Author: Jasdev Singh Rai

Farm Laws: Winners, Losers And The Future

By Jasdev Singh Rai

The long term collateral impact of the biggest sustained protest in contemporary history is yet too early to be assessed. Prime Minister Modi, whose public persona was crafted as a tough leader who never does a U-turn, has been forced to do just that by the relentless farmers of Punjab, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh. They had more to lose from these laws than Modi did with a U-turn. He has repealed the laws to every one’s relief, except the arm-chair warriors around him who wanted him to stand firm against his own citizens.

What was also remarkable was the unity of the farmers’ leadership. Sikh leadership rarely remains united beyond a few months. The Punjab-Haryana leadership in association with the inspiring and formidable Rakesh Tikait of UP also managed to de-communalise the struggle despite several attempts by the Government to make it appear a Sikh separatist campaign. Astute and intelligent leadership has emerged from this movement. The one to watch.

It will remain to be seen what happens next in the talks. Will the leadership remain focussed and united? Will it successfully continue to be a one purpose campaign, keeping away opportunist politicians eying the potential vote bank?

While the immediate win is obvious, it’s the collateral impact of the protest that could be even more powerful. Struggles in the Punjab have often shaped the course of events in South Asia, sometimes the world. The cracks in the Mughal Empire were first split open in Punjab in 1710. Within 20 years the Mughal Empire began to unravel. It was the fall of the Punjab in 1847 that led to consolidation and expansion of the British Empire. It was the five year sustained protest movement in Punjab in 1920s for regaining control of Gurdwaras that started the collapse of the British Empire. The British invited the Congress in 1932 to talk about possible transfer of power. Why Congress and Gandhi dillydallied for another 15 years has not been looked at by historians. Once India became free, the rest of the British Empire fell apart like dominoes.

It was the communal violence in Punjab in 1947 that continues to dominate geo political issues in South Asia. And it was the Punjab Sikh agitation against Indira Gandhi’s Emergency in 1975 that weakened her and the Congress. It started the rise of the alternatives. It was the Sikh uprising after 1984 invasion of Golden Temple that led to final disintegration of Congress, rise of BJP and Hindutva.

The Punjab rarely gains much politically from its struggles but creates waves that quantumly precipitate other upheavals in South Asia and the world.

What will this movement precipitate? It is possible that a coherent federal Indian movement might arise as a collateral from the weakening of BJP. It is possible that the ‘small farms’ issue could become internationalised and small farmers around the world might rise against the encroaching corporate agri business. It could be the beginning of dismantling of stranglehold that global corporate sector has on power. Struggles from Punjab influence events in many ways and the consequences of this struggle remain uncharted yet.

Equal winners in the struggle were the women of India. The women of Punjab, Haryana and UP have shown a strength, resilience and daring that is an inspiration to the world. They stood shoulder to shoulder with the men and many times endured far more. They refused to go back to the villages and instead brought their children and grandchildren with them. They dared the Government and refused to bow.

It is difficult yet to predict the personal and political impact on the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi. People who have met him personally often say that he is a pleasant, charming and a warm person who empathises with the concerns of others. But the BJP electoral machine had built him as an Indian Thatcher, decisive and never taking a U-turn.

Margaret Thatcher, the British Prime Minister who destroyed the coal mines and the Unions, is famously remembered for her rhetoric, ‘You turn, the Lady is not for turning’. Yet in her reign, she did many U-turns, most infamously in the very unpopular poll tax. Similarly Modi has done a few U-turns, with the repeal of Farm Laws as the most spectacular one in full public gaze.

Nevertheless, it is not appropriate to say he lost. He bowed to democracy. He is a leader of a democracy. When he sensed that that the protestors were gaining increasing support from Indians from all corners of the country, he did the decent thing. He ignored his image makers and took a personal decision. He decided to repeal the laws. He may initially have stood his ground against the farmers, but ultimately he defied those who ‘made’ his public persona.

ALSO READ: Farmers Protest – Solution Lies With Canada Sikh MPs

The greatest losers in this have been Canada and Australia and their big Agri businesses assisted by WTO rules set by western powers. It was Canada and latterly Australia that have relentlessly been gunning at the MSP (minimum support price) for farm produce in India. Australia brought a formal complaint against India in 2019 with Canada joining the ‘arbitration board’ to decide whether India has broken World Trade Organisation rules by given 150% MSP (or MPS in WTO language) for wheat and 185% for Sugar Cane.

The Indian Government was under immense pressure to scale down MSP to a mere 110% or bring in the private sector. Both Canada and Australia were drooling when farm laws were introduced and Modi stood firm. They are of the opinion that due to miniscule profit margin under WTO rules and free market, small farmers  will stop growing wheat and other food grains thus pushing India to buy these products from Canada and Australia instead. They had the GDP obsessed IMF on board too. India is a huge potential market for the mega farms of both countries. It was no surprise that Sikh MPs in Canada maintained a studious silence on the Punjab Farm Laws.

If Modi decides to stand by Indian farmers and accepts their demand for MSP to be legislated at 150% or more, this will be a great blow for the 30-year campaign by Canada and recently by Australia to break into the Indian grain market.

With growing dissent within the WTO for its pro-western and pro-corporate orientation, this protest may spur India to lead the developing countries and force change in WTO.

Perhaps the greatest winner of the protest and the Modi U-turn is India’s otherwise dysfunctional democracy. Often appearing to be faltering and surviving in Intensive Care, India’s democracy has in fact shown itself to be adaptable and a great survivor.  Despite many hiccups, election violence, wannabe dictators, it has shown its resilience time and time again. It broke Indira’s Emergency and it has forced BJP to repeal the laws.

