Featured

Responding To The Pandemic

Coronavirus pandemic, the worst crisis of our time, continues its grip on the world. The total number of confirmed cases across the world has crossed 4 million mark, with over 200 thousand of them succumbing to the infection. After China, Europe, and the U.S. we are seeing steady rise in the number of cases in emerging economies such as Brazil and Russia. However, the U.S. continues to be the global hotspot of the pandemic. India too has reported 67,152 cases as of May 11 evening. Of these, 2206 people have died, according to the central government data. It is worth mentioning here that when lockdown was announced in the country on March 24, the number of cases was 536. No doubt the lockdown has prevented exponential rise in infections, it has not arrested the rise in the number of cases. Asking 1.3 billion people to sit at home for a long time has its own consequences. The lockdown is taking a heavy toll on people’s livelihoods which in turn will badly affect India’s economy. Prolonged lockdown is also detrimental to the social stability. Central government will have to keep these things in mind while deciding future course of action after May 17 to contain coronavirus infection on the one hand, and to revive the economy on the other.

As far as containment of the virus is concerned, Director General of World Health Organisation and other health experts have emphasised on large-scale testing. Ideally, tests should have been done at the population level and all those tested positive should have been isolated from the rest of the population. That way we would have managed to cut the chain of transmission. But this is not possible since it will require a vast amount of resources which we don’t have. Lockdown is aimed at giving time to authorities to increase the pool of resources such as beds, ventilators, spaces to isolate positive and suspected cases, personal protective equipment for health care workers, and testing kits to test as much people as possible so that the system doesn’t collapse in case of a sharp rise in the number of infections.

It is not feasible to keep the entire country under lockdown for a long time. It will hit hardest to the economically weaker sections, as is evident in the horrific visuals and stories of migrant workers. One alternative could be allowing states to decide about the extension of lockdown after May 17, depending on the situation in their jurisdiction rather than central government deciding for the entire country. It will smoothen the resumption of small, localised activities in the least affected areas. Kerala has done a remarkable job in containing the infections. Initially, it was in the top three states in terms of number of infections. But as on May 11, it has 512 cases and 4 deaths. Maharashtra, another state which was in the top three states with Kerala, continues to report the highest number of cases in the country. Kerala can relax the lockdown measures to a great extent. Of course, people will have to follow social distancing norms and wear face covers. Kerala shut down schools and colleges, and banned all public gatherings on March 10, good two weeks before central government announced lockdown in the country. Delhi dictating the state about which activities it should allow and which it shouldn’t, makes little sense. The centre can play the role of a monitoring authority. Besides this, economists are suggesting that the central government should spend Rs 10 lakh crore to help the poor and businesses, especially the small ones. Number of countries including the U.S. have announced such big stimulus packages.

There is no question as to whether lives or livelihoods should be prioritised. Both need to be saved simultaneously. Decision makers indeed have a challenging task. What policy do they adopt after May 17 remains to be seen.

Bombshell Boomerangs

Thousands of farmers, mostly from Punjab and Haryana, have been protesting in and around Delhi for more than a week. They are demanding the repeal of the three agriculture marketing laws passed by the parliament in September this year. Three rounds of talks between Central government and farmer unions have failed to break the ice. Farmers say that they will not go back until the laws are repealed. The government, however, is in no mood to do that. But why are farmers in Punjab and Haryana so angry with the three laws which bring about major reforms in agriculture marketing? Before answering that, let us very briefly understand what the laws propose.

The three laws, in a nutshell, give more choice to farmers to sell their produce and reduce government’s interference in agriculture. Farmers’ Produce Trade and Commerce [Protection and Facilitation] Act, 2020 allows farmers to sell their produce outside the government controlled Agriculture Produce Market Committee [APMC] markets.

The other law, Farmers [Empowerment and Protection] Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020, allows contract farming. It means a farmer can enter into an agreement on price and quality with a buyer, mostly a private company, even before the produce is ready.

The third law is Essential Commodities [Amendment] Act, 2020. It removes government’s regulations on the storage of several food items such as pulses, onion by traders. Earlier, they could not stock these food items beyond government’s sanctioned limits, even in case of bumper production.

Why the protest?

Despite the protesters’ claims, the current protest against the new laws is not nation-wide. Farmers across India are not angry with these laws. The centre of the protest is Punjab and Haryana, and there is a reason for that.

The Central government buys certain agricultural produce, primarily wheat and rice, at Minimum Support Price [MSP] to sell it through Public Distribution System. MSP of any agricultural produce is 50% higher than total production cost. When the buyer and price are fixed, it gives farmers surety of income.

Farmers in Punjab and Haryana are the biggest beneficiaries of government’s procurement at MSP. The government agency, Food Corporation of India, buys most of the wheat and rice from Punjab and Haryana. According to Agriculture Ministry’s data, 68.2% of the rice bought by the government at MSP this year is from Punjab alone. In the 2018-19 season, the government bought 89% of the total rice grown in Punjab, and 85% of that in Haryana. This is way more than other rice producing states. In UP, for example, only 18% of the rice produced was bought by government at MSP.

