there still needs a lot more distance to be travelled in fulfilling the promise that Pandit Nehru spoke of, on the eve of Independence. India’s Independence generation was clear that freedom from British rule was meaningless without a constitutional order that governs a democratic system predicated on social justice, equality and unity in diversity as these were the promises that gained them the intellectual ballast and the support of the people to overcome colonialism. India’s progress in the 21st century would depend upon the re-ignition of these values.



Read in source website

India’s women dream for the nation and, to borrow the words of first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, will help “build the noble mansion of free India where all her children may dwell”.

As India turns 75, it offers a vantage point to trace the journey of a nation written off at birth as too poor, too unequal, too illiterate. It has defied tremendous scepticism and magnificent odds to come far — and not far enough. Today brings a moment to look back at both the accomplishments and the failures of a diverse people travelling together, as they shape their different and common destinies. It is the time, also, to stand on tiptoe and look ahead — at India@100. What will it be, how should it be? While there can be different answers to this question, one thing is certain: The country of the future must learn to give greater space and more power to its women. Not as state benevolence or government largesse, not as a benefit flowing from the “women’s empowerment” scheme. The woman is already a beneficiary, among others, of the development programme, and political parties are making more of a point of counting her in because they have been quick to notice that female turnouts are overtaking those of men. But the woman, now and in the future, is not merely the voter and the labharthi. She must be addressed and listened to and made room for at the top, because that is her right. And because her right to freedom and equality has not been fully acknowledged, from the early afterglow of independence, when the nation forgot its founding mothers — and sisters and daughters, too — while raising a toast to its founding fathers, to this day, 75 years later.

Ahead of this August 15, The Indian Express framed a half-sentence and invited women who have made a mark, across sectors and fields, to complete it: “India at 100 to me is…” That’s why today’s editorial and ideas pages carry the first set of responses and flag off a continuing series in these pages. These voices are important and valuable because it is women who are natural change-makers, the half that is far less likely to benefit from the status quo. Women need more open spaces to shake off all that holds them back, and to spread their wings. Shared setbacks such as Covid have affected them more, pushed them back into the confines of homes, increased their burdens of duties and responsibilities — between 2010 and 2020, the figures for working women in India showed a steep decline, from 26 per cent to 19 per cent, according to World Bank data, and post-pandemic, the challenge of restoring jobs for women is likely to be even more daunting.

Of course, in an India where a self-made Droupadi Murmu has just become President, women want a better country for themselves, and for all. In our special package today, Rohini Nilekani has great hopes from the young: “People are fed up with the binaries. They want to go back to the rich hues in between the blacks and the whites… And hopefully it is the young people of this nation, who are naturally idealistic and freedom loving, who will shape the society of their dreams”. Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw looks forward to a “global innovation leader focussed on equitable and inclusive economic growth”. For Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit, a civilisation-state that “rests on the shoulders of powerful women such as Sita, Draupadi, Kannagi and Manimekalai” will come into its own only when “women will be able reclaim and reconstruct such a strong civilisational heritage”. KK Shailaja writes that “An India where a citizen can get killed for expressing themselves freely will be a country where democracy has died”. And Soumya Swaminathan looks ahead at a country where “the concept of health care has changed and the government invests much more not just in delivery of clinical care services but in the upstream determinants of health like clean water, air, green spaces, good public transportation and healthy diets.” India’s women dream for the nation and, to borrow the words of first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, will help “build the noble mansion of free India where all her children may dwell”.



Read in source website

As Rushdie battles severe injuries and faces uncertain long-term health consequences from the attack, there is only one certainty: His words will continue to pierce the darkness.

In The Satanic Verses (1988), that made writer Salman Rushdie a faultline in the battle for free speech, he wrote: “Language is courage: the ability to conceive a thought, to speak it, and by doing so to make it true.” What Rushdie did not write was that violence is cowardice, especially when it is used to threaten, intimidate and erase words and voices that some find offensive or unpalatable. Hadi Matar, who attacked Rushdie, stabbing him several times on a stage before he was about to speak at Chautauqua Institution in New York state, in a discussion about the United States as a safe haven for exiled writers and other artists who are under the threat of persecution, tried to silence his words with a knife. But ideas are stronger than the weapons used to target them. Despite the severe injuries he is battling, what Rushdie continues to stand for – more than ever – is the right not only to speak but also to offend.

Matar (24) had not been born when The Satanic Verses was first published, or when the book was banned in India. In New Jersey, where the would-be assassin lives, Ayatollah Khomeini’s writ – and the fatwa issued on February 14, 1989 – would have held little sway. Now in custody, Matar will not get the $3-million bounty that Iran’s Supreme Leader had placed on Rushdie’s head. In fact, in 1998, the Iranian government distanced itself from the fatwa. Through it all, though, Rushdie did not give in to the intimidation: At an Indian Express Idea Exchange in 2013, he said: “Yes, I would write The Satanic Verses again…people define their identity not by what they love but what they hate.” As of now, Matar’s motives – his social media activity reportedly indicates sympathy for extremist Shia causes – are not known. But no motive can be justification for the attack. In his memoir, Joseph Anton, Rushdie recounted the years he spent in hiding because there were people who thought that killing him was an act of religious merit. However, the fear of irreverence, found across political and religious ideologies and beliefs, is a function, more, of the insecurities of the powerful. It rears its head when they fear being questioned; when they realise that a subversive book opens up new spaces and possibilities to ask questions of power. This fear is then mobilised and weaponised to stoke violence. It is important also, in the aftermath of the attack on Rushdie, to remember that Muslim groups across the world, including the Muslim Council of Britain, were among the first to condemn it.

Those that know Rushdie’s work have found the truest expression of his political worldview not in his many political essays and polemical articles but in a novella that he wrote for his first son. In Haroun and The Sea of Stories (1990), the Shah of Blah (a storyteller of great renown), goes to the Land of K (under quasi-military occupation by a powerful state) and loses his voice and his words. In the dreamland of stories, Haroun battles the insecure, small-minded powers that would silence everyone and have them live in a land of eternal obedience for the sake of his father, the Shah (a proxy for Rushdie). In the land of silence, the storytellers won, and “the black ice of that dark fortress received the sunlight like a mortal wound.” As Rushdie battles severe injuries and faces uncertain long-term health consequences from the attack, there is only one certainty: His words will continue to pierce the darkness.



Read in source website

The UK has been the beneficiary of great talent of Indian heritage as a consequence of the two nations’ long, complex and sometimes painful history. Both must now look ahead to the next 75 years, which offer a tremendous opportunity to write new chapters.

Written by Alex Ellis

The first person from India I saw in the flesh was the legendary spin bowler Bishen Singh Bedi. It was a good start. Even at the distance from the stands to the square at Lord’s, and with the inexperienced eyes of a nine-year-old, I had some sense of this great Indian cricketer’s craft, intelligence and strength.

Nearly 50 years on, it is my pleasure and honour to serve as the British High Commissioner to India on the landmark anniversary, 75 years of India’s Independence, marking the moment when this great nation awoke to “life and freedom”. It represents an important milestone which will be celebrated from the top to the tip of India. This tryst with destiny resonates well beyond the subcontinent including in my own country. So, like India — and indeed the world — I want to mark the contribution which my compatriots of Indian origin have made, are making and will continue to make to the United Kingdom.

The extraordinary success of 1.5 million British people of Indian origin is apparent in many walks of life in the UK. It is evident in politics with several high profile members of recent cabinets, and from across both Houses of Parliament, of Indian heritage. So too in the UK’s engagement with the world; the British minister who banged the gavel on the Glasgow Climate Pact bringing together 192 countries, was Alok Sharma, born in Agra. It is evident in health, with Indian nationals comprising the largest group of professionals working in the National Health Service after the British themselves; and in the contribution of outstanding researchers and academics, including the last President of the Royal Society, Nobel Prize-winning scientist Venki Ramakrishnan.

Indian culture is ever more part of British life; the celebration of Diwali and of Holi in the streets of UK’s biggest cities, the Indian food served inside and outside the home, including the Bombay restaurant which fed me through my university years, the support given by gurdwaras and temples during the worst stages of the pandemic, and indeed the extraordinary response of British Indians to the second wave of Covid in India, are all testament to the contribution of the Indian diaspora in the UK.

This contribution extends to my own profession, diplomacy. In a new twist to diversity, two of the most senior diplomats in the British foreign office are an Iyer and an Iyengar, and the lead British official for our Free Trade Agreement negotiations with India started his life in Punjab. Statistics show the wider story of success; one estimate is that British people of Indian heritage rank amongst the highest in educational attainment, are twice as likely to go to university and are amongst the top wage earners compared to the population at large.

That extraordinary contribution has not happened by accident. It is a testament not only to the ability of the people themselves, but also to their families. Many of those families, whether coming directly from India or very often via East Africa, took risks in coming to the UK and had to face adversity and sometimes hostility when they arrived. As they settled and integrated, overcoming these challenges, their children thrived, benefiting from a strong emphasis on education and aspiration. On this day we should celebrate and give thanks to those families too.

That the UK has been a beneficiary of such talent of Indian heritage is the consequence of our long, complex and sometimes painful, history. Some of those who have prospered in the UK came because of the terrible events around Partition, including Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, the British minister now responsible for our relationship with India and South Asia. But his subsequent story and that of so many others is perhaps one of the happier chapters in our shared history, and one which I think my grandfather, who served in the Indian Army for a decade before becoming a teacher, would have welcomed.

We must now look ahead to the next 75 years, which offers a tremendous opportunity to write new chapters for both countries, whether on science, sustainability or shared prosperity. I am delighted that this year will see 75 talented Indians going to the UK on government scholarships — supported by iconic British and Indian companies like HSBC, Hindustan Unilever, Tata, the Adani Group, and Pearson. I hope to see even more Indian students coming to the UK and vice-versa. The British Council is celebrating a season of culture bringing together British and Indian artists. And I hope Indian athletes received a warm and familiar welcome at the Commonwealth Games in Birmingham.

These exchanges help strengthen the living bridge between our nations — to build an even stronger relationship based on mutual respect and understanding. There will be growing economic opportunities, hopefully underpinned by a Free Trade Agreement by Diwali this year. I am sure future high commissioners will be able to celebrate a genuine partnership of equals between two natural partners which is wider, deeper and more confident than ever — and supported by the huge contribution which the British people of Indian heritage will continue to make. The United Kingdom is the better for it; my thanks to them all on India at 75.

(The writer is British High Commissioner to India)



Read in source website

His life, teachings and legacy have contributed to the idea of India that embodies a revolutionary zeal deeply rooted in its cultural values and complex histories

As India celebrates the 75th anniversary of its Independence, the day also happens to be the 150th birth anniversary of Sri Aurobindo, once a renowned revolutionary, who later became a spiritual master. His life and teachings remain relevant to our turbulent times, and there is much to learn from the vast philosophical and political writings he has left behind.

