Editorials

Home > Editorials

Editorials - 19-12-2021

Chakshu Roy writes: For the last 29 years, the 16-foot-tall bronze statue has been the site for MPs across ideologies to express their disagreement.

The ongoing Winter Session of Parliament started on an explosive note. The Rajya Sabha suspended 12 of its members for the entire session. Their suspension meant that these MPs could not participate in Rajya Sabha’s deliberations or the meetings of parliamentary committees. Since then, the suspended MPs have been protesting in front of the statue of Mahatma Gandhi inside the Parliament complex. For the last 29 years, the 16-foot-tall bronze statue has been the site for MPs across ideologies to express their disagreement.

The Parliament House complex has 50 statues/busts of national figures. In 1941, three busts of the Indian royalty made it to the Chamber of Princes in the Parliament building. These busts were of the Maharaja Madhavrao Scindia of Gwalior, Maharaja Bhupindra Singh of Patiala, and Maharaja Ranjitsingh of Nawannagar. All three were the chamber’s founding members, and the latter two had also been its presiding officers. But it was only after Independence that the placement of statues in the circular building came up for consideration. The Parliament House complex comes under the purview of the Speaker of Lok Sabha. In 1951, its first Speaker, G V Mavalankar, set up a committee to propose a scheme for decorating the nation’s legislature. As part of its discussions, the committee considered placing the statues of national leaders in the 50 or more niches on the ground and first floor of Parliament.

Following the committee’s reports in 1953, work started on painting murals on the ground floor walls of Parliament. It was only a decade later that the first statue was unveiled in the Parliament Estate — a 12-foot-tall statue of Motilal Nehru. A bust of Gopal Krishna Gokhale would follow in 1966, followed by another 12-foot-tall statue, of B R Ambedkar, in 1967. In the 1970s, a statue of Lala Lajpat Rai and a bust of Sri Aurobindo would be the only additions to the Parliament complex.

After an 18-year lull, in 1993, President Shankar Dayal Sharma unveiled the statue of Mahatma Gandhi. The unveiling occured during the term of the minority government of P V Narasimha Rao, who earlier in the year had survived a controversial trust vote. The Speaker of Lok Sabha, Shivraj Patil, revived the earlier plan of placing statues in Parliament. He announced that a committee of senior parliamentarians had recommended the installation of statues of “the great sons and daughters of India”. The first statue, he stated, would be that of Mahatma Gandhi.

For a long time, there had been discussion about installing a statue of Mahatma Gandhi at a prominent location in Delhi. In 1965, political activists vandalised the marble statue of King George V that occupied the canopy behind India Gate. After the authorities relocated the vandalised statue to Coronation Park in north Delhi, the empty canopy was considered a possible location for a Gandhi statue. However, the plan never materialised and, in the Nineties, the idea got bogged down in litigation.

One artist who was in the fray for making  the Gandhi statue for this location was Ram V Sutar. After the plans for the statue at the India Gate canopy did not fructify, the government approached him for sculpting the Gandhi statue for the Parliament complex. Sutar had studied at the J J College of Arts, Mumbai, and in the 1950s, had helped in the restoration work at Ellora caves. He had extensive experience in immortalising Mahatma Gandhi in copper and stone. Over the years he had made Gandhi busts that the Government of India had gifted to more than 60 countries around the world.

The Gandhi statue — of the Mahatma in a meditative pose — was going to be his first creation inside the Parliament complex. In numerous interviews, Sutar said that recreating the peaceful expression on Mahatma Gandhi’s face was an immense challenge. He is also the artist who made the statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel (Statue of Unity) in Gujarat.

Since the installation of the Gandhi statue, 43 more (14 of them sculpted by Sutar) have found a place in Parliament. Over the years, deciding on the personalities whose statues and portraits would be placed in Parliament has required political parties to arrive at a consensus. It is their spirit of dialogue and accommodation that has resulted in the Parliament Estate being filled with the iconography of leaders from across the ideological spectrum. And perhaps it is the same spirit that parties need to tap into to foster debate in the two Houses of Parliament.

P Chidambaram writes: If those who have the right to speak (the Opposition) are not allowed to speak, and if those who have the duty to hear (the government) plug their ears, democracy is diminished.

The Winter Session of Parliament commenced on November 29, 2021. The Lok Sabha is debating Bills, motions, etc. every day. Discussion on several subjects has taken place. But the Rajya Sabha is in turmoil. The issue that hangs as a dark cloud over the Rajya Sabha is the suspension, on the first day of the session, of 12 members of the House belonging to different Opposition parties for the remainder of the session until December 24.