Procurement of rice at MSP in major producing states 2018-19

State	Procurement of rice (Million tonnes)	Procurement as % of production
Punjab	11.4	89.0
Andhra Pradesh	4.2	50.7
Telangana	4.1	62.0
Haryana	3.8	85.0
Odisha	3.8	49.0
Chhattisgarh	3.7	57.4
Uttar Pradesh	2.8	18.1
West Bengal	1.9	11.4
Madhya Pradesh	1.3	28.2
Others	3.2	9.5

Source: vivekkaul.com (1 tonne= 1000 kg)

Same is the case with wheat. In 2017-18, government bought 71.2% of the wheat produced in Punjab and 64.4% in Haryana. The trend continued in the successive years. Less than 20% of wheat produced in Uttar Pradesh was bought by the government at MSP, despite it being the largest wheat producing state.

Statewise procurement of wheat at MSP (million tonnes)

State	procurement in 2017-18	Procurement as % of production	Procurement in 2018-19	Procurement as % of production	Procurement in 2019-20	Procurement as % of production
Punjab	117.1	71.2	126.9	71.2	129.1	72.6
Haryana	74.3	64.4	87.8	81.6	93.2	80.0
Madhya Pradesh	67.3	37.5	73.1	46.0	67.3	38.8
Uttar Pradesh	37.0	12.3	52.9	16.6	36.4	11.3
Rajasthan	12.5	13.9	15.3	16.4	14.0	14.6
Bihar	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.3	0.0	0.0
Others	0.7	0.7	1.6	7.0	0.6	0.9
All India	308.2	31.1	358.0	35.8	340.6	33.7

Source: vivekkaul.com

This explains why farmers in Punjab and Haryana are concerned about MSP. They fear that after allowing farmers to sell their produce outside APMC, the next step would be discontinuing procurement at MSP.

Besides that, the other fear of the farmers is that big corporates will take over contract farming.

When a deal between farmers and traders happens in APMC, a market fee is charged. That market fee is a source of revenue for state governments. If farmers sell outside APMC, state governments will lose that source. That explains why opposition parties are criticising the laws.

Reforms needed

MSP is the policy of the past. The government will have to reduce, if not completely stop, buying food grains at MSP. It is simply not the government’s job to buy agricultural produce.

As far as APMCs are concerned, parliamentary committee has pointed out irregularities in these markets. To give an example, traders are supposed to pay the market fees. But it is collected from farmers, says the committee’s report. Also, in some states market fee is charged just for landing the produce in APMC, even if the farmer doesn’t sell it.

Nobody would deny that reforms are needed.

However, the government’s style of introducing reforms is problematic. When the country was in the midst of the worst public health crisis, the government suddenly announced that it is going to introduce these laws. No consultations happened with farmers or state governments. While transforming any system, practicalities and people’s apprehensions need to be addressed. Nothing of that sort was done. This lack of dialogue resulted in mistrust between farmers and government.

Worst, after the government announced the plan to introduce these laws in May, farmers in Punjab and Haryana started protests. But the government did not take them seriously. It started talking to farmers sincerely only in the last week when they camped on the Delhi border.

Dropping bombshells on people by suddenly announcing major decisions is the style of the NDA government, be it demonetization, revocation of Article 370, imposition of nationwide lockdown to contain the spread of coronavirus, or these farm laws. This time the bombshell has boomeranged.

Bihar For BJP

The results of the Bihar Assembly elections were declared on November 10. It was the first full-fledged election in India during the coronavirus pandemic. But that did not deter people from casting their votes. More than 4 crore out of over 7 crore eligible voters stepped out to vote, said the Election Commission. According to the results, National Democratic Alliance (NDA), which comprises BJP, Janata Dal (United) (JDU) of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar, and a couple of small parties, retained Bihar by winning 125 seats in a tightly contested election. Challenging NDA was Grand Alliance, which comprised Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) of Tejashvi Yadav, Congress, and three communist parties. It got 110 seats in the 243-member legislative assembly. The half-way mark is 122.

Just a month before election, it was seen as a cakewalk for the NDA. However, RJD’s Tejashwi Yadav took things into his hands and dominated the election campaign. He set the agenda for the campaign and put the NDA on the defensive. But the NDA got the edge thanks to BJP’s election strategy, Prime Minister Modi’s popularity and communal rhetoric.

Despite the Grand Alliance falling behind the majority mark, RJD became the single largest party in the Assembly. It got 75 seats, while the BJP got 74. It is laudable also because the election was looking one sided for NDA till a month ago. Tejashwi Yadav was nowhere to be seen in the state. Not only his opponents, but his own party members and allies doubted his ability to lead the party and the alliance.