Whatever happens next, whether the BJP starts to lose grip of near total power or federalism emerges as the way forward, democracy will survive in India for long time to come. It will make and break leaders. It is the wider collateral impact on the world that is to be watched from this protests.

Hope From COP

By Jasdev Singh Rai

Despite general frustration with COP 26, there are some milestones achieved, some targets that are worth looking forward to and some hope that future COPs will moving in the right direction. To have expected an exceptionally ambitious plan to address climate change would have been naïve particularly as it would have meant considerable disruption to normal life.

Perhaps the four developments that are worth considering are the commitment to deforestation, the setting up of a fund for developing countries to mitigate climate change, India’s commitment to source half of its energy from non-fossil fuel sources and China offering to work with USA to deal with climate crises.

India is one of the main countries along with China and USA leading the world pollution table. Both China and India are continuing to rely on coal significantly. Both have also signalled to change from coal and other fossil fuels to non-fossil sources. India has a growing population and its middle class base in expanding with needs such as cars, refrigerators, mobile phones and other high tech equipment. It is also developing economically. India has a significant challenge to balance the needs and appetite of its population for energy hungry technology and reduce carbon and methane emissions on the other hand.

Unlike western countries where energy needs have reached near peak point, India’s needs are on the up. Developed countries have to change their energy needs from carbon dependency to non-carbon fuels. India cannot just ditch all fossil sourced energy and invest in non-Carbon energy sources. The expense would mean giving up on development or delaying it significantly.

Hence Prime Minister Modi’s commitment to ensure that half of India’s energy will be sourced from non-Carbon fuel by 2030 is significant. This will be around 500 gigawatts. The sheer scale of this new energy sources will make it cheaper all around for the world. It is quite possible that as this alternative fuel sources become cheaper, India will reach its target much sooner and commit to a greater percentage of non-carbon energy by 2030. Cheaper non carbon energy will encourage other countries, including developed countries to invest in non-fossil sourced energy. Currently it is still expensive. It needs exponential increase in numbers.

India has further committed to reduce its total carbon emissions by 1 Billion tones. This is a significant target. Although PM Modi also said that India will reach net zero by 2070 which disappointed many. There is hope that once the escalation to renewable energy takes place, the 2070 target will be reviewed.

India however refused to agree to the para to phase out coal. India along with Russia and China are still dependent on coal. The para was weakened to read ‘phase down’. Nevertheless it is moving in the right direction.

Similarly the setting up of a larger fund for developing countries to change to non-fossil fuels and a fund for small Islands is a step towards the start of a serious drive to assist countries highly dependent on fossil fuels to transfer to other energy sources and become self-sufficient. The Fund is likely to grow as more countries chip in and current developed countries reach deeper into their pockets.

Small Islands facing extinction with rising oceans and temperatures however came out with a punitive lifeline. A mere 2 million has been pledged to them. It is likely to increase.

As significant is the commitment to deforestation. Deforestation has been a major cause of carbon emissions and climate change. Countries such as Brazil and Russia have significant forests. There are many smaller countries in South America, Africa and South East Asia who have large forests but also need land for farming as well as living space for their population. In a competitive world they try and balance their budgets with developing whatever resources they can. A commitment to stop deforestation with appropriate compensation will encourage many countries to scale down encroaching on forests.

ALSO READ: Can Glasgow Summit COPe With Climate Crisis?

The hand of friendship by China to work with USA is another welcome development. Both countries have faced significant consequences of the climate change. China has put the United States in a spot to some extent by this offer. Instead of accusing China of damaging the climate, the USA can cooperate to set achievable targets.

Critics say that the agreements fall far short of efforts needed to keep temperature rise to 1.5° C by end of century. Based on the current agreement, the temperature will probably rise by 2.4 leading the world towards disaster. Critics say that the solutions agreed do not rise to the challenge. This may well be, but the agreements in themselves are a step in the right direction.

The world economy has been dependent on fossil fuel for over a century if not more. The corporations in control of production cannot change overnight without significant damage to economy and jobs. However they feel the heat of public opinion and know that they cannot carry on as usual. COP26 has shown that the tide is beginning to change and both developed countries and Transnationals are beginning to give undertakings to be responsive to reduce Carbon and Methane emissions.

If the pressure continues and the damaging consequences of climate change keep on recurring, within a year or two, the atmosphere will change. More dramatic commitments will be made either in COP27 or by COP28. It also gives enough time for countries and the corporate sector to begin restructure their investments, productions, sourcing etc to be compliant with change to reduce temperature rises. Both developed countries and corporations know that the mood of the public has changed and will not tolerate their intransigence.

A subtext of COP26 was that the Britain under the current Prime Minister is not much trusted around the world. UK itself is investing in a new coal mine. It has cut overseas aid thus depriving poorer countries even further of means to cope with climate change. Britain further failed to join an alliance to phase out oil and gas. To many it seemed the United Kingdom was asking others to commit to targets that it wasn’t interested itself to adopt. Not surprisingly, the largest emitters have postponed their commitment to another day. Its politics.

Nevertheless COP26 gives hope. It has shown that unlike the Paris Agreement where grand gestures and ambitions were made, the mood now is to get down to business. The polluters know they cannot ignore public opinion or media cacophony on climate. They know the science is against them and they have no answers to the growing evidence that has been finding its way into headlines. They know that the Paris Agreement is not something they can ignore. If the Paris Agreement set targets, the Glasgow COP26 has started the journey on the path.

Farmers Protest: Solution Lies With Canada Sikh MPs

By Jasdev Singh Rai

It is intriguing that Canada, a country with a large and powerful Sikh population, has largely been silent on the Farmers dispute in India. Beyond an early statement by Justine Trudeau that farmers should have the right to protest, there has been almost no comment by him or the many Sikh MPs in his party.