The entire Opposition is agitated, some more, some less. All the Opposition parties protested together, marched together and addressed the media together. Inside the Rajya Sabha, however, while some refused to participate in any manner, some asked questions during Question Hour or made Special Mentions. In the lobbies and in the Central Hall, there are conflicting views. Outside the House, the 12 suspended members, sitting on a dharna at the foot of Mahatma Gandhi’s statue, are incensed. It is an unprecedented situation.

The Origin, the Surprise

The genesis of the dispute is what happened on the last day of the previous session — August 11, 2021. According to the Parliamentary Bulletin Part I of that day, certain members “entered the ‘well’ of the House, displayed placards, shouted slogans and persistently and wilfully obstructed the proceedings of the House.” The Bulletin listed the names of 33 members. No action was taken or hinted at.

What happened — if true — was unfortunate but not unprecedented. Arun Jaitley, a former Leader of the Opposition, had once declared that obstructing the business of the House was a legitimate parliamentary tactic. In any event, the incident had occurred on the last day of the previous session and at 7.46 pm on August 11 the House had been adjourned sine die without taking any action.

What started on November 29 was a new session. The proceedings started at 11 am. After obituary references, the House was adjourned for an hour as a mark of respect, it reconvened at 12.20 pm and normal business was resumed. After the lunch recess, at 2 pm, the Farm Laws Repeal Bill was taken up and passed without a discussion at 2.06 pm (on that, I shall reserve comment). The House was adjourned and re-assembled at 3.08 pm. Out of the blue, a minister moved a motion to suspend 12 members for the remaining part of the session, the motion was adopted, members protested, but the House was adjourned at 3.21 pm (according to the Parliamentary Bulletin Part I dated November 29.)

Contentious Rule

On the next day, the suspended members began a dharna. It has continued for three weeks. The government is not willing to budge; the Chairman is not willing to nudge the government to yield.

The Rule that applies to suspension of a member is Rule 256 (see box). The Rule is clear. The verbatim record of the Rajya Sabha does not show that any member was named on August 11. It was only when the Rajya Sabha re-assembled at 3.08 pm on November 29 that the Minister of Parliamentary Affairs moved a motion to suspend the 12 members, and the Bulletin says the motion was adopted. There was no attempt to put the motion to the House or take a vote. Opposition members are unanimous that a vote was not taken. The Treasury Benches do not refute that position.

Several questions were sought to be raised in the House. Can members be suspended in a new session for alleged disorderly conduct in the previous session? Can members be suspended when none of them was ‘named’ on August 11? Can members be suspended on a motion that was not voted upon by the House? While 33 members were accused of disorderly conduct, why were only 12 suspended? Why was Mr Elamaran Kareem, who did not figure in the list of 33, suspended? These questions were not allowed to be raised in the House, and hence there is no option but to raise them in the public domain.

Democracy Diminished

On December 16, the Opposition moved a motion under the proviso to Rule 256(2), which allowed a motion to be moved “at any time” to terminate the suspension of the members. The Presiding Officer rejected the motion on technical — and questionable — grounds.

If those who have the right to speak (the Opposition) are not allowed to speak, and if those who have the duty to hear (the government) plug their ears, democracy is diminished.

Rule 256 Suspension of Member

  1. The Chairman may, if he deems it necessary, name a member who disregards the authority of the Chair or abuses the rules of the Council by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business thereof.
  2. If a member is so named by the Chairman, he shall forthwith put the question on a motion being made, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed, that the member (naming him) be suspended from the service of the Council for a period not exceeding the remainder of the session:

Provided that the Council may, at any time, on a motion being made, resolve that such suspension be terminated.

  • A member suspended under this rule shall forthwith quit the precincts of the Council.
  • Amita Pitre writes: When 18-year-olds can vote, sign contracts, work, then why should they not decide when to marry? Making all sex under the age of 18 years a crime only denies recognition of youth sexuality, contraception, maternal health care and safe abortion.

    Written by Amita Pitre

    The Union Cabinet has cleared a proposal to increase the minimum age of marriage for women to 21 years. The well-intentioned move, however, may have unintended consequences. If social problems could be solved so easily, India would not be one of the most malnourished nations in the world, its women among the most anaemic, its sex ratio skewed.

    The proposal can be faulted on two counts — one, that it does not focus on what really matters to ensure it; and that it ignores the harms of such legislation.

    The minimum age of marriage has been 18 years since 1978. Clearly law by itself has not solved the problem. About 23% of girls in the 20 to 24 age group were married under the age of 18 as per NFHS 5 (2019-21) — a steep fall from 47% in NFHS 3 (2005-06) and 27% in NFHS 4 (2015-16). There is now substantial evidence that the two factors which led organically to this is access to secondary education for girls and reduction in poverty.

    Girls with 12 or more years of education, marry on an average five years later than girls with no education. We have seen that disruption in both these — schooling of girls and access to livelihoods — during Covid led to early marriages.