But once the campaign began, Mr. Tejaswi (31) pushed himself into it. He raised the issue of unemployment in the state from where people migrate on a large scale to other states for jobs. It was also significant on the backdrop of thousands of migrant workers facing hardships during the lockdown. Addressing 247 rallies across the state in about a month, he promised 10 lakh jobs if he came to power. The BJP first questioned where will so many jobs come from, and later itself promised 19 lakh jobs if it won.

In response to Tejashwi Yadav’s unemployment issue, the NDA centered its campaign around the fear of the so called Jungle raj during the rule of Tejashwi Yadav’s father Lalu Prasad Yadav between 1990 and 2005, and emotional and communal issues such as Article 370, Ram temple, CAA, Chhatpuja. Senior NDA leaders made personal attacks on Mr. Tejashwi and his family. For example, he was called “jungle raj ka yuvraj” (prince of jungle raj). But he did not respond to them in the similar language or tone and continued his campaign focused on unemployment. That paid off as the campaign did not get ugly and the Grand Alliance got just 12000 votes less than the NDA.

Despite all this, Bihar election 2020 is the story of BJP’s growth in the state. JD (U) which was till now the senior partner in the NDA, and used to win more seats than the BJP, remained far behind in this election with just 43 seats. Both the parties had contested equal number of seats. However, it seems the BJP is not attempting long jump of the kind it attempted in Maharashtra and fell down. In Bihar, it is taking one step at a time. That is why BJP leaders have reiterated that JD (U)’s Nitish Kumar will continue as Chief Minister.

Clearly, RJD and BJP are going to be the two dominant forces in Bihar. Though the communist parties performed well, even better than Congress, their influence is limited. The BJP has been using emotional issues and blatantly communal rhetoric to win elections. However, these strengths will eventually become its limitations, at least in the state elections. Bihar’s people will benefit if both the parties focus instead on issues that have an impact on people’s lives.

Contempt For Expression

The ability to express one’s thoughts is one of the defining features of human beings. To deny them that means to treat them as subhumans. In India, our constitution, which we framed after a long fight for independence, guarantees the freedom of speech and expression to all its citizens. Ironically, one day before we celebrated 73 years of independence, the Supreme Court (SC), which is responsible for upholding the constitution, found civil right lawyer Prashant Bhushan guilty of criminal contempt of court for his two tweets. On August 31, the Court ordered him to pay a nominal fine of Rs 1 or face 3 months’ imprisonment.

Mr. Bhushan had posted the tweets in late June. In one twee, he shared a photo of Chief Justice of India (CJI) S. A. Bobde astride a bike, and wrote that CJI rides a bike without mask or helmet while keeping the SC in lockdown mode, denying citizens their right to access justice. In another tweet, Mr. Bhushan made a general commentary on the role of the SC in last six years. He said that historians in future will mark the role of the SC, and particularly the role of the last four CJIs in “destruction of democracy” in last six years, “even without a formal Emergency”.

The judgement said that the tweets had the effect of attempting to destabilise Indian democracy. “Such malice should be dealt with an iron hand in the larger public interest.. When the scheme was on to damage public confidence in the judiciary, those interested in fearless justice should stand firmly.” It also said that it could not ignore the disrespect and disaffection created by the “scurrilous” tweets. It said, “it was the duty of the Court to punish to preserve its dignity as judiciary is the central pillar of Indian democracy. If such an attack is not dealt with requisite degree of firmness, it will affect the national honour and prestige in the comity of nations.” Justice B. R. Gawai, one of the three judges who herd the matter and gave the judgement said in the Court, “critics are instruments of reform, but not those who are actuated by malice, but those who are inspired by public weal.” He said, “Hostile criticism of judges as judges or judiciary would amount to scandalising the court.”

It is incomprehensible to me on what basis the Court concluded that Mr. Bhushan’s criticism was actuated by malice. He is a senior lawyer, working in the Court for more than 30 years. He has taken up many Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases for free. Some of them include, a case of the victims of anti-Sikh riots in 1984, compensation to the victims of Bhopal gas tragedy, irregularities in the allocation of 2G spectrum and coal blocks during the UPA government, the alleged irregularities in the purchase of 36 Rafale jets for the Air Force, demand for transfer of funds from PM CARES to National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF). He also took up the case of Narmada Bachao Andolan. In some cases, he has worked as amicus curie (adviser) of the Court. Mr. Bhushan took up those cases when the people against whom those cases were filed were in power.

Supreme Court has not achieved the trust and respect for itself among the common people of India because everybody said good things about it. It has achieved that because of its landmark judgements over the years. The SC performed its duty of guarding the constitution by defining the basic structure of the constitution in 1973, which included fundamental rights and judicial review, among other things, in the historic Kesavananda Bharti case. The Court declared that parliament cannot remove parts which come under the basic structure of the constitution. It made justice accessible to vulnerable people by introducing Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in 1986, whereby public-spirited citizens can file cases on behalf of these people on the issues of larger public interest such as environmental issues, poor road construction, state of prisons, and so on. It widened the definition of right to personal liberty under article 21 in Maneka Gandhi case in 1978, declaring that physical restraint and coercion are not the only constrains on personal liberty, and any law passed by the parliament which puts curbs on personal liberty will have to pass the test of reasonableness. Similarly, through several cases the Court has widened the definition of right to life, concluding that it includes right to dignified and healthy life and not merely right to be alive. In 2018, the Court did away with some archaic provisions of section 377 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and decriminalised homosexuality. While doing that, it prayed the LGBTQ community to forgive history. In all these cases, the Supreme Court boldly challenged the government, discriminatory social practices and its own judgements to uphold the spirit of the constitution.