Aurobindo was born in 1872. He was only seven when his Anglophile father sent his three sons to England for their education — Aurobindo studied Classics Tripos at Cambridge. Having ticked all the checkboxes to join the ICS ranks, somehow, Aurobindo either failed or failed to appear for the horse-riding tests, abjuring the career of a British Raj bureaucrat. In the UK, Aurobindo’s only tenuous link with India was through the newspaper clippings sent by his father; remarkably, despite spending all his adolescence in the UK, Aurobindo was a Francophile. In 1893, after a 14-year exile, Aurobindo returned to India and joined the Baroda state, first as a bureaucrat and then as a professor of French at the Baroda college. However, he spent considerable time and energy mastering Indian languages, philosophy and scriptures.

As an indomitable intellectual and an ardent nationalist, he published articles in the Bombay-based journal Indu Prakash attacking the extractive British and indolent Congressmen. Aurobindo’s pragmatic strategies to get rid of British rule marked him as “the Prophet of Indian Nationalism”. In 1893, a good 22 years before Gandhi, he had asked the elite Congressmen to cede the leadership of the independence struggle to the proletariat. Aurobindo publicly hailed the blood and fire approach of the French revolution against the glacial process of the British parliamentary dialogue. Unsurprisingly, his tone upset the powers-to-be, so Aurobindo was asked to change the topic — he wrote a series on Bankim Chandra’s Vande Mataram, attributing divine nationhood to “Mother India” and depicting the independence struggle as the sacred cause of freedom.

In the context of the political discourses today, it is important to remember that Aurobindo adopted spiritual nationalism as his political credo, not parochial or chauvinistic but one that enabled India to “fulfil her destiny as the spiritual guide of humanity at large”— making Aurobindo one of the earliest proponents of the notion of “India as the Vishwa Guru”. Adding to the gendered discourse on India’s subjugation, Aurobindo argued, much like the Algerian revolutionary, Frantz Fanon, that Pax Britannica had led to a loss of manliness, and retributive violence was mandatory to vindicate one’s manhood.

The partition of Bengal in 1905 provoked Aurobindo to leave his job in Baroda and plunge into the nationalist movement. He started the patriotic journal Bande Mataram to propagate radical methods and revolutionary tactics instead of supplication. Aurobindo’s defiance drew reprisal; he was arrested thrice by the British — twice for sedition and once for conspiring to “wage war”. Bizarrely, one can find several such “offenders” in contemporary India. During his incarceration, Aurobindo was placed in solitary confinement for six months when he began the practice of yoga. Though acquitted, Aurobindo faced a constant threat of jail or exile to the Andamans, forcing him to seek refuge in Pondicherry, a French enclave.

In Pondicherry, Aurobindo eschewed overt political activities and embraced spiritual pursuits, soon to emerge as one of the most original thinkers, philosophers and spiritual masters. He met Mirra Alfassa in Pondicherry, and their spiritual collaboration led to “Integral Yoga”. Aurobindo retreated into virtual seclusion, anointing Alfassa as “the Mother” to lead the organisation. As a French citizen, Alfassa guided the unprecedented expansion of the Aurobindo Ashram, on occasions playing on the rivalry between the British and French to her advantage.

Several Indians saw the Second World War as an opportune moment to get rid of colonial occupation; Aurobindo, an unswerving internationalist, asked his compatriots to support the Allies and ensure Hitler’s defeat. Aurobindo was fortunate to see Indian independence and, in a rare public appearance, spoke on the radio to present his vision for India. He was a prolific writer, producing several insightful treatises on Indian religious, spiritual and cultural knowledge. In 1943, he was nominated for the Nobel Prize for literature and then again in 1950 for the Nobel Peace Prize.

India’s anti-colonial political movement invoked the notion of cultural and civilisational superiority vis-à-vis the material strength of the Western civilisation. Such a narrative attracted several Europeans to India; Sister Nivedita pursued Swami Vivekananda, while Mirabehn followed Mahatma Gandhi. Unlike the other two luminaries, Aurobindo put Alfassa on a high pedestal as the embodiment of the Divine Mother and also his Shakti (power). Thus, unlike the other two European women who struggled after the death of their mentors, Alfassa continued to flourish even after Aurobindo’s death in 1950. In independent India, she successfully negotiated with the postcolonial state to establish Auroville, one of the most exceptional townships, epitomising internationalism, cosmopolitanism and universal values.

Aurobindo’s life, teachings and legacy have contributed to the idea of India that embodies a revolutionary zeal deeply rooted in its cultural values and complex histories. For any meaningful and informed dialogue on India’s civilisational past, an engagement with icons like Aurobindo and Alfassa is mandatory. Religion for Aurobindo is “the following of the spiritual impulse in its fullness” and spirituality “as the attempt to know and live in the highest self, the divine, the all-embracing unity and to raise life in all its parts to the divinest possible values”. He was one of the first original thinkers to have paved the way for India’s mandate as “the spiritual guide to humanity” or the “Vishwaguru”, and that mandate was based on spiritual anchoring, inclusivity and shared humanity.

The writer is a researcher at the School of Global Studies, University of Gothenburg, Sweden



Read in source website

Rohini Nilekani writes: They bring energy, passion, diversity into the work they do, as the battle for justice, environmental sustainability, rights and dignity of the vulnerable. In a country that will still be young on its 100th I-Day, this active citizenship is heartening news

It is 75 years since we raised our own flag in our own country, reclaiming it for ever more. What a time for celebration. Here we are, a young democracy, alive with the throbbing hopes of a young population, seeking to fulfil the promise of the Constitution that we gave ourselves in the new India.

As we celebrate the past, we also look ahead. What can we do, as a nation, as a samaj, as citizens, to bring peace and prosperity to all those who live on this beloved soil? Not just people of one religion, or some castes, or some geographies, but all our people. After all, even if our public posturing may sometimes diverge, our interests are indisputably shared.

So what must we do? That is the question that should be in all our minds on August 15 as we unfurl the flag in every home and every heart.

I will share what makes me personally optimistic. Despite global shocks, the fundamentals of our economy seem to be sound. The race to abundance may be ours to lose. India has laid out the world’s most advanced and innovative open digital public infrastructure. I truly believe this is the foundation for economic democracy in this country. We can now go full-speed ahead in this digital age to allow more access, and more participation in a re-imagined economy that hopes to be more innovative and much greener. Big business seems to have bet big on this path. Now small businesses need policy backing and capital to build the vision from bottom up to put India on a more sustainable path.

Meanwhile, there seems to be a cultural resurgence that has pulled millions of people out of lethargy into a visible pride and celebration of India’s 5,000-year-old civilisation, its rich and diverse rituals and traditions, its public artefacts, and its mythology. India is asserting its soft power at home and in the world. From Kashmir to Kerala and from Rajasthan to Manipur, communities are building on their traditions to innovate for a modern economy. At 75 years, India seems confident and poised for leadership in the world.

But we shouldn’t take our successes for granted, because the same things that make India strong could also make it weak.

If we falter in democratising economic opportunity, if we succumb to a regime of crony capitalism, then we will stifle innovation, and have even more concentrated wealth in the hands of an unaccountable elite. It is essential that samaj, sarkar and bazaar work together to expand livelihood opportunities and dignity across the length and breadth of the country, not just in a few pockets. If we can reduce the trust deficit, and distribute the ability of each sector to do what it does best, such inter-sector collaboration can do wonders.

We all experienced the recent example of the collective power of cooperation during the Covid-19 pandemic. Across the globe, and certainly so in India, ordinary people, civil society institutions, private philanthropy, the state, and markets came together in record time to push back against the virus. For all the dark days of death and desperation, it was truly an important two years in human history. We have learnt so many lessons that when the next crisis comes around, we might be better prepared to cooperate more quickly and effectively.

There are other headwinds to face. The same cultural resurgence we celebrate can lead to jingoism, or it can leave some communities and geographies feeling excluded or uneasy. Social media, with its ability to trivialise, heighten the emotional response, and sustain mutual animosities, makes it harder to build bridges of trust.

It will take some time for social conventions around these interactions to settle into a better normal. But I truly believe we are getting past the sell-by date for public acrimony. People are fed up with the binaries. They want to go back to the rich hues in between the blacks and the whites that this country has lived in for millennia. And hopefully, it is the young people of this nation, who are naturally idealistic and freedom-loving, who will shape the society of their dreams.

I often catch up with youth leaders around the country, and any anxiety I may feel about the future simply vanishes. They bring much energy, passion, diversity, and creativity into the work they do, whether it is for better access to justice, more environmental sustainability or for the rights and dignity of the most vulnerable of communities. Born as digital natives, they are also unleashing the power of technology for social good. Slowly but surely, many are building solid processes for youth to become more active as concerned citizens. In a country that will still be young on its 100th Independence Day, this active citizenship is heartening news for our democracy.

If we can unite in our incredible diversity, nothing can stop this country from blazing ahead. Building on our heritage, we can pioneer a path for the world to follow, whether it comes to co-existing with nature, innovating inclusive markets or scaling up service delivery. But we cannot take such a future for granted. Every citizen will have to work for it, there are no bystanders of good fortune. Everyone will need to internalise that our fates are entwined. The elite, especially, cannot afford to secede anymore. No one is safe until everyone is safe, whether it comes to climate change, pandemics or breathable air. So all of samaj will have to actively pitch in to make sure bazaar and sarkar play their role in making the world’s largest democracy also the most peaceful and prosperous for all its citizens. We are so lucky that our founders created this magnificent, humanitarian ideal for us to follow. It is up to us, the diverse, vibrant samaj of India, to realise this country’s tryst with destiny. Hopefully, we can then look back at August 15, 2022, as our Navaratna Jubilee.

The writer is chairperson, Arghyam, a foundation working on sustainable water



Read in source website

People live longer, are much healthier, have access to all health services, good nutrition, clean air and water.

The sky over North India is blue and the air is clear and crisp on a winter morning. The multigenerational rural family lives in a well-ventilated pukka house with an attached bathroom and running water. All houses have solar panels and the energy generated is connected to a local grid. Gone are the days when wood and other solid fuel had to be used for cooking. The young mother of two cooks breakfast and lunch on an electric stove, while her husband gets the children ready for school. The family takes the local solar battery operated bus to the school and their places of work. The husband works as a teacher at a local school and the wife is a clinical nurse practitioner. She and a colleague run the family health and wellness centre catering to about 5,000 people. She knows all the families and has a full record of each individual’s health. Her tablet device tells her the visits she has to make, and a list of medicines and supplies she needs to carry.

First, she has a group tele-consultation with the diabetic specialist at the district hospital. She finds a group of patients waiting for her at the centre — they have done self-tests at the diagnostic kiosk and have their results in hand. Soon, the doctor is on the screen for a virtual care session. Each individual gets a chance to report on their health parameters (BP, blood sugar, weight) and ask questions. While some are doing well, others have poor control of their blood sugar and need tailored advice from a specialist. The nutritionist then comes online to discuss healthy and affordable recipes.