They have excused themselves by saying that it is ‘an internal matter of India’. Internal issues of other countries have not stopped the messianic Prime Minister of Canada from making statements on many other countries. Canada has also legal-napped one of the most powerful CEOs of the 5G Chinese company Huawai, risking the lives of some Canadians who are now detained in China. So why has the ‘internal matter’ of India been such a hurdle.

It appears that Canada has been relentlessly raising the issues of subsidies for agriculture produce in India at the World Trade Organisation, even in 2020 when the farmers protest were well advanced. Canada, Australia and USA wanted the Minimum Support Price to stop or reduced dramatically.

The World Trade Organisation is an extremely important body that regulates rules of trade between countries. Countries have agreed to abide by the rules and further to accept the judgements by its Dispute Settlement Body.

The WTO has rules on subsidies on farm produce just as it has on agriculture trade between countries. The rules are that Governments should not distort the market. WTO does not like Governments subsidising agriculture produce. Subsidy for agriculture produce is called MPS in WTO terminology, meaning Market Price Support.  It tolerates some possible minimum distortion to the market. It is called ‘de minimis’. Developed countries are permitted up to 5% subsidy over the cost of production. It goes a bit further for developing countries to whom it permits 10% subsidy over the production costs. Beyond 10% is considered as ‘market sin’ in the eyes of WTO.

What WTO does not do of course is insist on the maximum profit margin that traders (corporations) can make in the market. The system favours corporate and capitalist system.

India on the other hand has Minimum Support Prices (MSP) that gives up to 50% more than production of costs. This is not acceptable to WTO and many of its members, especially the very rich countries such as Canada, Australia and USA.

Canada has been raising issues around subsidies since 2002 if not earlier. It is still complaining at WTO meetings on Agriculture that India’s subsidies regime is far beyond permissible levels. It did this on 28th July 2020, when it said, ‘In its 2018/2019 domestic support notification, India reported support for rice in excess of its de minimis level for rice. By doing so, India breached WTO domestic support commitment to limit its support for rice at 10% of its value of production. Please indicate what concrete steps India is taking to rectify the situation and fulfil its WTO domestic support commitment for rice in the future.’

In 2019, both Canada and USA raised objections to MSP, mentioned as MPS (Market Price support). They said in the conclusion that ‘It appears that India provides market price support for pulses in excess of what it has reported to WTO.’

India’s defence has been that it is not giving more than the 10% subsidy. It calculates the subsidy rather creatively when responding to WTO. That does not impress the countries who raise the question.

In 2018, the United States even accused India of sort of cooking the books. It said that while in its annual notifications, India reports that it is not subsidising more than the permissible percentage, it (the USA) has seen plenty of evidence in the open source internet that India is subsidising by far more.  By a counter-notification it said ‘that India substantially under-reported its market price support (MPS) – government purchases of farm goods at guaranteed prices – for wheat and rice in its 2010-11 and 2013-14 notifications to the WTO’. The United States produced a table accusing India of pushing MPS upto 84%.

Table introduced by USA in its counter-notification

Apparent MPS as a percentage of the value of production for rice and wheat Commodity

CommodityMY2010/11MY 2011/12MY 2012/13MY2013/14
Rice74.0%80.1%84.2%76.9%
Wheat60.1%60.9%68.5%65.3%

India defended itself by refuting these. While till then the objections have been in form of verbal and written statements, Australia moved an official notification in 2019 for dispute settlement by targeting Sugarcane, because India had admitted to slight increased MPS. The dispute is listed as DS 580. The dispute was supported by Brazil. On 22nd July 2019, Australia asked for a dispute Panel to be set up. This then becomes an official process of looking into what WTO calls market distortion. Australia would have done this with consent of Canada and USA as usually happens in these international arenas. Canada may have deliberately kept its name out of the official complaint as that would have exposed its hypocrisy. Canada is among some of the countries who have put their names to be in the panel to examine the dispute!

Indian subsidies have been under intense pressure. The WTO news briefing of 26 June 2019 states that India received most questions on Agriculture subsidies at the WTO. The list of questions are also on WTO site.

It would appear that India has been under a lot of pressure at the World Trade Organisation to put an end to the MSP that Punjab and Haryana farmers are protesting to have put in law. The pressure increased in 2019. The complaints have been led by Canada, Australia and USA mostly with Canada having started as long ago as 2002 and still raising issues in 2020. The evidence is all over at WTO website.

What is further intriguing is why PM Modi has been silent on this. Why didn’t he square with the farmers that their country, India, is under a great deal of pressure to reform farm produce subsidies instead of his government accusing them of being anti national. He or at least MPs from his party could have turned to all those Sikh farmers trekking on tractors to Delhi, that they would be best advised to call their relatives resident in Canada to ask their ‘Apne MPs and ministers’ why Canada is pushing India to stop giving MSP to farmers in Punjab!

Breaching WTO rules in one field and refusing to abide by adjudications can have implications in other sectors of trade. Despite sovereignty and all that power countries claim to have, international institutions can still influence domestic policies to a great extent.

The Government is in a fix. If it agrees to WTO ‘de minimis’ rule then MSP will have to come down to 10% above costs and not the 50% as it seems to be now. Farmers will lose a lot of money and many pushed into poverty. The alternative is to sell in the open market and have an income support system as is permissible under WTO. This has been proposed by the Modi Government.