But in recent years, some judgements and actions of the Supreme Court seem contrary to this perception. Last year, a Supreme Court employee had written a letter to 22 judges of the Court complaining of sexual harassment by the then CJI Ranjan Gogoi. What followed was very depressing. The woman was suspended from her job. The reason given was that she had taken a half day without informing. The Court formed an internal panel which gave clean chit to Justice Gogoi in a non-transparent and controversial proceeding. In 2018, in a historic press conference, four senior most judges of the SC accused the then CJI Dipak Misra of allotting important cases to judges of his choice irrationally. The four judges had also said that the SC administration is not in order, and that democracy is in danger. The trigger for this press conference was apparently the allocation of the case of the death of a CBI court judge justice B. H. Loya. He was hearing the case of Sohrabuddin Shaikh encounter in which BJP leader Amit Shah was one of the accused. In December last year, the parliament passed a controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA). Several petitions were filed in the Court challenging its constitutional validity. They contend that it goes against the principle of secularism, which is part of the basic structure of the constitution that the Court itself has defined. But the SC has not even taken up the cases for hearing because, since physical hearings are not possible due to coronavirus pandemic, the court is only taking “urgent” cases. In rather strange remarks, the current CJI S. A. Bobde said in an interview to The Hindu that in crisis like coronavirus pandemic, the court has very little to do and the executive i.e. the government is better suited to deal with the crisis. He also said that declaration of rights does not have much priority and importance in the crisis situation. Agreed that executive has resources to manage the crisis. But isn’t it important to keep a check on how it is deploying those resources? Also, the statements give an impression that justice and rights are luxury. In March this year, the SC bench led by justice Bobde uncritically accepted the sweeping statement of the Central government that there were no migrant workers on the road any more. But several media reports showed otherwise. The Court did not ask many questions to the government about the latter’s tackling of the pandemic, and this uncritical manner of the Court was called out by several retired judges. Advocate Prashant Bhushan just expressed his thoughts on these and other troublesome actions and judgements of the Court.

The Prashant Bhushan judgement correctly points out that lack of public trust in judiciary will destabilise Indian democracy. In recent months, we saw two extra-judicial killings or “encounters”. One was of four accused in Hyderabad gang rape case In December, and another was of gangster Vikas Dubey in July. Instead of demanding investigation into the circumstances leading to the deaths, people largely celebrated and congratulated the police for giving “instant justice”. The growing clamour for instant justice, eliminating accused without trial, is of great concern for Indian democracy in general and Indian judiciary in particular. That is because justice system in India is incredibly slow. It takes years to complete trials. The most recent example of this is the conviction of 11 policemen in July 2020 in the murder case of Man Singh, independent MLA and head of an erstwhile princely state in 1985. The conviction came after 35 years not from the Supreme Court but from Mathura sessions court.

As one of a billion Indians, I think low speed of delivering justice, and not Prashant Bhushan’s tweets, is shaking people’s trust in the judiciary. The Court has the responsibility of upholding the constitution in its spirit. The spirit of the constitution, as I understand it, is accepting all human beings, irrespective of their identities and habits and providing them equal opportunities to live a good life. Upholding this spirit regardless of whichever party with whatever ideology is in power, and not punishing Mr. Bhushan for doing something very basic as a human being, will increase my trust in the judiciary.

Chasing The Illusion

The world is in panic due to coronavirus pandemic. The virus and the measures taken to contain it are hitting us in many ways. Global supply chains are badly affected due to restrictions on movement. Caught off guard by the crisis, people want to take no chance and want to do everything they can to safeguard themselves from any such crisis in the future. But in this desperation and fear we must see to it that we are not playing into the hands of forces which are searching for opportunities in crisis to push forward their highly flawed ideas.

In one of his addresses to the nation Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave a call for Atmanirbhar Bharat (self reliant India), which means that Indians should buy products made in India and use services of Indian companies. People should also be vocal about using local, he appealed. This way, Mr. Modi said, global brands will emerge from India.