    Our experience show that girls drop out of schools for various reasons, such as unavailability of secondary schools, lack of separate toilets in schools, no facilities for menstrual hygiene, and sexual harassment, making travel unsafe.

    Reasons for early marriages of girls in the case studies Oxfam India documented range from poverty and school drop-outs, to elopement or fear of elopement of girls, and boys’ families wanting free labour for household work. Patriarchal norms focused on a girl’s chastity, come together with poverty, lack of incentives for schooling and lack of income opportunities for girls, to make sure that marriage and unpaid care work are her only destiny.

    NFHS 4 data shows that 63% of girls got married before the age of 21. This is the proportion of marriages which will be rendered illegal if the amendment were passed. Criminalising only ensures that the phenomenon of early marriages is driven underground, unless the causes are removed. It also puts a question mark on the rights married girls are entitled to, such as property rights, compensation, insurance, if they were to be widowed.

    When 18-year-olds can vote, sign contracts, work, then why should they not decide when to marry? In fact, empowering the young with information, sexual health services, higher education and linkages to income can delay the age of marriage without any coercion. This has happened globally, with no change in the law.

    Criminalisation of youth sexuality has already wreaked havoc in the lives of the young. Making all sex under the age of 18 years a crime only denies recognition of youth sexuality, contraception, maternal health care and safe abortion.

    There is ample evidence that 10-12% of those below 18 in middle- and low-income countries are sexually active.

    Similar to policing of youth sexuality, policing of under-age marriages is getting more and more aggressive. Parents are known to use laws such as the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act (PCMA), 2006, and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO), 2012, to oppose self-chosen relationships of young people.

    The current PCMA law prohibits a marriage under the age of 18, without making it void. However, state-level amendments in Karnataka and Haryana ensure that under-18 marriages become void right from the beginning. What happens to the rights of girls married under 18 in these states?

    Increasing the age of marriage to 21 years appears to be one more step in this slippery slope.

    The writer is Lead Specialist, Gender Justice, at Oxfam India

    Coomi Kapoor writes: Rahul Gandhi's remarks were too philosophical for the average listener and he played into the BJP’s hands since the ruling party, fearing that it is on a weak wicket on prices, is keen to exploit the Hindutva card in UP.

    Wrong Diversion

    Sonia Gandhi appointed Digvijaya Singh to head a Strategy Committee to consider how best to highlight inflation, the Congress’s key campaign plank. Since permission was denied to hold a rally in Delhi’s Ramlila Maidan, the venue was shifted to Jaipur, where Ashok Gehlot is Chief Minister. (A tactical mistake since people normally blame the state administration for rising prices.) However, the Congress brains trust did not bargain that Rahul Gandhi would completely divert from the main issue and launch into an earnest explanation of the difference between Hinduism and Hindutva. His remarks were too philosophical for the average listener and he played into the BJP’s hands since the ruling party, fearing that it is on a weak wicket on prices, is keen to exploit the Hindutva card in UP. In the 2019 general elections, too, Gandhi drew attention away from the issue of prices, focusing instead on the slogan “Chowkidar chor hai’’, which did not go down well with voters. The de-facto Congress president often acts spontaneously without consulting advisers. Incidentally, the Jaipur rally was organised by Gehlot, who was taken aback when his arch rival Sachin Pilot got the maximum applause when Gandhi mentioned his name.

    Vetting Scribes?

    The Press Information Bureau has not yet begun the process to renew accreditation of journalists for next year. Normally accredited correspondents are asked to apply for renewal of passes for the coming year by early November. Apparently, an exercise to revise press accreditation rules and make them more contemporary and weed out “undeserving journalists” — which started under former Information and Broadcasting minister Prakash Javadekar — is still underway. Journalist bodies apprehend that the right to define who is entitled to a PIB card and have access to government offices smacks of an attempt to control the media by cutting off those hostile to the regime. The example set in drastically curbing the number of newspersons permitted to enter Parliament during the sessions does not inspire confidence. Journalists now gain entry to Parliament’s press gallery on the basis of a lottery system, even though the Covid threat has abated and most restrictive measures in Parliament lifted. With the scrutiny of the list of accredited journalists still on, 2021 PIB passes might stay valid till March next year.

    Judicial Indiscretion

    In his autobiography, former Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi counters those who question the lack of transparency in judicial appointments by explaining that if the negative information against a bypassed judge was disclosed, it would cause “avoidable embarrassment”. However, Gogoi is not himself coy about disclosing confidential notes on the basis of which certain Justices were denied Supreme Court appointments. He also attempts to settle scores with former colleagues who accused him of impropriety, by alleging that Justices J Chelameswar and Madan Lokur “bartered transfers of their favourite judges from one high court to another in the collegium meetings’’. He rakes up an 11-year-old FIR implicitly concerning a former Supreme Court colleague to suggest “double standards’’!