Next are the home visits — to check in on pregnant women and those who are breastfeeding their infants, check if immunisation records are up to date (people of all ages and not just children receive vaccines), see if all the children are in school or if there are any teenagers facing difficulties or appearing depressed and do the monthly blood pressure checks on all adults in one part of the village. She also has to screen for cancer using a portable ultrasonic device for solid tumours and a biomarker in urine for others. She never fails to marvel at the fact that she has detected many early cancer cases, all of which have been cured. And the best part — no family has to sell land or jewellery to get treatment. While tuberculosis is rare, she still screens anyone with a cough or fever. Her training in public health means that she is quick to pick up unusual events, like a cluster of fever or diarrhoea cases, and report them to the district epidemiologist. She rarely comes across a family that is reluctant to have a girl child; literacy is 100 per cent.

Older people, those with disabilities and dementia, all go to a community centre where a trained physiotherapist and two aides keep them engaged. The crèche is next door where working women can leave their children, knowing they will receive both physical care and cognitive stimulation and learning through play. Quite often, the children come to the elder care facility and there is a happy mixing of generations. While life expectancy in India now exceeds 80 years, people are healthier because of the focus on disease prevention and health promotion.

The concept of healthcare has changed and the government invests much more not just in the delivery of clinical care services but in the upstream determinants of health like clean water, air, green spaces, public transport and healthy diets. Health is recognised as being critical for human capital and, therefore, economic development.

Because of the tremendous improvements in agricultural productivity and diversification of crops, a variety of millets, cereals and pulses are available through the PDS. There are village nutrition gardens as well. So, all families can afford three healthy meals a day, with adequate portions of fruits, vegetables and protein. The primary health centre functions seven days a week and a lot of specialist advice is through tele-health. For patients on chronic disease treatment, the drugs arrive through the postman and patients need to complete a simple form on their mobile phones which updates their electronic health records.

India is not only self-sufficient in (most) drugs, diagnostics, vaccines and medical devices, but is part of several global and regional consortia that are focusing R&D efforts on diseases that disproportionately affect developing countries. Targeted, individualised treatments (monoclonal antibodies) for cancer based on genetic markers and CrispR gene therapy for hereditary diseases are now available at many centres. Thanks to the trust in government healthcare, most citizens are comfortable with sharing their health data with the government, so that real time analyses of data on disease burden and risk factors in different communities can inform policy making.

The national health assembly meets every year, with representatives from all states coming together to discuss priority health topics and find solutions. This participatory exercise started during the 75th year of India’s Independence and has since matured into a mutually respectful, beneficial and enriching dialogue.

The older generation would often talk about the pandemic years of 2020 and 2021, how frightening everything was then, and how the approach to health changed dramatically after that experience. After that big shock, health literacy improved — many of those who died of Covid had underlying high blood pressure, obesity or diabetes — and people became more conscious of the need for regular screening and prevention of non-communicable diseases. The realisation that the quality of our lives is intertwined with the health of our environment and all the species which inhabit the land and the water alongside us (one health), reminded us of the importance of living in harmony with nature. As the oldest book known to us, the Rig Veda, says: “Sweet blow the winds/Sweet flow the rivers/May the herbs be sweet to us/May the nights and days bring happiness/May the dust of the earth yield us happiness.”



Read in source website

K K Shailaja writes: I hope that will be an India where freedom of expression is not curtailed, people are allowed to express themselves without fear

As we celebrate the 75th anniversary of our Independence, it’s time to reflect on how India was in 1947, how it changed in the past 75 years, and how independent India ought to be at 100.

Imperialist Britain left India impoverished at the time of Independence. Feudalism was dominant across the country. The most debased form of feudalism is the caste system. We believed that a democratic system would prevail in independent India and feudalism and its offshoots, such as casteism, would be completely wiped out. The makers of the Constitution sought to transform India into a vibrant democracy. The Preamble states that India will be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic.

The core of democracy is providing equality of opportunity to all citizens. After 75 years of independence, India is far behind in human resources development, poverty eradication, and the happiness index. Our development story has been about the rich becoming richer and the poor remaining poor or being pushed further to the fringes.

After Independence, India should have eradicated feudalism and the caste system. Land reforms and a revolution in agricultural relations were necessary. That did not happen. We have a lot of fertile land from where raw materials necessary for development, including industrial development, could be procured. The growth of agricultural and industrial sectors, with the participation of people and supervised by the government, did not materialise.

A government can lead the country to a bright future by creating laws for fighting conservative attitudes and inhuman systems that discriminate and promote misogyny. Inhuman traditions can’t be allowed to continue in the name of religion. For example, the British abolished the practice of Sati on the ground that it was an inhuman tradition even though it claimed the backing of religion. However, we couldn’t direct the development of our country based on scientific values as envisioned by leaders such as Jawaharlal Nehru. It has now come to a point where the self-proclaimed majority religion would dictate and the rest of the country should follow. India is on an undemocratic, non-secular path.

Secularism is an ideal no democratic country can ignore. India has five to six major religions, nearly 6,000 castes, and about 1,600 languages. If we cannot accept this “diversity” with “unity”, we are sure to fail as a nation. In today’s India, diversity remains only in the Constitution and is missing in action. Since the BJP came to power at the Centre, the use of religion and caste for votes and power has been normalised — India is becoming a divided nation.

The India envisioned in our Constitution is different. As we move towards the 100th year of Independence, this is the grave state of affairs we need to confront. The people who are at the receiving end are mostly the poor, especially the women from Dalit communities. Indian women make up just 23 per cent of the workforce, wherein they face the discrimination of unequal pay. The rest of them are forced to stay at home. The 33 per cent reservation for women after the introduction of the Panchayat Raj helped them to access political institutions at the grass roots and voice their concerns. Women who comprise 50 per cent of the population should assume positions of power to make sure that they are represented fairly. Countries that are behind India in development indices have better women representation in government and political institutions.

Socialism has to be the inevitable aim of a democratic nation. Socialism is about giving the opportunity to every citizen to work and contribute to the building of their nation without facing any discrimination. It is a system where everyone is equal, irrespective of their gender and social status. For socialism to prevail, the government should make progressive laws, the executive should implement these laws, and the judiciary should back them. This is yet to become a reality in India. The neoliberal economic vision guiding leaders today should be abandoned.

I belong to the Left political tradition and my party, the CPM, has held office multiple times in Kerala. There is only so much that a party elected to rule a state can do under a federal Constitution. Despite that, if Kerala has done better, it is because of the land, educational, and medical reforms in the state. Human resource development and quality of life in Kerala are of a higher degree than in many other states despite its actual economic condition. If these developments are to become sustainable, the whole country has to work towards reducing social and economic inequality. Or else, many will be forced into poverty.

The India we foresee in its 100th year of independence is one in which secularism prevails, which is devoid of gender discrimination, and has ended caste hierarchies. It should be able to create citizens who are proud of the nation’s diversity: People should not be divided based on religion, caste or language. Language is important for nurturing culture, but every language should be given equal respect. People may want to practise religious beliefs, but they should do so without disrespecting other religions. They should also be ready to change according to the times.

I hope that India at 100 will be an India where the freedom of expression is not curtailed and people are allowed to express themselves without the fear of religious extremists. An India where a citizen can get killed for expressing themselves freely will be a country where democracy has died.

I hope when India reaches its 100th year of freedom, the poor will have their own land, access to free education, electricity, drinking water, quality employment and fair pay, and an affordable market. I wish for an India where children can excel in studies without facing gender discrimination. I wish for an India where women and men will engage and grow with respect for each other; an India where women do not face sexual assault. I wish for an India devoid of communal riots; an India that is secular, socialist and democratic, as stated in our Constitution.

The writer, a senior CPI-M leader, was health minister of Kerala during 2016-2021



Read in source website

Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit writes: Women’s emancipation and empowerment need to be first fought for at the level of ideas and narratives. It is at the level of the mind and intellect where the real battle for us lies, from now to India at 100

The journey of India at 75 to India at 100 makes me think of many things. But there are two things in particular that capture my imagination: Making higher education more Indo-centric and reducing the gender gap at the top. Even after 75 years of Independence, women have a long way to go. The journey towards equality and equity with inclusion is still long and tedious and appears to be a pipe dream.

Women’s leadership in higher education and education-related decision-making bodies at the government level is largely absent as these remain boys’ clubs. Only seven of India’s 54 central universities have women vice-chancellors. This is despite girls outnumbering boys in higher education admissions and women constituting more than 50 per cent of the entry-level university teaching positions. The situation is even worse if one is from the reserved categories.

There are several reasons for this: Women need to multitask; marriage and family are still considered women’s responsibilities; despite being qualified, women continue to be hobbled by the ruthless, identity-based politics that plague our higher education institutions. In addition, women must fight entrenched patriarchy and male hegemony. It takes a lot of courage, time and energy to fight these social ills and many women just do not want to, as the fight can get dirty and time-consuming. The few who dare to fight are maligned. A woman’s assertiveness is seen as aggressiveness.

These inequalities are further confirmed by the 2022 World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap Index. India’s overall score has improved from 0.625 (in 2021) to 0.629, its seventh-highest score in the last 16 years. It will now take 132 years to reach gender parity, with the gap reducing only by four years since 2021. This is a dim prospect for a civilisation state that boasts of the elevation of the feminine.

We need to rediscover and reinvent our civilisational journey. The emancipation and empowerment of the Indian mind is the first step. We are disconnected and colonised in our thinking and scholarship. In the last 75 years, we have moved between self-hatred and self-loathing and just imitating the West without any understanding of ourselves. It is time that we start this intellectual journey towards the creation of knowledge that is original and goes back to our roots. This journey is a must for every Indian who wants India to be a Vishwa Guru. This is my vision for India at 100. Technology and other means are important but they are just instruments and cannot replace the quality of the human mind.

Just take the sad plight that we are in with regard to the status of women, although the present government is doing its best to break the various glass ceilings. For me, the glass ceiling to be broken is the intellectual slavery of the Indian mind where all that is Western is good and anything Indian is seen as being regressive and therefore bad. All events need to be secularised and the invaders humanised.

In history, we often tend to sing of the valour of men who conquered cities with violence and forget the women’s side of the story. Even though women generously populate our civilisational stories, there has hardly been any retelling of these stories from a feminine perspective till recently. We are a civilisation which has always elevated the feminine and celebrated the harmony of the masculine and the feminine in the image of the Ardhanarishwar.

Goddesses represent the humanisation of various abstract values. In the concept of the Tridevi, Parvati represents power, Lakshmi represents fortune and Saraswati represents knowledge. And unlike Parvati, who is the epitome of motherhood, Saraswati is pretty firm that she doesn’t believe in marriage and love. She is trying to say that it is more important to love yourself as an individual and love your own work; unless you do that, you won’t be a positive asset for society and the people around you.

Women characters are misinterpreted. Take Savitri, who outwitted Yama with her determination and argument. Another politically strong person is Tara, Bali and Sugriva’s wife, who is the reason why the vanaras become part of Rama’s army. If one looks at all these women, it is clear that they have been misinterpreted because of social pressure and ignorance. Pativratas are women who broke the rules. Which other tradition has this progressive, even revolutionary, narrative?