The idea of using “swadeshi” is not new. It did not surface after the pandemic struck. It has been around since early 20th century. The insistence on using swadeshi and boycotting foreign goods was justified when we were under British rule. We were not free to choose with which country we want to trade. The trade was not necessarily for the benefits of Indian people. But when we became independent, we could choose our trading partners, and trade with them on equal terms. The idea of swadeshi became irrelevant especially after India adopted new economic policy of Liberalisation, Privatisation, Globalisation in 1991. However, some radical forces, who were, in the words of former U.S. President Bill Clinton, on the ‘wrong side of history’, kept hugging the idea of swadeshi. In recent years, these forces have come to power and have been imposing their outdated ideas on people through coercion. Coronavirus pandemic has given them the opportunity to exploit people’s fear and push for the highly flawed idea of “be Indian, buy Indian”.

Before coming to the flaws of the idea, let us consider the reasoning behind the self reliant India mission. Apart from reducing India’s dependence on other countries, it is claimed that the mission will provide opportunities for Indian businesses. However, is setting up a new business, putting ideas in practice easy in India? The answer is simply no. Besides the challenges businesses generally face, there are India specific challenges.

A lot has been said about hurdles posed by bureaucracy. I will just share two data points which appeared in Bangalore Mirror. According to an estimate of National Restaurants Association of India (NRAI), if you are in Bangalore and if you want to open a restaurant, you will require a total of 36 approvals. In Delhi the number of approvals is 26, and in Mumbai it is 22. Of late, people have been talking about making India a “manufacturing hub”. According to a figure quoted in the Economic Survey of India 2019-20, manufacturing units in India require complying with 6796 rules and regulations. However, this is the total number of rules and regulations and every rule does not apply to every unit. But look at the number of rules the sector has to comply with. What will happen to a small business which has a limited workforce? They cannot have a dedicated person or team to ensure that they are complying with all the rules.

Indian social environment is not very conducive for entrepreneurship. Society and families in general do not encourage risk- taking. There is no space to make mistakes. People feel pressure to take up a job and live a stable life. Also, despite Indians boasting about unity in diversity in the country, different groups are stereotyped. It poses an additional hurdle in the way of people from different backgrounds who may have brilliant business ideas.

India’s education system, like Indian society, does not encourage entrepreneurship. Let alone the lack of entrepreneurial skills in the curriculum, the culture in the schools gives excessive importance to discipline. There is no scope for children to think and to do something different. Not enough opportunities are given to children to explore themselves. School in India is not at all a better place for different children. It leaves no stone unturned to crush their confidence. As far as education in these schools is concerned, children are bombarded with facts rather than encouraged to put them in different perspectives. Not surprisingly, many people have no clue at all about what to do in life, let alone them thinking about business ideas.

Now let us come to the flaws of the idea of self reliant India. As per my understanding, it means import substitution. India would restrict imports and force people to buy from local companies. In other words, it will reduce people’s choices and competition for Indian companies. If a person gets a good quality imported product at Rs 20, and the same product made in India costs Rs 25, the former is giving more value for money. The person can use the remaining Rs 5 in some other economic activity. That avoids the flow of wealth from one section of the society to another directly, ensures that the wealth doesn’t get concentrated.

If we talk about the competition aspect, as we have seen that setting up a new business is not very easy in India, if we restrict imports, the established businesses will have nobody to compete with. Indians will strictly have to buy products from these companies no matter how the quality and what the price is.

As far as creating global brands in India is concerned, how will Indian companies be able to compete at the global level when they don’t face competition within the country?

The concept of Atmanirbharta or self reliance is an illusion. Nobody in this world is self reliant. We are dependent on one another. It will be disastrous for our economy and our people if we start chasing the illusion of self reliance. Instead, we must compete with the world by making changes in our policies, in our attitudes and, most importantly, by making drastic changes in our education system.

Abandoning Afghanistan

After spending 18 years, $2 trillion, and over 2400 deaths of its soldiers, if the U.S. fails to defeat Taliban, it has every reason to stop the war and negotiate with the insurgents. The peace deal signed between the U.S. and Taliban to end the war, paves the way for a phased withdrawal of U.S. and North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) troops from Afghanistan within 14 months. However, the U.S.’s abrupt end of “war against terrorism” leaves Afghanistan at the mercy of a terrorist group, and turns this region into a potential battle field for the regional powers.

On 29th February, the U.S. and Taliban signed a peace deal in Doha in the presence of U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and representatives of several other countries, including India and Pakistan. According to the deal, the U.S. will withdraw over 14000 of its troops, and 3000 of NATO’s from Afghanistan within the next 14 months on the assurance from the Taliban that it will not provide foothold within its territory to terrorist groups which pose threat to the security of U.S. and its allies. It includes groups like al-Qaeda and Islamic State (IS). The deal proposes intra-Afghan dialogue between Afghanistan’s democratically elected and internationally recognised government led by President Ashraf Ghani and Taliban. The U.S. has promised the Taliban that it will lift the sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) on the group’s leaders by 29th May 2020. Simply put, Taliban will not be a terrorist group in the eyes of UN and international community after 29th May. Further, Taliban has put a condition that 5000 of its prisoners be released by the Afghan government before 10th March, the day on which the intra-Afghan dialogue is scheduled to begin. It is important to note here that Afghanistan’s internationally recognised government was not involved in the U.S.- Taliban talks which preceded this deal, as Taliban doesn’t recognise it as a legitimate government. Taliban got all these concessions on the condition that they must “reduce” the violence, and not completely stop it.