    Paternal Pat

    A video of UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath plodding on foot behind Modi’s cavalcade in Saharanpur was gleefully tweeted by Akhilesh Yadav to mock the way the CM is treated by his party boss. Adityanath may not have been Modi’s first choice as CM, but in this crucial Assembly election, the PM is, in fact, going out of his way to demonstrate his regard for Adityanath, praising him and getting photographed with him regularly. At the Varanasi railway station, he put his arm around the Chief Minister for the benefit of photographers.

    AI’s Many Secrets

    Captain Shakti Lumba, who was closely associated with Indian Airlines for decades, has many secrets to share in his book The Old Bold Pilot, explaining why the national carrier went downhill. Lumba recalls the power of the pilots’ union. For instance, in 1992, then PM Narasimha Rao acceded to the union’s demand that the minister concerned, Madhavrao Scindia, and the airlines Chairman and Managing Director be sacked. The author explains how the Civil Aviation Ministry circumvented the Air Corporation Act, which did not permit any scheduled airline besides the two national carriers, by turning a blind eye to the so called air-taxi operators placing hoardings at the airport and at their offices displaying own flight timings and fare. Another interesting insider tale is of the minister whose wife was employed by Indian Airlines, and who used the PMO to get his wife made in charge of Alliance Air’s in-flight department.

    Tavleen Singh writes: The truth is that not much has changed in any real way in UP since the ‘double-engine government’ came into existence in 2017, and it is this reason why it is important to divide Hindus and Muslims for Yogi to win a second term.

    The Prime Minister’s visit to Varanasi last week was like a Bollywood film in slow motion. The melodrama, the exaggerated colours, the bright lights and religiosity reminded me of Ramanand Sagar’s Ramayana. And it was as mesmerizing. I found myself glued to my TV from Modi’s morning dip in the Ganga in a saffron tracksuit, to that late night stroll on the neon-lit platform of the railway station with Yogi Adityanath by his side. Every news channel covered every moment of the trip as if nothing else was happening in the world. Channels of bhakti bent began their coverage before he landed in Varanasi with breathless, sycophantic commentary on the corridor to the Vishwanath Mandir that he had come to inaugurate.

    So, what did I conclude at the end of this day in which religiosity mixed seamlessly with politics and hyper-nationalism? What did the people of Varanasi make of it? To get a sense of this I rang a Mahant of the Vishvanatha Mandir whose family home was requisitioned and torn down for the corridor. Two years ago, when we met, he was angry about the meagre compensation his family got in exchange for a home that was centuries old. He was not a fan of the corridor, so it surprised me when he said, “Let me tell you that they have built something wonderful. But, also let me say that people here do not like the way religion is being mixed with politics. This is wrong… people say that this will cost them the election. Akhilesh Yadav will win.”

    The political nature of this ostensibly religious project has escaped nobody, nor has the inauguration’s timing. Attention to this was drawn even by the TV reporters in Benares who passed off paeans in praise of Modi as journalism. The Chief Justice was right when he said last week that investigative journalism had disappeared in the Indian media, but rarely has the media turned itself into a propaganda tool of the government the way that it did on Modi’s visit that day. Having dealt with officials of the Press Information Bureau for a long, long time, I can tell you that not even they, whose job is government propaganda, would have turned themselves into cheerleaders in the way that celebrated anchors did in Varanasi. So, no questions were asked, not even when the Prime Minister himself brought Aurangzeb up in his speech to remind everyone watching of who it was who had destroyed the Vishwanath Mandir and defiled it by building a mosque on its ruins.

    The Prime Minister has usually refrained from dog whistles. But, the elections in Uttar Pradesh draw closer by the day and polls by political parties appear to show that Yogi is not as popular as his massive advertising campaign indicates. So, the BJP needs to bring into play their ultimate weapon: creating ugly divisions between Hindus and Muslims. The Lok Sabha election in 2019 was a defining moment for the BJP. It taught them that it was possible to win a full majority without needing a single Muslim vote. This explains why Modi no longer hesitates to remind Hindus that Aurangzeb destroyed many temples and that the wounds of history must never be forgotten. The problem is that when semi-literate, ahistorical Hindus are reminded of these wounds, the message they take home is that every living Indian Muslim is to blame for what happened centuries ago. And, that all Muslims are Pakistanis in their hearts and did not leave in 1947 only because they could not afford to. It is these divisions that the BJP hopes to play on in Uttar Pradesh.

    This brahmastra is needed because people have not forgotten the total collapse of governance during Covid’s awful second wave. Nor have they forgotten that despite the Chief Minister’s vaunted claims of having brought lawlessness under control in this notoriously lawless state, it was not long ago that a teenage girl was cremated without proper rites by the police in Hathras, thereby destroying evidence of her rape. There are other horrors they find hard to forget. Expressways and airports are inaugurated almost daily these days in UP, but the people whose land and homes were appropriated for these projects continue to live in extreme poverty. In an excellent report on NDTV recently, reporters talked to people whose land was acquired for the new Jewar airport. They found them living in flimsy shacks and half-built houses because the compensation they were given allowed them to afford no more.