In one of the earliest recorded protests against a male-dominated world and society, Draupadi’s fight against injustice reflects one of the first acts of feminism — a fight for one’s rights. In this case, it was the right to avenge the wrongs inflicted on her. She is exemplified as one of the earliest feminists, be it in terms of polyandry — regarded as a matter of censure by society, then and now — or in terms of her thirst for revenge. Why can’t Sita be seen as the first single mother?

Unless and until India becomes a norm-builder we will go nowhere. We will just be imitating the other while losing all that is our own. Institutions of higher education must open themselves up to multiple Indic narratives because they represent the space where true liberation can begin in the mind. The emancipation and empowerment of women need to be fought for first at the level of ideas and narratives. It is at the level of the mind and intellect where the real battle for us lies, from now to India in 2047.

India is a civilisational state that rests on the shoulders of women such as Sita, Draupadi, Kannagi and Manimekalai. They were unconventional, intelligent, strong-willed and capable of taking independent decisions and exercising their autonomy. India at 100 will be where women will be able to reclaim and reconstruct such a strong civilisational heritage by leading the state from the front as leaders across all fields.

The writer is Vice-Chancellor, Jawaharlal Nehru University



Read in source website

Kiran Mazumdar Shaw writes: By 2047 India could become a knowledge economy powered by cutting-edge research. Inclusivity and increasing participation of women hold the key

My vision for India in the 100th year of its Independence is that of a global innovation leader focused on equitable and inclusive economic growth where everyone prospers in a secure environment with equal access to healthcare, education and sustainable livelihoods.

It is by investing in breakthrough ideas and embracing entrepreneurship as an economic model of growth that India will be able to unleash the power of innovation to ensure a better life for all its citizens. Research and innovation, fuelled by technology, will catalyse the kind of non-linear growth that will make the country one of the world’s top three economies and bring it closer to developed nation status by 2047.

The government has identified research, innovation and technology as the key drivers of its VisionIndia@2047 and is making significant investments in these areas. Going forward, it must enable and support innovative start-ups and businesses that think locally but have the potential to make an enormous global impact. By encouraging technopreneurs to grow from small and medium enterprises (SMEs) to large industrial-scale operations, India will be able to create a compelling opportunity to take innovative ideas to global markets. We should aim to be among the top 20 countries in the Global Innovation Index by 2047.

Digital and data-backed innovation combined with ubiquitous and affordable internet will help India build a robust digital economy of the future.

Given India’s value advantage and scientific excellence, the country can innovate and drive the technology frontier outward to boost productivity and efficiency in the sphere of healthcare, thus delivering affordability and accessibility, enabling preventive health approaches and driving value across the complete spectrum of the healthcare ecosystem.

Technology-led innovations will help India leapfrog the traditional linear model and take healthcare to the next level. It will help us build a national healthcare system, which is accessible, organised, accountable, affordable and, thus, resilient.

The groundwork for a digital transformation of healthcare in India has already been laid, thanks to the reforms being implemented by the Centre to make healthcare-related regulations more flexible. At the same time, the pandemic has forced changes in consumer behaviour, persuaded doctors to become tech-savvy and prompted the healthcare industry to invest in user-friendly digital solutions. These developments have created a fertile environment for the emergence of low-cost, technology-led and scalable innovations anchored in affordability and accessibility.

To reap the full benefits of this digital disruption of healthcare, India will need to coordinate policymaking, funding and implementation. It will also need to put in place appropriate regulatory frameworks that foster patient trust and privacy, as well as enable faster adoption of emerging technological innovations.

The government aims to raise public spending on healthcare to 2.5 per cent of GDP by 2025. India must aspire to raise healthcare spending to 5 per cent of GDP by 2047 to truly deliver standardised and quality universal healthcare.

The resulting spurt in technological innovation will empower patients, address the needs of underserved populations and ensure universal access and affordable care to all Indians by 2047.

India’s pharmaceutical industry is at the global forefront as “the Pharmacy of the World”, ranking third in terms of pharmaceutical production by volume. In the next 25 years, India needs to be able to capture a higher share of the pharmaceutical value chain. For this, we need to focus on emerging opportunities across novel biologics, biosimilars, cell and gene therapies, high-end contract research and manufacturing services, mRNA and other new-generation vaccines, orphan drugs, precision medicines and molecular diagnostics. With the right kind of policies, the Indian pharma industry will be able to grow from the current $50 billion to $500 billion by 2047 and rank among the top five countries in value terms and No. 1 in volume terms.

The roadmap to achieving the $500 billion trajectory lies in our abilities to pursue cutting-edge research and innovation, conduct global-scale operations and create a robust regulatory system. Research Linked Incentives (RLIs) can provide the impetus for the pharma industry to increase R&D investments, as well as encourage greater industry-academia partnerships. Building capacity and world-class capabilities across the pharma value chain will help us realise our aspirational potential of 10 times growth in pharma and biopharma by 2047.

To become a global economic power by 2047, India will need to empower its women. As a nation, we must give women the opportunities and freedom to engage in productive work in the economic mainstream and liberate them from the shackles of unpaid labour.

Female participation in the formal labour force in India is currently estimated at a dismal 24 per cent, among the lowest in developing nations. Most Indian women work in the informal sector in jobs with limited social protection and low wages. It is estimated that the Indian economy could grow by an additional 60 per cent by 2025, adding $2.9 trillion, if women were represented in the formal economy at the same rate as men. If the Indian economy is to achieve double-digit growth it can no longer ignore the potential of women, the half of our total talent pool.

To provide equal opportunities to its women, India needs to focus more on women-centric programmes aimed at ensuring their education, health, economic security, safety and fundamental rights. We must aim to raise the level of women’s participation in the formal sector to 50 per cent by 2047.

By 2047, India will also need to have fully integrated environmental sustainability in its growth models by focusing on renewable energy and reducing waste, effluents, emissions and consumerism; recycling and reuse should become the credo. To achieve the full potential of the opportunities offered by a green economy transition, India will need to formulate and implement environmental change policies that reconcile development and sustainability goals. As a nation, we should aim to meet 80 per cent of our electricity requirements from renewable energy sources by 2047.

Creating a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy that is transparent, efficient, and economically inclusive will enable India to emerge as the third largest economy in the world and a true global power by the 100th year of its Independence.

The writer is executive chairperson, Biocon & Biocon Biologics



Read in source website

Amitava Kumar writes: On Friday, a 24-year-old from New Jersey named Hadi Matar attacked the writer Salman Rushdie with a knife. Another writer wants the would-be assassin to know more about the man he tried to kill

Listen, you are young and I understand you will only be sitting in a room doing nothing for many, many years. I hope you will find time to read this letter.

The world learned last week that you are 24. The man you tried to kill is 75. I don’t know about you but when I was 24, I was reading that man’s writings with great devotion. You might even say I was a bit fanatical in my habit.

The following year, when I was 25, there was a fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini, calling for this man’s death for his novel The Satanic Verses — and that murderous edict resulted, after three decades, in the terrible act you perpetrated with such savagery. The man you tried to kill survived your attack; I’m guessing that now there will be no bounty for you. Only an eternity in prison.

I’m just pointing out the basic facts here. As the man you tried to kill might put it, in his own light-hearted way, it didn’t turn out to be such a profitable investment for you.

I apologise. I sound petty. When I sat down to write this letter, I hadn’t intended to be bitter. In fact, I wanted to meet you with my own twenty-four-year-old self. That particular version of me would want you to read books. Instead of listening to old men railing from the pulpit, men who believe they carry the word of God, and who decide who can live or die — instead of listening to them, will you not heed more human voices?

Let me begin with the voice of the man you tried to kill.

After that appalling fatwa, issued on Valentine’s Day, the writer went into hiding. He lived in safe houses under police protection. On the first anniversary of the fatwa, in a short poem that he published in Granta magazine, to “sing on, in spite of attacks, / to sing (while my dreams are being murdered by facts) / praises of butterflies broken on racks.”

You will perhaps grasp the brutality, but do you also see the beauty? That image of butterflies broken on instruments of torture is so striking and so powerful that I see at once why the great literary critic Edward Said once commented that the man you tried to kill represented “the intifada of the imagination.”

Ten years after the fatwa, in a piece in The New Yorker entitled ‘My Unfunny Valentine’, the writer who you tried to kill stated that he was now going to write only of love. “Love feels more and more like the only subject. At the centre of my life, of my new work, of my future plans, I now find nothing else.” Can you imagine what it meant for a young man, a little older than you, to be given the gift of such words to shape his own identity as a writer?

Do you read? I ask not to diminish you or humiliate you, but to offer an invitation. It hurt me terribly some years ago to learn that the killer of a writer in India had never read the woman he had shot to death. The dead writer was a journalist of enormous courage. Her killer was reportedly paid Rs 10,000 by people who told him nothing more than that this woman was hurting their religion. This writer’s name was Gauri Lankesh. The man who allegedly shot her, Parshuram Waghmare, was only two years older than you are now when he committed the murder. He is in prison. Forces of fundamentalist belief, that use religion as an excuse for destroying lives, have been unleashed in different parts of the world. It is a threatening feature of the apocalyptic landscape of modern geopolitics.

Like the man you tried to kill, I too am a writer. As my life has been given over to reading and writing books, I hold on to the belief that if we read widely and deeply, we will encounter people and places unlike ourselves. This sense of difference, its pleasures and challenges, will perhaps steer us away from intolerance. Many people in this country (the US), including Malcolm X, discovered reading in prison—and were transformed. I hope that you too will find a similar liberation in learning.

We have seen the universal outpouring of grief and concern for the man you tried to kill — but there’s a further point I’m trying to make. People have been posting his lines on social media, they are discussing the influence of his work. Over the past three days, I have read nothing but his words in essays, novels, and interviews. (My son, only 12, has declared his interest in reading The Satanic Verses. I think he should wait.) Do you see what I’m getting at? You have failed—as any act of violence, and in such circumstances, inevitably would—because you have succeeded only in returning us to his words.

Amitava Kumar is the author, most recently, of The Blue Book (HarperCollins, 2022)



Read in source website

If your eye is on India – the nation is 75 today, such occasions provoke looking back and looking ahead – focus on the ‘I’ in India. ‘I’ for the individual. ‘I’ for institutions. Independent India gave every individual the right to vote, and created one institution with a narrow remit, the Election Commission, for this purpose – and democracy took deep, and possibly permanent, roots. Independent India denied most individuals the right to conduct their economic affairs freely, and created many institutions with expanding remits – and socialism and its attendant economic perversions also took deep roots, which are frustratingly difficult to remove. That the world’s largest democracy and the world’s fastest growing major economy is merely a lower-middle-income country on its 75th birthday is because in economics, India went wrong with the ‘I’. Reforms partly corrected this colossal mistake, and, for millions of Indians, the results have been life-changing. The old economy saw an entrepreneurial transformation. The new economy is very possibly creating an entrepreneurial revolution. Extreme poverty, once the world’s idea of India, has vanished. The middle class, once vanishingly small, has vastly expanded.