It is a clear victory for Taliban. They got what they wanted: withdrawal of all foreign troops from Afghan soil. Besides that, they managed to keep democratically elected Afghan government away from the talks with the U.S. and succeeded in putting the release of prisoners as precondition of dialogue with the government. They had to do no major compromises either in their functioning, or their ideology for all these. Taliban is now in its strongest phase, economically and militarily. The internationally recognised government has no match to it. From a terrorist group, it will now become a mainstream political actor in Afghanistan. As mentioned earlier, the deal doesn’t put condition on Taliban to stop violence against Afghan security forces.

Al Qaeda has weakened, and the Taliban is itself fighting with IS which has captured a small territory in Afghanistan. So, for the U.S. there doesn’t exist a threat as such from Taliban. On the contrary, public pressure is growing to wind down the war and call the forces back. President Donald Trump had promised during the 2016 election campaign that he will bring back the U.S. troops which are fighting in different parts of the world. He has already withdrawn from Syria, more than half of the 14000 personnel will go back from Afghanistan by 15th June, well before the 2020 Presidential election.

Afghanistan government is not just weak compared to Taliban, but is also divided. Chief Executive, and rival of President Ghani, Abdullah Abdullah has refused to accept 2019 presidential election results, according to which President Ashraf Ghani is the winner. Mr. Abdullah has said that he will form a parallel government. How are then the mainstream political leaders be able to talk to Taliban in one voice, which is very important to preserve the interests of the common Afghan people who don’t support Taliban. Currently, Taliban controls or contests more than half of the territory of Afghanistan. It won’t take much time and effort to the insurgent group to capture whole of the country, including capital Kabul, once the U.S. forces are gone. The Afghan security forces will not survive in the absence of any foreign support.

The condition that the U.S. has put to the Taliban that it must not give sanctuary to any other terrorist organisations, does not include the groups like Lashkar-e- Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e- Mohammad (JeM). Taliban is a close ally of Pakistan. It is said that Taliban was founded in the Afghan refugee camp in Pakistan. Pakistan was hosting Afghan refugees in the 1980s when people fled from Afghanistan in large number due to Soviet Union’s invasion in the country followed by 10 year long war. Pakistan may use Taliban controlled Afghanistan to provide safe haven for the terrorists of LeT and JeM and use them against India. In such a scenario, we may see tensions rising between India and Pakistan.

The U.S. got what it wanted, the Taliban got what it wanted. The people of Afghanistan who don’t support Taliban and its extremist ideas didn’t even get representation in the “peace talks” between U.S. and Taliban. They are the real losers. The Taliban has given assurance on almost nothing. What will happen to the gains of the past 18 years? What will happen to Afghan democracy, Afghan constitution, civil liberties of the people once U.S. troops are gone? Shall we see the return of the late 90s era when severe restrictions were imposed on people, their rights were curbed, and women were confined to their homes by the radical group? We don’t know anything. By not including all stakeholders of Afghanistan in the peace talks, and giving in to Taliban on almost everything, the U.S. has abandoned Afghanistan, which is, by the way, in the precarious situation due to big countries’ power play.

Masked Madness

If the images, videos and details of masked goons storming in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) with sticks and rods, beating students, teachers and staff, and then walking out fearlessly are scary, the police and administration’s inaction is shocking and outrageous. How can institutions in a democratic country tolerate such a naked use of muscle power against students and teachers? The images of the attack will keep giving nightmare to those who want India to become a true democracy where even the most feeble voices are heard.

On January 5, several masked goons entered JNU with sticks and rods and brutally beat up students and teachers. They entered the hostels and attacked students who were in their rooms. As per reports, 35 students and teachers were injured, including JNU Student Union president Aishe Ghosh. The mayhem continued for three hours with police stationed outside the campus watching.

The role of police and university administration is under scrutiny. Why the administration did not allow police to enter campus, given students’ security was at stake? Isn’t it the responsibility of the administration to protect students? Why didn’t the police nab the attackers while they were walking out of the campus? Why the police could not arrest even a single person after two weeks? To whom are the police and the university administration protecting? Why the central government is not pulling up Delhi police and JNU administration? Impartial investigation, and not claims and counterclaims on social media will find out who were behind the masks, and on whose direction did they carry out the attack.

Much larger and troubling questions, however, must be asked to the society- to ourselves. Why is the society not condemning the violence against helpless teachers and students in one voice? What is their fault? And if they have done any mistake, what is this way of doing justice? Are our political affiliations more important than individual lives? Why isn’t the society putting pressure on the authorities for an impartial investigation into the masked madness? If students are not safe in the universities, where are they safe? What’s wrong if students comment on political matters, support or oppose any political party or ideology? If a society views unarmed, physically less powerful, helpless people as soft targets, that society cannot even be called civilized society, let alone democratic. If we want a healthy society and aspire to climb great heights of democracy, we need to demonize violent elements of the society, regardless of their political affiliation.