Modi Govt is in a fix over WTO ‘de minimis’ rule

By taking away the current MSP, Mandis will not be able to sustain themselves. Mandis and Artiyas take some 7% of the price which a farmer sells at. This 7% of 150% production cost and 7% of 110% production cost lead to vast differences in revenue for the state governments. So the Indian Government proposed the private sector to come and compete. They can buy at 300% above or 50% below production costs as they want.

Why has PM Modi not put the cards on the table to the farmers is a mystery. Why weren’t they invited to a dialogue where facts and pressures explained and the two sides to have worked a mutually agreed solution. Perhaps Modiji is too proud to appear weak in front of the international community and his own citizens. Having promoted a rhetoric of India as superpower etc and himself as an invincible leader, it would have appeared a bit weak to say the WTO now decides what sovereign Bharat can do with MSP?

Perhaps the details of the talks between farmer leaders and Modi Government are not known fully. But it seems a bit of transparency, rather than unconvincing salesmanship on how the new laws will make farmers into ‘millionaires’ might have led to a different dynamics of the year and half of protests and led to a better solution.

It seems the farmer protests are directed at the wrong target. It doesn’t appear that the Government of India has much scope to manoeuvre. It can either appease the farmers and breach international trade agreements with knock on effects on an already weak economy, or it can implement WTO rules as demanded by Canada, Australia and USA.

Farmers will be better making angry calls to their relatives in Canada, to all those self bloated Sikhs who think they own the Government in Canada, and ask them why are Sikh ministers and MPs pushing for removal of MSP in Punjab and Haryana.

Farmers would be better protesting outside Canadian High Commission than on roads

It is in the end the inaction if not co-option of the Sikh MPs of Canada that is driving their relatives in Punjab into poverty. It is these MPs who bear most responsibility and perhaps the banner of hypocrisy as they gingerly join protests in Canada against Farm Laws, but support their Government to push for end to MSP at WTO.

It is one thing to rhetorically claim to own levers of power, but it is another to be able to exercise power. Why don’t Sikhs in Canada ask Harjit Sajjan, the defence minister to walk into Trudeau’s office and demand Canada lay off the WTO pressure?

The protesting farmers also need to call their relatives in USA and Australia to lobby their governments to back off. If Sikhs in USA have any influence, then this is the time to show. Otherwise like many other times American Sikhs engage in more gas and tamasha than substance.

But most appropriately, it would be better if farm leaders also explain to the many farmers who is really behind all their problems. They would be better advised to protest infront of Canadian and  Australian High Commissions and US embassies rather than Singhu border or Indian Parliament. But then they also want visas to go and settle in these countries. Modi is an easier target.

1947 And 2021 – Two Exits In Perspective

By Jasdev Singh Rai

While Biden is being attacked all around for failing to organise the exit from Afghanistan more strategically to avoid sudden fall of the government and the dangerous fate that is potentially faced by the Afghans who worked for the Western administration, it is worth looking at the worst exit in recent history if not all of world history. The British withdrawal from India was so shambolic, insensitive and reeking of criminal negligence, that it left one million people dead in its trail.

As the British media and Parliamentarians finger-point at the United States, they conveniently forget the circumstances around 1947. Viceroy Lord Mountbatten was in charge. There was enough intelligence that weapons had been stored by various groups preparing for violence to ethnically cleanse on each side of the newly created India-Pakistan border. Party strategists on both sides wanted to make sure that their country had dominance of the community that it was meant for.

On Pakistan side, the Punjabi Muslims wanted Sikhs and Hindus out to avoid the country becoming a multiethnic-multireligious land. After all the idea of Pakistan was to create an independent country for South Asian Muslims, the Islamic nation. On the other hand, quite a few Hindus wanted to rid India off as many Muslim population as could so that India would be a Hindu dominant country. Most of the violence was in the Punjab. The Sikhs were caught in between but sided with Hindu India and bore the brunt of violence in Pakistan side of Punjab. On the Indian side of Punjab, Muslims suffered immense violence.

It wasn’t the first time communal violence had taken place in India. But the British not only didn’t plan for it, the British Indian Army stayed in its barracks while massacres were going on around them in hundreds of thousands. Timely planning for massacres and strategic intervention and control by the army could have prevented most of the violence, admittedly not all. A highly disciplined army that respected its British officers would largely have ensured that violence was contained rather than become a pandemic.

Mountbatten managed to save almost every British life and the British walked out of India without loss of life.

Interestingly, the blame for the violence has been put on Indians, religion, lack of civilisation, inexperience of leaders such as Nehru and Jinnah etc. No blame has been appropriated on the negligence of the British administration. So successful has been this narrative that even Indian and Pakistani academics continue to concentrate their writings on the senseless violence and have internalised the blame upon their own communities. They blame the British for communalising politics but not for mindless inaction at the time.

ALSO READ: Punjab – From Partition To Protests

The British Press and politicians seem to have developed a convenient amnesia about British handling of the Indian exit as they queue to gloat at Biden and his sudden decision to leave Afghanistan without apparent preparations for a sudden collapse of the Afghan Government.

Compared to what happened in 1947, the USA has handled the Afghan exit with extraordinary dexterity. It immediately sent in about 5,000 troops and has now vacated over 100,000 Afghans and American citizens. It has enabled other countries to vacate their people too.

The Americans have handed control to the Taliban but also remain in talks with them to avoid the situation getting worse. Compare this to 1947. A million people died in the massacres.

It is inevitable anywhere in the world, be it India, Britain or USA, that if the agencies responsible for ensuring order are withdrawn, then chaos and violence ensues. Chinese whispers exaggerate the smallest incident and then develop a life and trajectory of their own. That is what happened in 1947. The organisation that was supposed to ensure order, the British Indian Army, failed in its duty and stayed in its barracks under direct orders to do so.