    The truth is that not much has changed in any real way in UP since the ‘double-engine government’ came into existence in 2017, and it is this reason why it is important to divide Hindus and Muslims for Yogi to win a second term. The damage this will do to the fabric of the state is incalculable, but for the moment there will continue to be religious events lit with disco lights. In Varanasi that day they reflected off Modi as he cruised on the Ganga. Incidentally, the waters of our most sacred river remain filthy, as do most of the streets of Varanasi whose name comes from two rivers that used to once exist. The Varuna has almost disappeared and the Assi river is a pitiable drain. It is the erasure of such ugly realities that is now being sought with religiosity and hyper-nationalism.

    Indian vaccine makers, Bharat Biotech and Zydus Cadila, must publish studies on the efficacy of their vaccines in relation to the Omicron variant.

    As the cases of Omicron variant rise, the government must redouble its vaccination efforts. Even as a decision on the need for a booster is discussed, it is critical to complete the first round of vaccination. This will require addressing issue of hesitancy and anti-vaxerism, accounting for sizeable population groups. An aggressive outreach campaign to ensure that everyone takes the full dose of the vaccine is vital. Some experts warn that an Omicron wave is likely to hit India early next year. This gives the government a small window in which to complete the vaccination drive.

    Indian vaccine makers, Bharat Biotech and Zydus Cadila, must publish studies on the efficacy of their vaccines in relation to the Omicron variant. Alongside, there has to be a push to develop new drugs for Covid, apart from to licence the production of promising candidates from MSD and Pfizer, in addition to the monoclonal antibody treatment from Regeneron. Another area that India must augment is genome sequencing, given the population size. Early warning system for such diseases is critical, especially given that zoonotic diseases are likely to be more prevalent than less. India has the capacity but the will has been lacking, so far. Clear policy guidance and investment into these areas will help buttress the health system, which has many gaps.

    A little over 50% of the adult population is fully vaccinated and 80% have been vaccinated at least once. Public data demonstrate that in many states, rural areas are lagging urban areas. In some states - Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Bihar, Maharashtra - the gap between the fully and partially vaccinated is around 50%, in some others, it is about 30%. This gap must be closed. A decision regarding a third dose must be taken soon, as well. Omicron is an extremely infectious variant. Safeguarding the population will require taking the difficult decision on mandating vaccination or negative test reports as a precondition for accessing public spaces, such as transport, government offices and educational institutions.

    Bangladesh is more than Pakistan's defeat, both as an army and as an idea. The idea that died was that a nation could be built on the basis of a religious identity, supplemented by hostility towards a larger nation.

    Bangladesh has turned 50 years old. For many Indians infected by hypernationalism, the founding of Bangladesh marked not so much the birth of a new nation as India's decisive military victory over Pakistan. In Indian media, the dominant motif relating to the liberation of East Pakistan is that of Pakistan's Lt Gen A A K Niazi signing the instrument of surrender before joint commander of Indian Bangladeshi forces Lt Gen Jagjit Singh Aurora. In this India-centric narrative, Pakistan's defeat looms larger than the fortunes of what is today one of the largest nations of the world, with a population in excess of 16 crore.

    Bangladesh is more than Pakistan's defeat, both as an army and as an idea. The idea that died was that a nation could be built on the basis of a religious identity, supplemented by hostility towards a larger nation. Bangladesh is a success story of development via non-government action. Bangladesh pioneered microcredit and organisations to work for women's empowerment. Bangladesh brought down its total fertility rate below the replacement rate of 2.1 children per woman much before India did. Its per-capita income, some 60% below Pakistan's in the 1970s, is today a symmetrical 60% higher than Pakistan's. The UN hopes to graduate it out of the ranks of the least developed countries by 2025. Bangladesh has a robust garments industry and strong work participation rate for women.

    But economic measures alone do not success make. Politics counts even more. While the incumbent leadership of Sheikh Hasina has been far friendlier to India than to its cantankerous Opposition, a radical Islamist streak remains strong in the country's polity. It is vital that Bangladesh, like the rest of South Asia, strengthen its democratic institutions as well.

    The Telangana Higher Education Department is reviewing the effectiveness of its online classes after more than half of Classes 11 and 12 students failed the first-year or Class 11 exam, a report in a national daily said on Sunday. The students are now in Class 12, having been promoted en masse as the final exam could not be held in April due to the raging second wave of the coronavirus pandemic. The exams were the first serious one after educational institutions closed on March 25, 2020. The results are yet another illustration of the severe learning loss that has happened across different educational segments and social classes (due to the lack of inadequate online learning infrastructure) — and it is almost a certainty that the situation is the same in all states. The worst hit have been the primary class students. Around 320 million students have not stepped into a classroom for more than a year. Schools started reopening only in July and they have been plagued by closures.