But in their economic life individuals are still fettered by numerous badly run institutions. To take the biggest of many examples: an under-staffed judiciary has become an economic growth constraint thanks to sweeping, economically irrational rulings; an under-staffed but barely accountable bureaucracy still rules over an empire of ‘permissions’ and ‘clearances’; and the political system is fundamentally incapable of correcting the first two wrongs because politics is becoming ever-more focussed on collectives, not individuals. When votes are sought by invoking communities, castes, linguistic groups, whether via rhetoric or rewaris, neither individuals nor institutions need be priority areas. Pundits, whether in academia or the media, have become habituated to assessing political astuteness by a political party’s ability to attract electoral loyalties of communities who never voted for them. That’s why even in a brutally competitive electoral system, politicians get away by spending too little to provide quality education and healthcare to individuals. That’s why the stark and increasingly disturbing fact of too few regular, non-farm jobs is not a front-and-centre issue in elections.

The Future Can Be Brighter

This lack of attention on individuals and institutions won’t stop India from economically growing at a reasonably good clip year after year, assuming there are no endogenous or exogenous shocks. An oft-quoted future milestone is that India will be the world’s third largest economy, after the US and China, in 2032, just 10 years from now. Politicians will conclude that’s an excellent position to be in and that aside from some sectoral reforms here and there, pretty much nothing needs to change. But that would do terrible injustice to a country where individuals have shown that, given the right kind of institutions, they can perform far above average. Let’s think of a different future: 8% economic growth annually over the next decade, powered mainly by industrial manufacturing, will take India into a different league. This is doable – if we can fix the institutions, remove unnecessary restrictions, and spend more on health and education. Over to politicians.



Read in source website

India's overall exports are likely to be affected by the switch in consumption in advanced economies away from goods and towards services, although technology budgets of companies may have to adjust to a mild recession.

Official data released last week showed inflation easing, industrial recovery broadening and the trade deficit widening. Inflation based on the consumer price index (CPI) fell sequentially in July, the third month of declines from its April peak. Food inflation has cooled off rapidly and a softening global commodity cycle could aid the process by reining in fuel and fertiliser prices. Inflation expectations are also being tempered, which could weigh on RBI's interest rate-setting trajectory. Yet, inflation remains well above the central bank's target and it will be seeking to push the real interest rate into positive territory through policy normalisation.

Factory output during June declined sequentially as the base corrected for pandemic restrictions in the previous year. The index of industrial production (IIP) has posted cumulative growth in April-June over the same quarter during the last pre-Covid year, 2019-20. This brings manufacturing out of the trough, although it awaits a revival in private investment to pull up growth in capital goods. GoI's infrastructure push to restore the investment climate should benefit from the recovery in manufacturing through improved tax realisation and lower reliance on borrowing. The effect on government finances of absorbing high energy prices ought to be tempered, lowering chances of the fiscal deficit overshooting its target.

Merchandise exports dipped to a five-month low in July with growth collapsing in major markets and imports stayed on their high-growth trend, but eased sequentially on lower crude oil prices. Excluding energy and gold, imports stayed on track with a revival of domestic demand. The widening of the trade deficit will continue to exert pressure on the rupee, but equity capital flows have reversed. This should make currency stabilisation less onerous. India's overall exports are likely to be affected by the switch in consumption in advanced economies away from goods and towards services, although technology budgets of companies may have to adjust to a mild recession.
<

Read in source website

The export of indigenous varieties such as Dussehri, Safeda and Rataul must be pushed. The world is more liable to take a longer-lasting bite of the mango than, say, tulipmania of 17th-century Europe.

Mangomania may not be dead in the fibre outside the subcontinent after all. Following a Covid-induced two-year gap, exports of Indian mangoes have revived, thanks to the resumption of export orders by the US and South Korea coupled with forays into new markets like Japan and Argentina. Exports have been valued at over $44 million in 2021-22, lower than $56.11 million in 2019-20, as the US halted mango imports for lack of physical inspections. Now, over 1,000 tonnes of Alphonso, Kesar and other varieties have been shipped to the US. The potential to expand exports is huge.

India produces almost half of the world's mangoes. But exports are dominated by Thailand, Mexico, the Netherlands, Peru and Brazil. India must focus on brand-building and having a marketing presence globally. This calls for greater collaboration between the commerce and foreign ministries, and private producers. Mango promotion by the Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority in Dubai, Denmark, Turkey and Germany is useful. But most trade in fresh mangoes takes place within short distances. India and Pakistan are the predominant suppliers to West Asia, while Southeast Asian countries get their supplies mostly from the Philippines and Thailand. More innovation in food processing will help overcome this problem.

Ramping up refrigerated containers for sea shipments will boost exports. India grows almost 1,000 mango varieties, but uses only 30 commercially, including Alphonso that forms the bulk of its exports. That must change. The export of indigenous varieties such as Dussehri, Safeda and Rataul must be pushed. The world is more liable to take a longer-lasting bite of the mango than, say, tulipmania of 17th-century Europe.

<

Read in source website

India's female workforce participation remains abysmal. The task of the next 25 years must be to increase it to global averages. The quality of governance also needs to improve, not only in the narrow sense of enforcement of laws and contracts but also a wider enhancement of societal trust.

India has reversed its shrinking share of the world economy since its Independence with a corrected course of economic management that has made it the fastest-growing major economy. For this, we should rightly be proud. It has taken a development path that relies more on its enormous market for everything from food to industrial output and services, funded principally by the savings of Indians. This makes for a self-contained growth engine that has delivered decent dividends the last 30-odd years. But this has also resulted in rising inequality and a poor record in human development.

India needs a sustained effort to increase 'total factor productivity' (TFP), the increase in output that cannot be attributed to increase in inputs of labour and capital. The way to boost this secret sauce of growth is to improve infrastructure, both physical (read: bullet trains, metros, etc) as well as social (education and health outcomes). India's female workforce participation remains abysmal. The task of the next 25 years must be to increase it to global averages. The quality of governance also needs to improve, not only in the narrow sense of enforcement of laws and contracts but also a wider enhancement of societal trust. Important elements of the latter include impartial enforcement of laws and a sustained attempt to break down caste and religious barriers.

The gaps in education, healthcare and employment remain glaring for what will this year become the fifth-largest economy in the world. Without having completed one itself, India now ranks among countries that have been through their industrial revolutions, the most recent one being in China that embarked on its development path at about the same time. This contributes to India remaining a high-cost economy where labour productivity has not kept pace with consumption. There is the danger that India might grow old before it grows rich. To prevent this, it must attempt to boost the share of manufacturing in GDP by making it easier to do business. This includes both old-fashioned manufacturing like textiles, as well as sectors like semiconductors, renewables and technologies associated with 5G and the Internet of Things. In some of these sectors, GoI's production-linked incentive (PLI) scheme seems to have got off to a good start.

Having settled the growth-vs-equity argument in favour of the former, India must also apply itself to sustainability. India has the difficult task of increasing the standard of living while meeting ambitious decarbonisation goals. There are lessons from other countries that have raised the overall standard of living within a generation. The next quarter-century could provide India that opportunity. It must make avail of it.
<

Read in source website

In January, 1924, the small Konkan town of Mahad in erstwhile Bombay province passed a landmark resolution: All public spaces, including water tanks, would be thrown open to people from all castes. Yet, opposition from some caste groups on the question of ritual pollution meant that practically, people from lower castes were barred from public water tanks. Exasperated, Dr BR Ambedkar led followers in 1927 to drink water from the tank. A decade later, the Bombay high court affirmed the right. The unfortunate link between water and misinformed notions of caste purity bubbled up to the surface this week when a nine-year-old Dalit boy died after he was allegedly beaten up by a teacher for touching a drinking water pot in Rajasthan. The teacher has been arrested and the administration has promised strict punishment for anyone found guilty. But unless this is accompanied by robust public messaging and a promise to investigate every complaint of caste bias, future acts of discrimination will be difficult to forestall.

A newly independent India promised social, economic and political equality to Dalits and made them equal participants in the nation-building process. Yet, as Dr Ambedkar warned, this freedom has been marked by a fundamental contradiction. While Dalits have ascended to the country’s highest constitutional and legal positions, everyday life for many continues to be roiled by hostility and prejudice. This contradiction, which can only have detrimental effects on national progress and the dreams of young people from these communities, can only be stamped out with collective will — to annihilate caste.



Read in source website

In their speeches to mark 75 years of Independence, President Droupadi Murmu and Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi hailed the miracle that is the thriving of democracy in India. At the turn of Independence, no one expected a country riven by internal dissidence, weak institutions and deep divisions to sustain a democratic form of governance. Indeed, many of the countries that achieved freedom around the same time collapsed into autocratic or party dictatorship systems.

As outlined by both leaders, there is much to celebrate about the democratic experiment, beginning with the audacious and hopeful gamble of expanding the franchise to include every adult person (unlike in older democracies such as the United States, where women and racial minorities received the full vote after long struggles). For the ordinary Indian, the vote remains a responsibility and a promise. In the expansion of voting among women, the gradual removal of social hurdles for lower castes, disabled people and minorities of various hues (remember that dominant communities could once physically stop weaker sections from voting), and the rise of politicians from erstwhile marginalised groups, the democratic experiment has been vindicated. But this success is not unmixed with niggling concerns. For far too long, the health of democratic institutions has been neglected by successive administrations putting their thumb on the scale. As a result, even constitutional institutions remain vulnerable to political pressure, thereby compromising the vital process of checks and balances. And, greater friction between the government and Opposition has meant negotiation and compromise — critical to the smooth functioning of a federal system — have given way to acrimony and grandstanding.

These are all worries, but the greatest threat may still come from elsewhere. The world over, illiberalism has grown roots when democratic systems are unable to fulfil social and individual expectations. In a country of unmatched diversity, therefore, leaders have to ensure that the economic and social aspirations of a vast pool of young people are catered to, and equal opportunity ensured. This can stave off the vicious cycle of economic hopelessness and sharpening social divisions. The PM and President have rightly focused on creating a road map. A focus on achieving the five pledges outlined by the PM in his address on Monday — development, uprooting colonial slavery, pride in India’s heritage, safeguarding its unity in diversity, and duties of a citizen — can help ensure the pursuit of a more perfect democracy in 2047.



Read in source website

In January, 1924, the small Konkan town of Mahad in erstwhile Bombay province passed a landmark resolution: All public spaces, including water tanks, would be thrown open to people from all castes. Yet, opposition from some caste groups on the question of ritual pollution meant that practically, people from lower castes were barred from public water tanks. Exasperated, Dr BR Ambedkar led followers in 1927 to drink water from the tank. A decade later, the Bombay high court affirmed the right. The unfortunate link between water and misinformed notions of caste purity bubbled up to the surface this week when a nine-year-old Dalit boy died after he was allegedly beaten up by a teacher for touching a drinking water pot in Rajasthan. The teacher has been arrested and the administration has promised strict punishment for anyone found guilty. But unless this is accompanied by robust public messaging and a promise to investigate every complaint of caste bias, future acts of discrimination will be difficult to forestall.