In Afghanistan 2021, the Taliban quickly stepped in to ensure law and order. It took over when the Afghan National Army absconded and left the streets potentially to mob rule, criminals and waiting Islamic State jihadis among others. The Taliban immediately filled the vacuum as the western backed President, Ashraf Ghani, ran away. The Taliban have also cooperated in letting Americans and other western countries to take their citizens and those who worked for them in flights from the main Airport in Kabul, called Hamid Karzai Airport.

A lot of arm chair generals have a lot of advice on how Biden could have handled the exit better. A great deal of this advice is coming from the British press, British politicians and commentators, not least British Generals. The USA has not yet explained why it left in a hurry. The attack at the airport on 26th is perhaps one of the possible factors in the calculations. Perhaps the United States knew that the Afghan Army would not be able to handle the growing menace of ISIS and decided that it is best dealt by the Taliban.

A gradual exit would have meant the USA would have had to broker a deal between Taliban and the Afghan Government. The Taliban was in no mood to negotiate with them. It was best to leave and let matters unfold. Whether there will be violence in the near future or not is too early to say. The Taliban has its own problems with foreign Jihadis wanting to use the country as a base and get their hands on the vast armoury left behind by the Americans. While the liberal press is rummaging about Biden’s failure to ensure women rights, education and human rights based law, the region is facing a descent into something similar to the crises that led to the establishment of Islamic State in Iraq.

Whatever happens, one fact should be obvious. A bit of humility on part of British press, politicians and pontiffs would be appropriate. The American exit from Afghanistan in 2021 so far is no way as disastrous as the British exit from South Asia of 1947. The reality is that it was derogation of responsibility on part of the British administration that led to a fermenting communalism to reach such heights of insane violence. It is a wonder that no victim of that period ever thought of bringing charges of criminal negligence against the British Government. That may have put the two exits in perspective.

Pegasus, What’s New About It!

By Jasdev Singh Rai

Pegasus has hit the headlines everywhere. From France’s President Macron to India’s opposition leader Rahul Gandhi, politicians and celebrities are baying for blood. But of whose? It’s not clear. The Israeli cyber-arm firm NSO? The company only made the technology and sold it to countries to use for protection against ‘terrorists’ etc. NSO is not a country and cannot monitor or control who and how it is used once it is sold. Should people attack Israel? But NSO is a private enterprise. There is no international mechanism to monitor. So who?

That technology is advanced. That Intelligence Services have the means to get into people’s heads let alone phones is suspected by almost anyone with some knowledge of technology. So what’s all the fuss about?

The United States has been snooping, hacking, stealing data and conversations etc for decades now. How else do they know where ‘terrorist’ leaders are and which Dacha Putin is in or what is the source of sausages that Angela Merkel is having for breakfast.

That leaders of Al Qaeda and Taliban try to remain one step ahead by communicating through sophisticated traditional non tech methods is also well known.  How else would Taliban have chased the Americans out. Pegasus? ‘We have lived with Pegasus or its dad and granddad for decades,’ the Taliban might say.

It will not be a surprise if France was using some similar version of Pegasus to monitor its suspected terrorists, criminals, political trouble makers and possibly even minority groups. Sometimes technology boomerangs. What French intelligence services have been doing on others, yet others have been doing on Macron. Ah La Vache! Or Ooh la la, he is furious!

Pegasus has had its eyes on some leading British politicians, journalists and public figures. Possibly even billionaires. These people are lucky they have discovered the name of at least one technology source looking at or after them, depending on who is offering the narrative. Who knows which British Intelligence agency has also been keeping a tab on them, harvesting all their data, listening to all their conversation! Intelligence officers are the proverbial snoopy old lady next door with curtains drawn, looking through a chink. It takes a certain character to become one.

British intelligence infiltrates, snoops, hacks and sucks information from anything moving in UK including organisations representing disability, LGBT, children playing high tech games and even infants saying ‘boom boom’. That’s how little kids get thrown into ‘prevent’ programme, designed to flush out potential ‘terrorists’ and rewash their brains to become good royalists. Pegasus’s big Uncle, GCHQ, has been listening to everyone on British soil without warrants or legitimate reason. This country of privacy champions, likes to own everyone’s privacy. Just look at the number of snoopy cameras in any city, town and even village in UK.

ALSO READ: Chinese Spy Network: Thousand Grains Of Sand

The great Sultans of Arabia have acquired Pegasus from NSO through their previously public sworn enemy, Israel.  NSO would have had to have clearance from Israel Govt to sell the programme to them. The Arab countries have been busy hacking and listening to anyone suspected of being against them. But 400 British have been on the list of UAE Pegasus. Surely these illuminati were not secretly crusading and conspiring to overthrow the ruler of UAE. Perhaps another Government asked UAE to do what it wouldn’t by law be permitted to do. Now who could that be? Three guesses and you can have your name printed here without benefit of Pegasus.

But the Craft master is always ahead of the game. The company that made Pegasus must have a little programmed bot in there to hack and spy on all the Middle East Majesties that have bought the programme. So no need to send spies, the Middle East Kingdoms are probably sending info to Israel and even paying for it. That is smart capitalism.

Pegasus, the mythical winged horse, has travelled to India too in the form of high tech. Rahul Gandhi is moaning endlessly. Despite his voice becoming hoarse, he won’t stop accusing Narendra Modi of listening to his (Rahul’s) phone anywhere and everywhere he gets a chance to say so! Simple answer, stop talking on the phone.

Perhaps he should turn to his mum for an explanation. After all Pegasus’s grandfather was brought into India by his father, Rajiv Gandhi, and then later under the watch of his mum. Some ancestor of Pegasus has been in India in the hands of intelligence services for three decades at least. And Israel helped with the technology.