    A 2021 field study by the Azim Premji University says the closure of schools (and the failure to open them on priority when the situation improved), has not only led to the complete loss of an academic year, but that most schools are reporting the widespread and alerting phenomenon of “forgetting” , where students do not remember what they learn in a previous class, a regression in their circular learning. This, the study says, includes losing foundational abilities such as reading with understanding and performing addition and multiplication, which they learned earlier and become proficient in, and which form the basis of further learning. These foundational abilities are such that their absence will impact the learning of more complex abilities and conceptual understanding across subjects. In August, a parliamentary standing committee said that most rural, remote areas lack digital facilities, indicating a huge digital divide and added that about “70% of the country doesn’t have access to internet connectivity and available quality of connectivity is poor”. The learning crisis has also been exacerbated by pre-existing education disparities.

    While the Union ministry of education has released a Covid-19 response action plan for access, retention and continuous learning, capacity building, and several states are rolling out measures to remedy the situation, there remains a tremendous gap between the aims of the policy and their implementation by the state governments. This gap needs to be reduced quickly with coherent state-level strategies, accentuated vaccine programmes for students, teachers and allied staff, and adequate human resource and financial allocations so that the young don’t end up paying a heavy price for the unanticipated educational disruption.

    The India Meteorological Department on Saturday said that the northern part of the country is in the grip of cold to severe cold waves, and such conditions will continue till December 21. The sharp fall in temperature is due to snowfall in Uttarakhand, Himachal Pradesh, and Jammu and Kashmir.

    Such bitter winters pose a tough survival challenge for those who do not have a roof over their heads and adequate clothing.

    In November, the Delhi government announced a winter action plan (operational from November 7 to March 15) to protect the homeless from the cold. It promised to set up an additional 250 temporary homes to cater to 2, 000 people; at present, the city has 206 shelters with a capacity to hold 7, 092 people. These shelters are equipped with mattresses, blankets, lockers, TVs, and bathing and toilet facilities. However, snap reviews of the facilities by NGOs and the National Human Rights Commission have revealed shortcomings: One, the number of shelters is not in proportion to the homeless population; most get filled up by 8 pm; many people don’t know about the nearest shelters, and several shelters are in a bad shape. Despite these shortcomings, which the Delhi government needs to address, the Capital has a robust network of shelters, the most in any city in India.

    Almost in every city in India, homeless citizens have remained more or less neglected by governments. There is a central plan ,the National Urban Livelihood Mission-Shelter for Urban Homeless, for providing safe, decent, and secure covered space. Under Supreme Court guidelines, all state and local governments are legally bound to build dignified permanent shelters for the urban homeless in sufficient numbers and with appropriate facilities. But there is not much change on the ground because of a lack of initiative by state and local governments. States need to follow the central policy and SC guidelines in letter and spirit.

    On December 15, Indian foreign secretary Harsh Vardhan Shringla said that India-Bangladesh ties have reached a high point. He is correct. However, India cannot look the other way when the United States (US) seems to be going all out to haul up the Sheikh Hasina government. The American hostility became evident when Washington did not invite Bangladesh to the Democracy Summit. Instead, the likes of Pakistan and Philippines were invited, despite their long, black record of extrajudicial executions and persecution of religious and ethnic minorities.

    Immediately after the summit, the US sanctioned 15 individuals and 10 entities for “involvement in gross violation of human rights” in several countries. That included seven senior Bangladesh law enforcement officials, including the current police chief, Benzir Ahmed, and officials of the elite Rapid Action Battalion (RAB). It was also reported that the US visa of former army chief General Aziz Ahmed had been cancelled, following media reports of corruption and links with criminal elements. The US neither confirmed nor denied the charge.

    The US action can encourage fresh agitations by the Islamist opposition in Bangladesh. Sanctions against law enforcement officials may deter serving personnel from taking on violent street agitations that can unsettle the Hasina government. Bangladesh security officials contend that there is no alternative to “tough policing” to contain the Islamist radicals who seek to bring down the “murtad” (apostate) government of Hasina by street agitations and terror strikes. That is why Hasina called out the border guards and RAB units to control anti-Hindu violence provoked by the Islamist hardliners during Durga Puja. In fact, the Islamist ecosystem, ranging from political parties like Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jamaat-e-Islami to radical groups like Hifazat-e-Islam and terrorist outfits such as Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh and HUJI has historically operated in tandem to oust the Awami League.