Welcome 2020s

With 2019, we also say goodbye to the decade of 2010s. Certain things happen in every decade which later become its defining features. Three things will define 2010s in future. First, internet became part of our day to day life. For shopping, chatting, dating, working, studying, food ordering, entertainment, and so on, we now rely heavily on internet. It has become a medium of political, social and economic activities. Second, climate change came on the centre stage in our discussions. In 2015, for the first time representatives of almost all the countries came together in Paris to talk about climate change. Good number of youth across the world took to the streets demanding that the world must act to reduce carbon emissions. Third, acceptance of the right wing ideas grew across the world. If the first two brought us closer, the rise of nativist, majoritarian, protectionist, revivalist ideas tore us apart. As we enter into 2020s, the challenges we face are huge and complex.

Scientists agree that we are on the edge as far as climate change is concerned. The planet’s temperature has risen quickly in the last two hundred years, thanks to industrialisation. Scientists say that if actions are not taken at the global level to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the earth’s temperature will rise by 1.5°C than the pre-industrial time in the next 30 years. If that happens, the sea levels will rise so much that the coastal areas will submerge. If the temperature rises by 2°C, then the climate change effects will be irreversible. It will cause extreme weather conditions. Natural calamities would become frequent, and there would be a shortage of food and water. All these predictions are made by scientists after in-depth studies.

To avoid all that, the first challenge in the 2020s is to reduce carbon emission considerably. This requires reducing the use of fossil fuels, turning towards renewable sources of energy. Also, strict regulations on commercial use of natural resources, such as forests are needed. It will come at the cost of short-term economic gains. And that’s where the challenge becomes more complex.

Economists fear that the world is headed for economic recession. Chief Economist of International Monetary Fund (IMF) has said in October that the growth rate of the world economy for 2019 will be 3%, lowest since the 2008 economic crisis. According to the report of anti poverty campaigner Oxfam, the top 26 rich people in the world owned as much wealth as the poorest 3.8 billion people in 2018. 3.8 billion is just over half of world’s population. In 2017, the number of rich people owning that much wealth was 43. The report for 2019 will be released later this month.

In the 2010s, those who felt left behind either supported right-wing populist groups and people, or took to the streets against their governments. In 2019 itself, people protested in large numbers in Sudan, Chile, France, Lebanon, Iraq over bad economic conditions. Major economies such as U.S., China, Japan, Germany, and developing ones like India all are experiencing slowdown. The second challenge in the 2020s will be not just to ensure economic growth, but inclusive economic growth.

States’ use of modern technology to control their citizens, growing clout of protectionist ideas, surroundings getting filled with hate, violence, and fear are some other challenges. Huge gap between the rich and the poor despite tremendous exploitation of natural resources for economic development is responsible for these other challenges. Much will depend on how the world tackles the two challenges of reducing carbon emissions and ensuring inclusive economic growth in the 2020s. Efforts are needed at the global level, and not at the national level. As we enter in the 2020s, the first step needed in this direction is the acknowledgment that these two problems exist.

Over To Citizenship

If my last post was about ending of one chapter of communal politics in India, the present is probably about the beginning of a new one. Passing of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and talk of a nationwide National Register of Citizens (NRC) are proofs that the communal politics has gone to a different level. It speaks volumes about the failure of secular democratic forces in convincing common people that these principles are for their own well being. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult to defend basic principles of the constitution. The project of dehumanizing a particular community has achieved a success.

On December 11, parliament passed Citizenship (Amendment) Bill (CAB) which makes acquiring Indian citizenship easier for the non-Muslims from Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan. To be eligible for getting Indian citizenship, the migrants from these three countries will have to stay in India for five years. This period is called naturalization period. For others who want to become Indian citizens, the naturalization period is 11 years.

The government argues that the act is aimed at protecting human rights of the religious minorities of the above mentioned three neighbouring countries. These people face persecution there because of their religious beliefs. Government also says that the act will not affect current citizens of India. It reasons that Muslims are excluded from the act as they form a majority in the three countries.

This explanation, rather than answering, raises questions. If the government wants to protect human rights of the persecuted people, why only religious minorities of Pakistan, Bangladesh and Afghanistan are covered in this act? What about Tamils of Sri Lanka and Rohingya of Myanmar? In case of Rohingya, the Myanmar military is accused of committing genocide against the community in 2017. The case is on in the International Court of Justice. Further, religion is not the only ground of persecution. In our neighbouring countries, people face persecution on linguistic, ethnic and sectarian grounds. Shia and Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan face persecution. They are sectarian minorities. Why, then, the CAA picks and chooses countries and communities?