Sikh insurgents, Kashmiri jihadis, and many political leaders of movements perceived by the State as ‘terrorists’ have long known that their phones are hacked, their conversations are heard, their every movement is tracked by GPS.

It has been used, as every law and means in India has been used for 200 years (since colonial rule), to listen to and stifle the opposition. In fact, Kautilya recommended it to rulers 2000 years ago before it dawned upon Pegasus and India’s IB. All this happened during the Congress rule and it should be no surprise that it is happening during BJP reign. Pegasus in India? Well what’s new Rahul Gandhi? Either the family never told him at the dinner table, or he is just trying to political point scoring out of something that every ‘with it’ Indian knows.

Many Indians know that phones, TV, and other gadgets all get hacked and Indian intelligence services have had the technology first acquired by his father, Rajiv. KPS Gill boasted of it. It was used on political opponents then and it is being used now. It was his grandmother Indira who started using the civil service to do her bidding to remain in power. The current PM is only doing what the family started in the best tradition of Indian politics. Using Pegasus to harvest info on opposition, what’s new?

Xi’s Comment On Taiwan Sends Ripples

By Jasdev Singh Rai

China has sent a forceful message to the West, in fact the United States. It has been lost in all the other rhetoric that Chinese leader Xi Jinping thundered in the 100th anniversary of the Communist Party of China. President Jinping said that the party will ‘complete reunification of Taiwan with the mainland’ and hinted it could be by force. If China ends up doing this, it will be symbolic end of ‘American century’.

China has made similar reference to Taiwan every time a new leader takes over and repeated it almost every year. However, this year there is a seriousness that seems to have replaced caution that marked previous policy. Under President Xi there has been escalation of incursions into Taiwan air and sea territory, gradually encircling Taiwan or testing its defences.

Taiwan is a small State of some 35 million people, one of the densest populated in the world. China on the other hand has 1.4 Billion people and the world’s largest army. In a straight war, Taiwan would not last a day. But Taiwan has a sort of guarantor, that is the United States. This is perhaps the only reason Chinese troops haven’t walked into Taiwan.

The United States has a complex relationship with Taiwan. It has an ambiguous treaty with Taiwan called the Taiwan Relations Act that ensure that Taiwan can defend itself against any aggression by China. The treaty does not commit USA to defend Taiwan. The Act states “the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capabilities”.

But there is an implicit threat further in the Act, It states that the United States will “consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means, including by boycotts or embargoes a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States”.

And further, ‘to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people on Taiwan.’ 

So the Act draws in the United States dependent on what the United States regional policy and interest are at the time rather than a defence treaty. Taiwan has relied heavily on this Act as a sort of guarantor against a forced takeover by China.

ALSO READ: Taiwan Becomes Meat In US-China Sandwich

China has to calculate what strategic importance the United States gives to the region and how important is Taiwan to USA in that regional interest at any time. China has a reputation for long thinking. Its policy is to make Taiwan of lesser value for USA so USA will avoid a full frontal war.

That policy has already been successfully applied by China in the case of Hong Kong. It refused to accept British sovereignty in Hong Kong, claiming the Island belonged to it. It was transferred in 1997 with Britain ensuring China committed to democracy, freedoms and capitalist system in Hong Kong. China then waited till Britain’s power in the world had waned significantly to break with the one nation two systems agreement. In 2021 the commitment has all but disappeared.

In his speech, President Xi also stressed that China does not interfere in other countries nor attack them. However, China considers Taiwan to be part of China with some legitimacy.

Taiwan was part of the Qing dynasty until 1895 when Japan invaded and took over the islands. Meanwhile in mainland China, the Qing dynasty was ended by revolutions in 1912. The Republic of China was established in 1916. Following further unrest, the country was united by General Chiang Kai-Sheik under the Kuomintang in 1920s. China was called the Republic of China, ROC. But the Kuomintang faced challenge by the Communist Party of China led by Mao Zedong. During second World War, there was truce between the two. With the defeat of Japan, Taiwan was returned to China.

However, the civil war between Kuomintang and CCP continued with the later winning in 1949 and establishing its control over all of mainland China. This was now called the People’s Republic of China, PROC. Chaing Ke-Sheik and a lot of his elite escaped to Taiwan where they established their Government. They claimed that mainland China belongs to them. On the other hand mainland China claims Taiwan belongs to it.

The Taiwan Government was considered to be the legitimate Chinese Government by the West and held the seat at the UN as a veto holding power. This was mainly American policy rather than British.

The situation was absurd to say the least and a reflection of American belligerence and opposition to communism. Finally as China became more powerful and USA needed to restore relations with China, the USA recognised People’s Republic of China as the real China. Mainland China took its place and veto power at UN in 1972. Consequently, Taiwan is not recognised as a sovereign country by UN except by some 14 countries. It engages with the world through Trade Mission Offices.

Chinese policy for reunification has been multipronged. It has blocked any formal defence pact between US and Taiwan and formal recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign country. Trade with China is important for USA. Regionally China has engaged in free flow of trade and travel between mainland China and Taiwan.

ALSO READ: Xi Jinping’s Chinese Exceptionalism

In some ways, Taiwan’s position is somewhat similar to that of Goa. Goa was a Portuguese territory. After independence, Indian request for Portugal to cede the territory to it was refused. India invaded it and annexed Goa in 1961. Portugal didn’t show up.  

Will Xi invade Taiwan as India did with Goa? Xi is more likely to send the Chinese Army into Taiwan to annexe it than any other Chinese leader in recent history. His incursions in Indian territory are a testament to that.