A newly independent India promised social, economic and political equality to Dalits and made them equal participants in the nation-building process. Yet, as Dr Ambedkar warned, this freedom has been marked by a fundamental contradiction. While Dalits have ascended to the country’s highest constitutional and legal positions, everyday life for many continues to be roiled by hostility and prejudice. This contradiction, which can only have detrimental effects on national progress and the dreams of young people from these communities, can only be stamped out with collective will — to annihilate caste.



Read in source website

As India celebrated Har Ghar Tiranga (Tricolour in every home) to commemorate 75 years of Independence, people from Northeast India joined the festivities with elan. This sense of belonging — an emotional bond with each other and fellow countrymen — has been strengthened over the last eight years.

In this period, the government made a sincere effort to address various issues affecting the Northeast and find suitable solutions. Thanks to this approach, we have reached a stage where everyone is proud and respectful of India’s achievements. India has earned great honour both at home and abroad.

Look at the recently concluded Commonwealth Games, where our athletes delivered a tremendous performance and made every one of us proud. Such elevating occasions are celebrated across the country. There is a tremendous sense of belonging in the manner in which people from the Northeast cheer for Sharath Kamal or Nikhat Zareen as fervently as people from the rest of India cheer for Mirabai Chanu or Jeremy Lalrinnunga. This newfound spirit — this sense of belonging — in today’s India is the greatest wealth that the government under the dynamic leadership of Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi has created. Ending years of neglect and instilling a sense of belonging among the people of the Northeast is one of the greatest legacies that PM Modi has fashioned, unique in its reach since Independence.

We, the people of Northeast India, have experienced occasions when a young person from the region would lament the apathy of the central government by citing then PM Jawaharlal Nehru during the Indo-China war. He referred to “our countrymen in Assam, to whom our heart goes out at this moment.” This created a sense of loss and even resentment among (other) people of the Northeast towards the central government.

The continued indifference from subsequent governments at the Centre towards the region only added to this growing resentment. The lack of economic growth and employment opportunities for people from a resource-rich region left many frustrated, angry, jobless, and poor.

Further, the indigenous people of the Northeast were threatened by waves of illegal immigration post the Indo-Pakistan war of 1971. The half-hearted attempt by the then government to check and prevent illegal immigration was ineffective. But the situation became worse when the then Congress-led government passed the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunal) Act to provide safeguards to illegal immigrants with the sole aim of gaining political advantage.

It was only in 2005 that the Supreme Court declared this law unconstitutional. Until then, the region was left to its own devices, beset as it was by a lack of economic growth, frustration at not finding employment opportunities, the growing feeling of alienation, poor development, and unchecked illegal migration. Ignoring the signs of resentment, successive governments continued with their near colonial mindset and made minimal effort to help the people of the region. The greatest tragedy of this alienation was the gradual loss of a sense of belonging. People found themselves in a hopeless situation, marred by violence, rising insurgency, economic problems, and the erosion of emotional capital.

Things started to change with the coming to power of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led National Democratic Alliance at the Centre under the leadership of Bharat Ratna, Atal Bihari Vajpayee in 1998. Major infrastructure projects were announced and sincere attempts were made to address the issues of the region. One such step was the creation of a dedicated ministry of development of North Eastern region (DoNER) as a facilitator for growth and development in the region. The BJP always had a clear vision of the need to invest — both economically and emotionally — and to revive the sense of belonging in the Northeast. With the advent of the Modi government in 2014, this vision received a major boost. Decades after Independence, the people of the Northeast found the kind of leader they needed in Narendra Modi — committed to addressing their trouble and pain, and making a sincere attempt to find solutions to their problems — creating opportunities for younger generations, building avenues to improve the quality of lives of people, and giving the people of the Northeast much greater reason to take pride in their Indian identity.

In the government’s vision of New India, it is the Northeast which is going to play the role of the engine driving India’s next growth story. At the policy level, the government has been working on the Act East framework, moving on from the obsolete Look East one.

There is now a sincere attempt to rebuild the bruised consciousness of the people of the region and restore a sense of belonging. As a result, the peace and tranquillity that have eluded much of the Northeast for a long time is slowly coming back. The withdrawal of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (Afspa) — a longstanding demand of people from most of the Northeast has been welcomed across India. It is also a testimony to the relative peace that has dawned after a long time. These conducive conditions have led to unprecedented development in the region.

In Assam alone, more than 1.25 million houses were built under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY); more than 6.3 million rural households have got water connections in their homes under the Jal Jeevan Mission; more than 4 million women from economically weaker sections have got free LPG cylinders under the Ujjwala Yojana scheme; and more than 20 million people were brought into the banking system through the Pradhan Mantri Jan Dhan Yojana. There has been a huge infrastructure boost in the region with many engineering marvels such as the Bogibeel Bridge, India’s longest rail-cum-road bridge, Jiribam Railway bridge, the world’s tallest railway bridge, and others finally being built. Such efforts validate the philosophy of Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas (with everyone, for the development of everyone).

As we celebrate 75 years of Independence, we, the people of the Northeast, have won the love and respect of fellow Indians we embark on a journey to rebuild our nation — materially and emotionally — into a New India where all citizens are united. Today, we are equal partners in building our home, society, and country for a better tomorrow.

Sarbananda Sonowal is minister of ports, shipping and waterways and AYUSH, and former chief minister of Assam

The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

The Afghan Republic collapsed last August with President Ashraf Ghani and his coterie, to their eternal shame, fleeing the country. The Taliban took over Afghanistan on the strength of its military success. The United States (US) accepted a strategic defeat in the “forever” war; its Doha Agreement of February 2020 with the Taliban was a surrender document, pledging the withdrawal of its forces from Afghanistan. A year after the Taliban takeover, Afghanistan remains unsettled, mired in political contradictions, deep economic distress, and the presence of global terrorist groups.

There is no prospect of an early resolution to Afghanistan’s problems. From a historical perspective, it began in July 1973. Daud Khan staged a coup against his cousin king Zahir Shah and abolished the monarchy. Over the five next decades, Afghanistan has experienced nationalist, communist, “democratic,” Islamic, and Islamist dispensations, two failed superpower interventions, inter-, and intra-ethnic strife, terrorism (both within and flowing out of it), the spread of narcotics and shocking violence. Today, despite a surface calm, albeit punctuated by occasional Daesh attacks against mainly Shia and minority targets, true stability remains elusive.

The Taliban is essentially Pashtun. Its present leader, Haibatullah Akhundzada, lacks the aura of the founder Mullah Omar. While theology provides a glue, it has not eroded traditional Pashtun tribal rivalries nor brought about a complete reconciliation between the two centres of contemporary Taliban power — Kandahar and Loya Paktia. At one level, each centre is united. However, in the former, political and social contestation among the Durranis themselves and of the Durranis with the Ghilzai impact politics and social interaction. In the latter, the Zadrans are dominant, but they are resented by other tribes of the area.

Significantly, the Kandharis resent the Zadran domination of Kabul as they consider them socially inferior. Even otherwise, the current Taliban political power-sharing arrangement is not entirely durable. Consequently, as in the 1990s, when different Mujahideen groups looked for foreign patrons, other Taliban groups were already on the same path. The process, not as open as it was in the 1990s, offers opportunities for regional intervention despite Pakistani efforts to paper over intra-Taliban differences. The US action against Ayman al-Zawahiri will exacerbate these intra-Taliban tensions, and the Zadrans would be especially wary of the US.

Along with political differences, there are schisms between pragmatists and theological hardliners led by Haibatullah. These differences have played out, among other things, on gender issues and minority rights. But, significantly, unacceptable as the restrictions are, the full rigour imposed on women in the 1990s is not being witnessed. Also, minor criminality has been on the rise, as is administrative corruption, but there is no evidence of the widespread imposition of Sharia punishments as in the 1990s.

Amid these differences, the Taliban is unwilling to share power with senior members of the extinguished Republic. The latter, in any event, except for former president Hamid Karzai and former chief executive Abdullah Abdullah, are out of Afghanistan. Technocrats are trickling back, but in small numbers. The prospect of any real internal revolt against the Taliban in the non-Pashtun areas is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Equally, effective operations against the Taliban mounted by erstwhile Republic leaders from abroad are improbable.

The World Food Programme (WFP) estimates that around 18 million Afghans are food insecure. The Afghan economy has almost always been critically dependent on external assistance. This was so even during the 20 years of the Republic. Foreign assistance has dried up except for some humanitarian aid trickling in. The country’s deposits in the US have still not been released.

Consequently, the people depend on some remittances from Afghans abroad or on exports to neighbouring countries. However, to the relief of Pakistan and Iran, large-scale movement of economic refugees has not happened, though Afghans, with resources, are leaving the country. Interestingly, some Afghan observers note that Daesh cadres are also receiving funds. These reports are troubling and need investigation.

Despite the al-Zawahiri killing, US and European powers have moved beyond the Afghan situation to issues of world order. Their concerns about narcotics remain because of Afghanistan’s opium stocks. They are also remaining vigilant about the consolidation of global terrorist groups. Regional countries do not have the luxury of those far away. They have security and economic interests in Afghanistan and cannot look at the Afghan situation only through the prism of human rights or the mantra of an inclusive government.

A year after succeeding in assisting the Taliban insurgency, Pakistan is realising the validity of the adage of the inability to permanently “own” the Afghans. The way the Taliban plays Pakistani generals on the Tehreek-e-Taliban issue is a case in point. The Pashtun and Punjabi (those who live south of the Indus) contradictions have deep roots, and it is in the crevices of these contradictions that India can and should pursue its interests.

There is no appetite in any country to recognise the Taliban diplomatically. But all regional States are actively advancing their interests in Afghanistan — China, and Russia aggressively so. India was late in re-establishing its office in Kabul. It should now enhance interaction with the Taliban. At the same time, it should maintain contact with all sections of Afghan opinion within and outside the country and lift its virtual ban on visas for Afghans.

Vivek Katju is India’s former ambassador to Afghanistan

The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

Following the Union Cabinet’s approval last week of India’s nationally determined contribution (NDC) to be submitted to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), several experts have pointed out that India has laid down climate goals that it will easily achieve under current policies. Simply put, the NDC goals are not very ambitious.

For example, India has promised to reduce the emissions intensity of its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by 45% by 2030, from the 2005 level, and achieve about 50% cumulative electric power installed capacity from non-fossil fuel-based energy resources by 2030, as promised by Prime Minister (PM) Narendra Modi in the Glasgow climate conference late last year. But the NDC will not include two other goals that PM Modi had announced in Glasgow — that India’s non-fossil energy capacity would reach 500 GW by 2030 and that India will reduce its total projected carbon emissions by one billion tonnes by 2030.

India, however, already has a domestic goal of achieving a renewable energy capacity of 450 GW by 2030. Last year, at the UN General Assembly, PM Modi said India will increase its renewable energy installed capacity to 450 GW by 2030 and develop a national hydrogen energy mission to scale up annual green hydrogen production to 1 MT by 2030. More than one energy expert has shared a screen grab from a 2020 Central Electricity Authority (CEA) report with me which projected that in 2030 solar and wind energy alone will make up for 51% of total installed energy capacity.