After the CAA comes in force, India will ask people their religion, and make some concessions for specific religions’ followers while granting citizenship. This goes against the secular character of the constitution. The naturalization period will be different for different people. This violates the principle of equality. The act does not talk about setting up of any mechanism to cross-check individual claims of religious persecution of its beneficiaries. It doesn’t stop here. Home minister Amit Shah has said in the Rajya Sabha that the government is planning to update National Register of Citizens (NRC) across the country to determine illegal immigrants. It all raises serious doubts over the intentions of the NDA government.

It is claimed that the combination of CAA and NRC is aimed at targeting Muslims of India. There is fear that the combination will rob many of them of their Citizenship. Indigenous people of northeast fear that the CAA will give Citizenship to Bangladeshi Hindus, who are as outsiders for them as Bangladeshi Muslims. They want all outsiders to go away from their land. Protests have erupted across the country against CAA and NRC from the second week of December. In many places the protests have turned violent, inviting crackdown from the state. 23 people have been killed so far in violence. The police is accused of targeting peaceful protests in the name of maintaining law and order. Over 50 Public Interest Litigations (PILs), challenging the constitutionality of CAA have been filed in the Supreme Court. They have demanded that the court should strike down the law. The top court has issued a formal notice to the central government, asking it to respond to the PILs. The next hearing is on January 22.

The government says that there is no reason for any community to fear. But actually, there is no solid reason for Indian muslims not to fear. The NDA government should step back and repeal the CAA. Nothing less than that will assure everybody. If not the government, the Supreme Court should strike it down. This law should not be allowed to continue. Apart from violating the basic structure of the constitution, it opens up new issue for divisive politics. The law aims at passing the baton of communal politics to citizenship from mandir-masjid. CAA-NRC combo will ensure that issues of employment, education, healthcare, environment, economy will remain in the backseat in the public debate. Violent protests are unjustified, so is the Citizenship (Amendment) Act.

India At The Crossroads

2019 will remain an extremely important year in the history of post independence India. Events happened in this year will have impact not only on the politics but on the very idea of India. The latest in the series is the judgment of Supreme Court’s Constitution bench in the Babri Masjid- Ramjanmabhumi dispute. It was not easy for the top court of the land to settle the dispute which was perhaps the most violent dispute in post independence India, resulted in hate mongering, provided capital to majoritarian politics, and challenged the Indian state not once but several times. The situation was such that the Supreme Court had to choose between peace and justice. It rightly chose peace in the larger public interest.

In a unanimous judgment, the Supreme Court permitted the construction of a Ram temple at the same spot where Babri Masjid stood once, while directing the government to grant five acres of land to Sunni Waqf Board within Ayodhya to construct a mosque. It ordered the central government to form a trust and hand over the land to it so it can look into the construction of the temple. Doing that and allotting an alternative land for the construction of a mosque must be done simultaneously within three months, ordered the apex court. It also declared that the demolition of the mosque in 1992 was violation of the rule of law, that the Muslims were wrongfully ousted from the centuries- old mosque through acts of putting idols in the mosque in 1949, and demolition of the structure in 1992.

The Supreme Court accepted the Archaeological Survey of India’s (ASI) report which says that the mosque was not built on a vacant land. There existed a 12th century “non-Islamic” structure underneath the mosque. However, the Court does not conclude that the “non-Islamic” structure was demolished in order to build the mosque in 1528. It is worth noting that the excavation was made possible only because of demolition of the mosque in 1992. The Court also concludes that Muslims were offering prayers in the mosque between 1857 and 1949. Then why were they not given possession of that area in which they were praying until idols were placed there in 1949? Next, it says that there is no evidence to prove that Muslims were praying in the mosque before 1857, but there is proof that Hindus were worshiping in the outer courtyard before that year. Here it needs to be mentioned that the very division of outer and inner courtyard for Hindus and Muslims respectively was made only in 1857 by the British administration in response to a riot. And, this finding only establishes Hindus’ rights on the outer courtyard and not on the whole land.

What has the Supreme Court done to resolve this dispute? Has it adjudicated or mediated? What Supreme Court’s failure in strictly going by evidences tells us is that the dispute was not legal but a political one. It was not the Supreme Court’s job to resolve the matter. Building a grand Ram temple in Ayodhya was one of the goals of majoritarian politics in India. It became a rallying point for Hindus across the country, who are otherwise very diverse and cannot form a pan India homogeneous community. Besides sidelining the livelihood issues from public debate, it changed political landscape of the country, and gave an edge to a different idea of India. That idea is fast becoming mainstream. Supreme Court’s judgment is a big achievement for its proponents.

Any which way, the dispute has been resolved. Now much depends on how we take the judgment. Do we take it as a closure of contentious issues between us, and come together to face the challenges of environment and economy? Or do we take it as a step towards correcting what we think are “historical wrongs”? Will we stop stigmatising a particular community as invaders and encroachers? Supreme Court’s judgment has brought us at the crossroads. Whether to move ahead collectively and face future challenges while respecting others’ religious and cultural rights, or to go back in the history and start taking revenges, is for us to decide. We must take our decision carefully because it will have a deep impact on the future of our next generations.