Currently the Chinese Government is still attempting to influence the democratic vote in Taiwan in its favour and peaceful annexation. There is also brain drain from Taiwan to mainland China as there are more opportunities in China for skilled and professional Taiwanese. Lifestyle is better and China is a highly developed country now.

However Xi’s patience will run out at some stage and the prospect of invasion will become imminent.

There is considerable debate within United States to shore up its presence in Taiwan. United States think tanks are divided between letting Taiwan go or US defending it. Those promoting defence of Taiwan think that a showdown in Taiwan will contain Chinese power. The pragmatists say that USA has to come to terms with Chinese power.

If there is a showdown between China and US, it will not affect China but Taiwan might not recover, even possibly be decimated. If US lets Taiwan be taken over, it will affect American prestige, for what is left after defeats in Afghanistan and Iraq. The best possible way forward is to avoid a war, have a hands off approach and let a peaceful process determine gradual entry of Taiwan into China.

Mamata’s victory an opportunity to forge genuine federalist alliance against BJP

By Jasdev Singh Rai

Trinamool leader Mamata Banerjee’s tough and successful defence against the Bharatiya Janata Party juggernaut should now be an opportunity for change in India that has long been needed. The divisive, communal and brazenly irresponsible campaign in the face of the Covid tsunami by the BJP should be a wake-up call for an alternative India, a country that can resist intrusive centralisation and dictatorial overbearance. India is a state of vast diversity and legendary pluralism.

The two national parties, Congress and BJP have dominated the country since 1947. Both in their own way have stamped on regional identities, regional strengths and regional outlooks. Both have tried in their own way to create a monocultural nation to construct a version of nineteenth century European nationalism. Instead of leading the world with a model of exemplary pluralism, both parties have mimicked ultra-nationalism at the expense of not only minority communities, but also the mosaic of creative beliefs that are collectively termed Hinduism.

Congress tried to impose European secularism on the entire country. It nevertheless selectively played to a Hindu nationalist sentiment for votes and often crushed minorities such as Sikhs to create an ‘enemy within’ and rally the masses against this construct. It reduced India’s cultures to anthropological national ornaments for public relations on the world platform. Its levels of corruption and family sycophancy reached levels that people could no longer tolerate. It was divisive and played with communalism to the core to create vote-banks and gain power, so much so that even the majority Hindus became victims of its destructive secularism.

BJP on the other hand has pushed a nineteenth century ethno-nationalist European ideology by constructing the idea of a Hindu nation from vastly different indigenous belief systems. It has promoted an imagery of ancient kingdoms in South Asia as a glorious period that can be resurrected by reviving bygone language, ideas and a pushback against the Muslim minority. BJP sells its hollowed idea with a hate-fuelled campaign against Muslims, blaming Islam for disrupting the progress of ancient culture. It conveniently fabricates history, brushing aside inconvenient facts such as that the word Hindu as an identity itself was popularised by Muslim invaders in the first place.

Like Congress, the BJP has tried to hang on to the inheritance from the colonial period. Both have tried to forge a nation out of its disparate and highly distinct and different regional people and cultures.

India was born in 1947 as a Union of federating states and kingdoms that had come out of colonialism. The ‘Union’ was soon all but in words as creeping centralisation by the two parties eroded regional strengths and federalism.

There is a great deal of capacity and scope in the various states of India if they had greater autonomy to manage their own affairs in their own idiosyncratic cultural ways. What may work well in Maharashtra may not fit well in Bengal. But the rationale of nationalism is that all differences are flattened in the construction of a conflated, imagined, single nationhood. Just because both states have Hindu majorities does not mean they have similar cultural orientations. This is akin to the failed proposal that just because most of Europe is Christian, the French and Germans should forget their distinctive nationhoods and forge a common language, nation and political system.

Both centralist parties, the Congress and BJP, have found regionalism to be an obstacle in their ambitions and their hopes of becoming a great superpower. They think that India can be like China, an almost homogenised nation, that took centuries to be where it is now. The problem is that India is not China and China is not India. Indian culture is not like Chinese and Chinese culture is very distinct from Indian civilisation.

India is naturally a federal State even if powers try and defy that by taking away the autonomy of its federating states and regional cultures. India is strongest as a Federation rather than a unitary nation. Its federating provinces bring a diversity of opinions, talents and approaches that can only be a great strength as a united front, both economically and politically. The European Union is an example. Europe has never been as strong as it is now. But modern nationalism desires everyone to be the same, to observe similar norms and have a similar outlook. It makes governance easier on paper but impossible in the real world.

It has been tried several times before. It has always failed. The Mughals were successful for 300 years while they respected India’s diversity. But when Aurangzeb tried creating a monoculture, it took but a few decades for the edifice to come down. It happened with the British too and with Congress. It will happen with BJP. India may have a sort of common civilisation but it is not a nation. It is a state of many nations, in denial of that simple fact.

The alternative to the two parties has usually been a quickly patched-up third front that finds itself in power because no big party emerges triumphant from the election. The coalition of disparate regional parties have little in common except dislike of the big parties. They have no common agenda or ideology. They put together a coalition which is immediately undermined by its main partners all competing for the big job. At other times, differences arise in the allocation of Cabinet posts and finances to the states.

What is needed is an ideological third option in Indian politics that bases itself on a strong federalist country with greater powers to the states and less power to the Centre to take over the powers of the states. A party committed to federalist structure that introduces checks and balances that will ensure the Centre does not find creative legal instruments to invade state powers as it did in the farmers’ issue.

Perhaps the third option needs to be a Federal Alliance of India that will clearly spell its ideological manifesto to preserve the diversity and distinctiveness of its many regional states. It needs to give greater powers to the states and check the ability of the central government to interfere in the remits of the states. A number of institutional arrangements will need to be rethought.