Why then does the NDC not mention the 450 GW renewable energy target?

Under present geopolitical circumstances, India prefers to keep the 450 GW renewable energy capacity a domestic goal. What India pledges to the UNFCCC also depends on progress in climate action globally and the delivery of climate finance. Perhaps rightly so. Developed countries with the largest share of historical responsibility for the climate crisis have not yet delivered on their promises on climate finance and technology transfer. Climate journalists from developing countries almost certainly know there will be little progress on climate action at COP 27 to be held at Sharm El Sheikh later this year. The red lines will be over non-delivery of climate finance and deciding on a new, larger climate finance goal.

In 2009, at COP15 in Copenhagen, developed country parties committed to a goal of mobilising jointly $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries. They had specified that the finance would come from a wide range of sources — public and private, bilateral, and multilateral, including alternative sources of finance.

But a climate finance delivery plan co-led by the minister of environment and climate change, Canada, Jonathan Wilkinson and the state secretary, federal ministry for the environment, Germany, Jochen Flasbarth released days ahead of COP26 last year said developed countries will likely be able to mobilise $100 billion only in 2023, with a delay of three years compared to what was promised.

According to the UNFCCC’s standing committee on finance, developing countries need almost $6 trillion up to 2030 to implement their NDCs under the Paris Agreement. Under such circumstances, parties are announcing their NDCs carefully. Most developed countries have announced net-zero emissions goal for mid-century; some of them have put them down in long-term strategy documents submitted to UNFCCC. India is also drafting its long-term strategy articulating its net zero emissions goal for 2070. But these long-term strategies are inconsequential if ambitions, collectively, are not raised for the immediate future until say 2030.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has flagged the wide gap between what countries have committed so far through their NDCs and the action needed to keep global warming under 1.5 degrees C. The amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the world needs to at most peak by 2025 followed by a 43% reduction over the next 10 years to limit global warming to 1.5°C by the year 2100, the IPCC said in its Working Group III report on Mitigation of Climate Change. It warned that policies implemented till the end of 2020 will add more emissions and lead to a rise of 3.2°C by the end of the century. Average annual GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions in the past decade were higher than any previous decade: Emissions between 2010-19 were around 12% and 54% higher than in 2010 and 1990 so meeting the 1.5-degree goal is unlikely, it said.

Despite the clear warning on the danger of exceeding 1.5 degrees C warming from the IPCC, progress on new, more ambitious 2030 climate targets and participation in sectoral initiatives have stalled since COP26 in Glasgow, an analysis by Climate Action Tracker, an independent scientific analysis that tracks government climate action, said last month.

The world is heading to a warming of 2.4 degrees C with 2030 targets and even higher, 2.7 degrees C, with current policies, it found. This is one of the reasons why it was agreed in the Glasgow Pact to update national 2030 climate targets in 2022. But no developed country has updated its targets again as yet. Another analysis by CAT said governments have largely failed to seize their chance to rearrange their energy supplies away from fossil fuels. This is mainly due to the security crisis in Ukraine which led to a spike in oil and gas prices and complete disruption of energy markets. “We are witnessing a global “gold rush” for new fossil gas production, pipelines and liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. This risks locking us into another high-carbon decade and keeping the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit out of reach,” CAT said in its analysis in June.

Under such circumstances, India must act on its domestic renewable energy and climate goals very seriously which will also help deliver on the updated NDC. It will also help maintain people’s trust in the Centre’s seriousness when it comes to clean energy and the climate crisis. A cautious approach in the global climate negotiations is understandable. India will have to maintain pressure on developed countries to raise ambition for 2030 goals, and mobilise developing countries in demanding delivery of climate finance and access to clean energy technologies from the developed world at Sharm El Sheikh.

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

The views expressed are personal



Read in source website

We are 75. A proud independent nation, we are youthful, hopeful, brimming with confidence and looking ahead with high aspirations. We are today a successful democracy, a robust economy, a plural harmonious society and a reason for hope for the entire world.

The saga of Indian Independence has survived against odds and wishes of naysayers, defying predictions of an early doomsday, and thrived. We, as India, are successful as a nation, because of the contributions and efforts of every single leader, visionary, institution, organisation, community, region and every single citizen of the past and present.

We kept our nation sovereign and free, and our borders safe, for three-quarters of a century, despite unprovoked hostility in the neighbourhood, at a huge cost thanks to our brave jawan, our peerless armed forces who won wars when pushed into them, even while happy to live in peace and mindful of the larger goal of a peaceful world.

width:468px;height:60px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4179177184249048" data-ad-slot="3146043443">

We fought and won the war against hunger, unleashing a green revolution and a white one, a contribution of our kisan, and from being a country which faced risks of famines and starvation, we became a nation which exports food, safe and secure in our ability to meet our own collective nutritional needs.

If we spent the first four decades with a socialist zeal, we used it to build foundations — of education, science and research, technology, infrastructure and heavy industries. When we undertook reforms, we unleashed a new energy of a new India. From being a country with a few weeks’ worth of foreign exchange to becoming one of the biggest economies in the world, and yet continuing to grow, we are knocking at the door of premiership in the First World.

Harnessing our people, we built global corporations and provided solutions to the world, and helped the best of nations and institutions face challenges successfully, courtesy of our people power, their brains and hard work, and their entrepreneurship and work skills. We make rockets and satellites, software and vaccines, designs for airplanes and ships, and our people lead global corporations and initiatives, directly impacting the planet.

In sport, our athletes and sportspersons have conquered new heights, even as our artistes continue to win hearts. Indian food, Indian movies, Indian sports and Indian artisans win laurels in every corner of the earth.

For many, we may be a struggling democracy or an oppressive society, but even so we are an example of what is possible.

Yet, we are neither perfect, nor complete. No nation or society is. We are a work in progress, with several challenges and concerns. We have a huge demographic dividend that is crying for opportunities matching aspirations. We have deep recoveries to make in our economy. Neither in law nor in society are we all equal, and yawning inequalities have a way of breaking our oneness.

Communal peace, secularism, harmony, a vibrant sense of freedom of expression, fearless people, easy dissent, removal of violence in every slice of life, reducing income inequality, enlarging liberties available to everyone and creating an open society are still within our grasp. But it is not inevitable or guaranteed. There is a risk of these slipping away as possibilities; worse, they might even no longer be considered worthy values to strive for.

Let us celebrate the 75th with a great sense of joy in every heart. Let us seek to make the 100th, when it comes, an even more joyous occasion for all Indians.



Read in source website

The four stages of life, according to some of our Hindu texts, are brahmacharya, grihastha, vanaprastha and sanyasa. These are supposed to be broken into segments of 25 years each. The first quarter century is the life of studying and abstinence and poverty. For us, as a nation, this was from 1947 to 1972. It is not easy to deny that indeed we were poor and we were finding our way in these years. It was a period of struggle and defeat but hopefully also one of learning. Our population went from 350 million to 500 million in this period. Our per capita income, when we came out of this era, was not very different from when we entered it. In 1972, the average Indian made the equivalent of about `1,000 a month — almost a student’s allowance.

The second stage, grihastha, is from the early 1970s to 1997. This is meant to be the period of productivity. It is when we establish the household and it is considered to be the most critical of the four stages. The phase when we get things done. Our population doubled from 500 million in 1972 to one billion in 1997. Our household expanded as never before. How we performed economically in this quarter century is for the historians to determine when they assess us fully after we finish 100 years as an independent nation. But consider that this is the same period in which the few successful nations of the 20th century usually took off, including South Korea, Singapore, Japan and even China. All of us — South Korea, China, Taiwan and Japan —  came into their new independence about the same time as India, and Singapore became independent in 1965 —  entered into the phase of grihastha more or less together. Japan’s per capita income went from $3,000 in 1972 to $40,000 by the mid-1990s. South Korea’s went from $300, which was roughly the same as us at the time, to $12,000.

The most significant economic activity that individuals (and I suppose nations) do usually comes in this period. Here in South Asia, we have remained with our sisters and brothers in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Bangladesh is today slightly ahead of us in per capita income and Pakistan is slightly behind.

width:468px;height:60px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4179177184249048" data-ad-slot="3146043443">

The third phase was from 1997 to 2022. This was our period of vanaprastha, meaning retirement. When the household is handed over to the next generation, and when there is change and when the adult withdraws from his/her duties. The responsibility is over, and Japan, South Korea and China are today ageing. China’s median age is 40, Japan’s is 50 and South Korea’s is somewhere in the middle. India’s is not yet 30. Japan has 20 times our per capita income, China six times and South Korea 16 times. Vietnam, with which we were even just a decade ago, now has twice our per capita income. Have we done enough economically to pass on something meaningful to the next generation?

Again, this is something for later Indians to determine. It is undeniable, however, that there was a change of householder here. The old political party gave way to the new.

Now, at 75, we have entered sanyasa, where we have to be ideally be free of material desires and passions and prejudices. This era is to last for the next 25 years, till 2047. And yet, we have come into sanyasa full of passion and prejudice. What we have renunciated is the promise of pluralism in our Constitution and the quest for a secular state.

Our passions are about how to punish other Indians and how to further privilege one religion. Our desire and enthusiasm for nationalism is expressed through ceremonial things like polyester flags and aggressive slogans. Dry numbers like per capita income do not quicken our pulse. Falling behind even Bangladesh in per capita income is not something that has disappointed us, and we do not feel the need to mourn. We have been told to celebrate this current period as our “amrit mahotsav”. It is not clear whether we are celebrating the achievements of our previous three phases or celebrating what is to come in the quarter century that is starting this week. If the former then, truth be told, we do not have much in the cupboard or in the trophy case to show the world as achievement. If we are celebrating the latter, we have not been told what we are doing that is going to produce a break and a change from the past. We have been told to celebrate and we are celebrating on the assurance that the years leading to 2047 will be India’s immortal era.

If we showed a youthfulness in our brahmacharya, we are not exhibiting a cool detachment in our retirement. We are showing signs of anxiety, punctuated by frenzy. It is not the behaviour of the mature person and not reflective of the wisdom of the aged. It is unusual and one wonders what, given the recent past and the record since 1947, the next quarter century holds in store for India. These are some of the things that we might want to consider in the week that we celebrated yet another Independence Day.

The writer is the chair of Amnesty International India. Twitter: @aakar__patel



Read in source website

The last two and a half years of the Covid-19 pandemic has been challenging for our entire society. However, as is the case with every epidemic and pandemic, which either fully ends or become endemic, the Covid-19 in India has also, arguably, transitioned to the endemic stage. With the experience of the last 29 months, many have started to argue that health in India has become a political priority.