    Their anti-Indian pitch seamlessly flows into their vitriolic anti-minority campaign because the Islamist parties and radical groups see the Awami League as an Indian surrogate and minorities as an Indian fifth column, hardly different from the way Pakistan’s military junta saw it before 1971.

    In 1971, the US and China backed the bloodthirsty Yahya Khan regime, despite repeated warnings by their diplomats such as Archer Blood about the unfolding genocide. The Central Intelligence Agency played a major role, according to authors such as Lawrence Lifschultz, in the 1975 coup that liquidated almost the entire family of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, except his two daughters, one of who is now PM. During the last days of the Bangladesh military regimes, the US started seeking military bases on the Bangladesh coast. Hasina’s return to power in 1996 put a freeze on those efforts because there was no way she would provide military bases to a power responsible for her father’s assassination and opposing her country’s freedom.

    The 1971 equations have changed. China is friendly to Bangladesh as India is and a huge source of funds for infrastructure development. Hasina walks a tight rope between India and China. The US continues to have issues with Bangladesh, specially the Hasina government, ostensibly for its improved relations with China. But India and US are strategic partners, and Delhi is no longer in a position to oppose Washington if it needles the Hasina regime. But after the hasty US military withdrawal from Afghanistan that brought down the India-friendly Ashraf Ghani regime and led to the Taliban takeover, India cannot afford US actions unchallenged in its eastern neighborhood, which can unsettle a close ally and harm Indian interests substantially.

    Hasina has comprehensively addressed India’s security and connectivity concerns by cracking down against Northeastern rebels and allowing use of its ports and transit to Northeast. So, after the Afghan debacle, Delhi cannot afford a double whammy from Uncle Sam.

    Subir Bhaumik is a former BBC correspondent and author who has reported extensively from Bangladesh and India’s NortheastThe views expressed are personal

    As elections to five states, including Uttar Pradesh, get closer, language and decorum in public life seem to have become a casualty.

    The tendency towards mud-slinging is visible across all sections of society, it would seem. An example is a manner in which television anchors conduct themselves on prime time shows. We were taught early on in our careers that a journalist is neither friend nor foe to anyone and that objectivity is the bedrock of the profession. Since the proliferation of television channels, the journalist seems to have become nothing more than a TRP (target rating point) machine.

    In 1997, an illustrious television editor of a news show had died. The newsroom was plunged in gloom and even the anchors could not prepare themselves for the evening bulletin. But since the show must go on, a well-known journalist took on the responsibility and conducted the show with dignity and gravity. Journalism was held in high esteem as a profession until a few years ago.

    Let us take a look at the debates in Parliament since live telecast of the proceedings of the House began in the early nineties. Even at that time, there were walkouts, adjournments of House proceedings and, at times, language that crossed the limits of decency. Somnath Chatterjee had made strong comments on this trend as Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Some columnists even talked about instituting measures to rein in such Members of Parliament (MPs). But in comparison to what is happening today, those days were a Sunday school picnic. Those who remember this kinder, gentler time are disheartened by the conduct of our MPs today. We expect so much better of them.

    Our MPs have a tradition of passing legislation against many social evils. Among these, I count banning child marriage, female foeticide, child labour, the dowry system and triple talaq. These brought about seminal changes in society. In this Parliament, the Untouchability (Offences) Act 1955 was passed and equal rights given to men and women. It was here in November 1949, that the original copy of the Constitution was presented.

    Today, MPs and ministers begin their terms by swearing by the same Constitution. But, do they live up to the claims and promises they made to their voters?

    Let’s have a look at these figures to get the answer. In the previous session of the House, the monsoon session, was to run from July 19 to August 13, but was adjourned sine die on August 11. In that session, the Lok Sabha worked for only 21 hours and 14 minutes out of the stipulated 96 hours, that is, only 22%. At the same time, the Rajya Sabha could also utilise only 28% of its allotted time. In that session, the Lok Sabha passed 14 bills, which were discussed for an average of 10 minutes or less. However, the 127th Constitution Amendment Bill was debated for five hours in both Houses.

    Even the current winter session has lost a lot of time due to disruptions. Those being accused of disrupting were in government seven-and-a-half years ago. Today’s ruling party used to sit in the Opposition benches and was no slouch when it came to disruptions. We have a rock solid foundation for parliamentary conduct, but it would seem we have made a travesty of it.

    This decline in standards is not unique to journalism and politics. Our educational institutions are beset by controversy. Different statements from vice-chancellors, academics, and students show that an ideological divide has wreaked havoc in these institutions. The same is the case with the government machinery. Here is an example. A police officer in a Hindi belt town was trying to stop a fierce fight between two bloodthirsty groups. He found that a section of policemen was not making the necessary effort to stop the violence. Later, during investigations, it was found out that the policemen concerned belonged to one of the groups. They did not want to hold their people accountable. This shows how deeply we have become divided. Ideas have now been replaced by fabricated narratives. Perception and performance have become more valuable than the truth.

    I would like to remind the political fraternity that in a democracy, the people are ruled by those representatives who are elected through their votes. These representatives have to run the country or their own pocket boroughs responsibly. We may have abolished monarchy, but there were some good governance lessons in that system. There was a time when kings, who were above the worldly allures, would plough the farms to send out a meaningful message. There are many lessons from the past, which we would do well to learn if we are to work towards a more inclusive and democratic society that values probity and decency in public life.

    Shashi Shekhar is editor-in-chief, Hindustan The views expressed are personal

    There is now a transition underway in the global debate on the efficacy of democracies. What was already ongoing for a couple of decades — as China grew in affluence, military capabilities and global ambitions — was termed the Washington Consensus vs the Beijing Consensus. What is happening now is an audacious shifting of gears by China that has implications for all.

    By the turn of the century, China had long left behind Maoist economics and demonstrated rapid growth for a generation. Its growing affluence was welcomed by a world where the economies of most nations had become dependent on global supply chains. Its concomitant militarisation, abrasiveness, and growing global presence unnerved many, but at that time reservations were only ever expressed behind closed doors.

    After the global recession triggered by the 2008 crash of Lehman Brothers, China was openly boasting that its system of governance was superior. Now it is raising the stakes even further, pointing to the West’s chaotic handling of the coronavirus pandemic as proof of democratic dysfunction. It is, of course, no coincidence that during this time China has also stepped up military aggression, most notably against India and Taiwan.

    A glance at the United States (US) indicates why China has decided to up the ante now. America’s polity is now the most severely polarised since 1861-65, when it went through a debilitating civil war to prevent being split in two. Having spent nearly a decade in the US as a student and in the early years of my career, it has been puzzling for me to see its recent domestic political polarisation. So much so, that there is again talk among a section about seceding. And as a citizen of a country that was partitioned in living memory, that is worth analysing and understanding.

    Indeed, these two largest democracies in human history have many parallels. Just like India has been for millennia a beacon for travellers, scholars, and seekers of asylum, fame and fortune, so, too, has America been in the modern world. And just as both nations have overcome many traditional schisms, both also have lofty ideals enshrined in their constitutions, as well as open societies in support of those.

    India was brutally vivisected as a result of deep intransigence among some in the final 15 years of a centuries-long struggle for Independence. The US was neither partitioned in its war of independence, nor in its brutal civil war in the mid-19th century. In fact, democracy allowed it to gradually overcome many of its societal inequities. Yet, more than half a century after the civil rights movement in that nation, there are columns being written and talk show discussions happening in the US whether it would be better off as two countries.

    Of course, such an outcome is highly unlikely. Not least because Americans, with their history of a civil war to prevent partition, have not given much traction to those media debates. And also unlikely because robust democracies have inherent abilities to course correct.

    That is a strength that autocracies do not have. Though they can brutally crush separatism, they do not have the mechanisms of peacefully letting off steam or resolving vexatious issues. Consequently, even seemingly successful autocracies have crumbled, sometimes with stunning rapidity.

    But democracies too have their weaknesses. For one, they are slower at changing long-set policies, because of the need to build consensus. What was called policy paralysis in India is known as legislative gridlock in the US. But a far more dangerous potential weakness is the breakdown of institutional processes.

    The irony is that the charge of institutional breakdown is usually laid at the doorstep of the government, often with blatantly partisan bias, and rarely against an intransigent opposition, even if the evidence for that is staring everyone in the face. Thus, when some decisions of the highest court in the land support the government’s stand, there is invariably an outcry by certain usual suspects, ignoring the opposite which happens far more often.

    Likewise, the now-withdrawn farm laws had been debated and passed by Parliament, after half a century of a nationwide discourse that saw near unanimous support. Yet, when many in the Opposition suddenly turned around and opposed them, there were few in the media willing to call out their blatant hypocrisy. And similarly, when Members of Parliament (MPs) are suspended for gross misbehaviour in Parliament, the very commentators who have for years demanded tough action, blithely turn around and accuse the government of authoritarianism. Never mind that there are several all-party resolutions for the presiding officer to do exactly this.

    Checks and balances are crucial to healthy democracy, but far too often that principle is being misrepresented as giving a veto to those who have been vanquished at the polls. It does not. And that intransigence of those who have failed to gain the public’s support, yet are able to prevent the popular will from being implemented, is just as much a threat to democracy.

    Over centuries, democracies have proven to be resilient, and better, while authoritarian regimes have come and gone. Now they face the latest, and greatest, challenge. It behoves all of us who take democratic rights and freedoms for granted to also abide by our constitutional duties and obligations.

    Baijayant “Jay” Panda is national vice-president, BJP

    The views expressed are personal