The fact is that while health has got a lot of attention in the pandemic period — going by the poor status of health services in a majority of Indian states and poor health indices — there is a real need for health to continue to be a sustained government priority in India, for long. A way to ensure that is people starting to hold their elected leaders and the governments at all levels -- local, state and Central -- accountable. If the decision of citizens on whom to vote for is based upon what the elected representatives and governments have done for health in the previous five years, that can sustain health as political priority. Whether that will happen and to what extent is difficult to predict. However, before we all get busy with other pressing daily challenges, it is time to discuss what could be done for stronger health services in India.

First, there is a need for re-examination of the role of federalism in health policy. Health is a state subject in India, but there are many Central policies and schemes that deal with various aspects of public health. The pandemic saw several conflicts and disputes between the Central and state governments, with allegations that the Centre was encroaching upon the jurisdiction of the states. Alongside, the Union government often washes its hands off for the poor status of health services in the states because it is a state subject. It is time to deliberate in what ways cooperative federalism can be strengthened in the matter of public health? What could be an ideal balance between these two? Are "right to health" laws required in all states? Some of these matters were discussed in the governing council meeting of the Niti Aayog recently, but there is a need to have a serious follow-up discussion both in the Lok Sabha and the state Assemblies.

width:468px;height:60px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4179177184249048" data-ad-slot="3146043443">

Second — in the post-pandemic period — health workers’ availability and distribution and increased health budget allocations should be the priorities. Recently, the government stated in Parliament that India now has sufficient doctors per 1,000 population. Though that may be true, however, the key challenge here is inequitable distribution. A majority of doctors in India are in metropolitan cities and urban areas. Then, while the aggregate number could be enough, 90 per cent of doctors are in the private sector and only one in 10 doctors in the government sector. These have implications on the capacity of the government sector to deliver health services. Clearly, having trained doctors is not enough, what matters is whether healthcare services are available and accessible for ordinary people. To ensure that, it is necessary that the health budget allocations should be increased by both state and Union governments, and doctors and medical staff are posted equitably in rural areas and the cities.

Third, the disease surveillance systems and public health measures need to be sustained. Following the Covid-19 pandemic, there have been some concrete measures to strengthen India’s disease surveillance system and public health testing capacity. It was some of these efforts which resulted in the early detection of many new viruses in Indian states as well as that of the monkeypox cases. However, the disease data collection, analyses, sharing and use of health by the government remains a challenge and needs rapid improvement.

Fourth, malnutrition and anemia in women and children continue to be challenges. The National Family Health Survey 5 (NFHS-5) shows that despite decades of implementation of a range of schemes for women and children, the rates of malnutrition and anemia remain high, and the rate of improvement is very low. It clearly demands urgent intervention to revive the efforts to tackle anemia and bridge the gaps in other nutrition policies.

Fifth, the Mental Health and Post and Long Covid are two urgent post- pandemic health issues to be catered to. Mental health was a challenge even before the pandemic. The National Mental Health Survey 2015-16 had reported that one in every eight persons in India was in the need of one or other form of mental health services. However, the issue was not recognised because of the stigma associated with it. After the Covid-19 pandemic, the number of mental health concerns have increased. Fortunately, in the Covid period, the stigma associated with mental health services has reduced and people are more willing to seek care. The time is also of rapid expansion of mental health services. An estimated one in every 10 Covid-affected people is likely to have post and long-term symptoms. Health services also need attention from the government for the post and Long Covid and specially through primary healthcare systems.

Sixth, India being a pharmacy to the world, must assume responsibility and the government has to step up its investments on research and development on vaccines and therapeutics. This has become especially important for emerging and re-emerging diseases and many neglected tropical diseases, which affect the low- and middle-income countries and are not a research priority for high income countries.

Seventh, these needs to be supplemented by additional steps. The health policy measures announced in recent months and years need to be better implemented. The recently announced public health and management cadre and the Indian public health standards should be adopted by all Indian states. There is a need for better provision of health services by urban bodies, stronger primary healthcare services in both rural and urban settings and the need for innovations and new initiatives for health services.

In the last 15 years or so, the Union government in India has announced a multitude of health schemes, including the National Rural Health Mission (2005), National Urban Health Mission (2013), Ayushman Bharat Programme (2018) and the National Digital Health Mission and Health Infrastructure Mission (2021), among others. We keep hearing that the government is repackaging old schemes as new programmes. However, the seventy-fifth year of Independence is time that more attention is given to the effective implementation of the already running health schemes, at the ground level. That will prepare India for a much healthier nation for the centenary celebration of Independence.



Read in source website

The attack on the writer Salman Rushdie is an attack on the freedom of speech and expression. That freedom is cherished by democracies across the world, more so by the liberal democracies that define countries like the United States. To see freedom being challenged by a lone wolf acting on behalf of the haters is to have the very fundamentals of a democracy challenged. 

The real world is, however, full of hate and of religious bigotry, which is what was reflected in an attacker sympathising with the cause of a particular religion. He found way to attack a renowned writer, even if he is one capable of pushing the boundaries of established opinion as the Mumbai-born Rushdie has proved to be in a remarkable career of literary accomplishments. 

The life of a hermit was forced upon him for at least 10 years after a fatwa was put out in 1989 by the late Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini after which he stayed put in a fortified house in the UK. With self-deprecation, he once described the furore and fatwa that followed the publication of The Satanic Verses in 1988 as being “like a bad Salman Rushdie novel”, also comparing events to an overblown Indian movie. 

width:468px;height:60px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4179177184249048" data-ad-slot="3146043443">

Truth to tell, protecting an individual for life is an unpredictable exercise. The attacker in the Rushdie case chose a spiritual place that may have least expected violence. It had been a hallowed spiritual and cultural retreat for over 150 years, far removed from the divisiveness of the outside world where some faithful saw his novel as heretical. Scores of people, ranging from innocent victims in riots, including in India, to those who helped publish his Satanic Verses, were killed. 

Idealists would like to believe terror has no religion. And yet defending against all terror, including that of the Islamist variety, is the price that the free world must pay with constant vigil. Copycat threats have already followed the attack on Rushdie with at least one targeting the writer J.K. Rowling. Unlike in Rushdie’s case when a fatwa was put out, today’s world is a more chaotic place, marked by the easy access that purveyors of hate get to social media. 

Mercifully, the author most admired for Midnight’s Children, an allegorical tale which won the Booker Prize in 1981, is off the ventilator and cracking jokes. But it will be a while before he can resume what he does best — writing. The thing we can do to show solidarity with the right of free speech and expression is to go back to Midnight’s Children and read it again.



Read in source website

There have been exceptions but the Prime Minister’s customary Independence Day speech from the Red Fort can be a tame affair. PMs enumerate high points of the year gone by, announce new programmes, and distribute thanks all around, especially to farmers and the armed forces. The occasion is tailor-made for dressed-up official or party propaganda and occasionally soaring rhetoric. The country is the stage. Politics is in-built.

As the completion of 75 years of Independence is a landmark, and enthusiasm for it was being officially generated in heavy-duty fashion with the “Har Ghar Tiranga” programme, around which some government or ruling party functionaries even wove in implied threats in their enthusiasm to please the higher-ups, there was a sense of expectation from Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s speech. He did not disappoint when it came to appearances, but questions on substance are likely to arise.

The country is a quarter century from attaining one hundred years since Independence. The present PM calls it “amrit kaal”, or the time when nectar can be harvested (after years of work), probably using the “amrit-manthan” (the churning of nectar by the gods) story of Hindu mythology. At the end of the next 25 years, India should be a “developed country”. This is Mr Modi’s big focus and commitment and is one of the five “pran” or pledges he made in the name of the country on the 75th anniversary of Independence.

width:468px;height:60px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4179177184249048" data-ad-slot="3146043443">

This does look like a very big ask indeed. In US dollar terms, India’s per capita GDP is 1,900 dollars (Bangladesh being higher!) while Italy, probably the lowest on the scale of “developed” countries, is at nearly $32,000. Is it conceivable that we will catch up with the “developed” world in just 25 years? Does this not sound too optimistic? In 2017, the present government had spoken of doubling farmers’ incomes by 2022 and also ensuring housing for every household by the end of the present year. Such are the outcomes in these areas that the government does not refer to these anymore.

The PM has said that through much of the period of the most devastation when Covid-19 struck, the government gave rations free to 80 crore people, approximately 61 per cent of the population. This would mean that approximately that many people need serious help for basic survival in India. From this to becoming a “developed” country in just 25 years from now suggests a simplistic imagination. The notion may be comparable with Mao’s scheme of the “Great Leap” which led to much suffering. But China’s leader did give a scheme.

Mr Modi offered no blueprint — or worked out scheme — for his extraordinary idea. He did not suggest even a loose road map to guide the “aspirational” society of his conception. It is hard not to recall the promise of giving Rs 15 lakh to every household since there was thought to be billions stashed away as black money, a thought later called “chunavi jumla” (election-time throwaway sentence) by none other than Amit Shah, now the Union home minister.

There was also much politics in the PM’s speech in the garb of history. Gandhi was mentioned as a mere freedom fighter. But Nehru, Vallabhbhai Patel, Rajendra Prasad, Jayaprakash Narayan and Ram Manohar Lohia did not make the cut. Interestingly, Savarkar, a man who wrote letters of apology to the British to get out of prison, did. It did not matter that he was tried in the Gandhi murder case but let off on technical grounds.

“Nehru ji” did figure among those who helped build India after Independence alongside Dr Rajendra Prasad, Syama Prasad Mookerjee, Nanaji Deshmukh, JP, Lohia and Vinoba Bhave. History needs better teachers if it is not to be repeated as a farce in the second telling.



Read in source website

A few decades back, stock trading fared poorly on the Indian moral compass. In the minds of Indians, stock markets were nothing but satta bazaars (gambling places) for most of them believed that profits could be booked in stocks merely by luck or through an insider’s tip-off. But now crores of Indians invest in stock markets. Trading in stocks is no longer considered below one’s dignity. In spite of market disturbing stock scams, stock market investment — either directly or indirectly — has become one of key ingredients of one’s personal finance planning. 

This change did not come overnight. It was the result of incessant labour of several pioneers. If the success of Dhirubhai Ambani attracted people to primary markets, Rakesh Jhunjhunwala — who passed away on August 14 — transformed the people’s approach to stock trading. His research based scientific approach to stock trading enhanced people’s respect for the community. His journey in the stock market could be an aspiration for many as he converted Rs 5,000 in 1985 into Rs 46,185 crore in 2022. Jhunjhunwala’s belief in the Indian economy was so immense that he was given the moniker of the “Big Bull of Dalal Street.”

He retained his bullishness till his last breath as was evident in his foray into aviation business when the sector itself was in the doldrums.  The ace investor had a great reputation of being a risk-taker in his investments, many of which paid off spectacularly.

width:468px;height:60px" data-ad-client="ca-pub-4179177184249048" data-ad-slot="3146043443">

His investment strategy was typically long term, drawing comparisons to legendary American investor Warren Buffett. His no-nonsense attitude during investor calls used to keep the management of companies on toes. His wish to work and enjoy life until his last day sums up his philosophy in life, which was tragically cut relatively short.



Read in source website