The Rajya Sabha will need to be changed and made somewhat similar to other federal countries such as the United States or Switzerland. A whole lot of institutional structures that make the Indian democracy will need some overhaul. The Supreme Court will need to be really independent by ensuring no single political party can influence appointments. Similarly the tendency of an ambitious central leader will need constitutional checks to ensure press freedoms are not compromised as happened during Indira Gandhi’s years and now under Modi, and that any other strong leaders do not become despotic.

Mamata is now the heroine who has checked the BJP juggernaut that was crushing regional parties mercilessly. The farmers’ movement was the first real challenge the BJP under Modi faced. They bravely stood up to his Indira-type bullying. There is a sense of deja vu. Mamata is the warrior queen who has struck that fatal blow with the regions rising against the Centre. She epitomises the alternative that India seeks.

It cannot be another version of the Congress party nor another attempt at the loose opportunist coalition that becomes the third front during these periodic opportunities. Mamata Banerjee needs to come up with a new idea, a new ideology and a new coalition. That will give confidence to the people in the regional states to flock to their regional parties and support a third option. It needs to be a sustainable option of an alliance of federalist parties from the diversity of regions and parties. In a way it is history repeating. The war is waged by Punjabis, the ideas come from Bengal, the politics comes from other states. Its Mamata’s time and her opportunity to be Tigress of India to push this radical change, a Federal Alliance of India.

CORONA CRISES, LET THE BUREAUCRACY LOOSE

By Jasdev Singh Rai

India is a country of paradoxes. It has an inept political class but a world-class bureaucracy. No challenge is too big for the bureaucracy. From time to time, it has shown that it can cope and manage the biggest disasters with ease. Its only handicap is its masters, who have to make decisions and let it take control in situations such as the current Covid crises.

If anything showcases the incredible machine that is the Indian bureaucracy, it is its handling of events like the Khumb Mela, the biggest festival in the world by far that makes events like Glastonbury (UK), the Olympics, and even the Huj at Mecca mini-festivals by comparison. It might seem absurd to be giving the example of the Khumb when it is being blamed for much of the current Covid spread, but during normal times, the Khumb can attract up to 50 million people in the month-long celebration. That is the equivalent of managing a country plus.

The Khumb management is a nightmare always in waiting. From the sanitation planning, the sleeping arrangements, the security, the food supply, and delivery, the water supply, the provision for essentials, the demands of the VIPs for special attention and not to forget that this is the most fertile place for terrorism, pickpockets, thieves, and drugs. Yet the bureaucracy manages it with an ease that marvels. The planning starts years ahead.

Or take disasters, such as the earthquake in Gujrat or floods in Bengal, or the absorption of millions of refugees from Myanmar and Bangladesh. Any western country would be stretched to limits of breakdown. Not the Indian bureaucracy. It meets the challenge with its co-partners, the Indian Army, and the Indian police.

The question is what happened with Covid. Has the Bureaucracy failed? Has it been brought to its knees? Has it been exposed as a mythical juggernaut of civil servants, beaten by a microscopic entity, the coronavirus?

In fact, the Bureaucracy and the medical scientist’s teams had been warning of this doomsday scenario long before the second wave of Covid descended. They had been asking for preparations as they do for other events. They had been asking for stocking for a second wave. They had been asking for vaccination programs to be escalated. But ultimately, the Indian bureaucracy’s Achilles heel is its political masters.

The BJP Government was too busy compromising the free press. It was too busy with elections and making Hindutva a political winner. It was too busy fighting its own citizens, the farmers. It was too preoccupied with spreading its ‘political goodwill’ worldwide to compete with China by promising vaccines to other countries rather than making them available to its billion people. And it ignored the cautionary warnings of its own experts of the hurricane that could come with a second wave Covid.

The Government was preoccupied with religious nationalism and letting Khumb go ahead despite warnings. It was concentrating on the gamble that a religious festival of this size would create imagery around India of the powerful narrative of Hindutva and belonging to ancient roots. It would help to bring a wave of nationalist sentiments in Bengal where the focus of the top political leadership was. But viruses are not politically motivated nor influenced. They see an opportunity and go for it.

The Indian Bureaucracy is incapacitated or activated by the political class. It acts in all its glory or fails ingloriously depending on clear instructions from the political leaders. The army too awaits instructions from the top. That is the hallmark of Indian democracy.

This is both a strength and weakness of the Indian system. It insures against recurrent coups that plague many other decolonised countries. But it makes the ability of the bureaucracy to act dependent on the prerogatives of the political masters.

This Covid crisis can be controlled if the bureaucracy is now given a free hand. It can muster help around the world, bring in safety equipment, bring in the personnel, ramp up production of necessary medical equipment, set up new crematoriums, build make shift hospitals, and bring in the doctors. And during all this, it can ensure that security is maintained, lockdowns are followed and people are fed.

With its partner the Indian Army, the Bureaucracy can handle the Covid crises that have now made India reach the top slot in mismanagement, deaths, and people infected. What’s more, given its history, it can handle this within days. It needs the Government to start governing for the crises rather than be obsessed by divisive matters such as how many crematoriums have been built for Muslims and Hindus. The Government needs to stop playing politics with the Virus. The Virus has no religious or religious preferences. It has no understanding of history or political expediency. Its only enemy now is the Indian bureaucracy. Unleash it on the virus.

THE COVID FAMILY OF MUTATIONS

By Jasdev Singh Rai

As the Covid pandemic sweeps unrelenting across India with a national identity flagging the name ‘Indian variant’ many will be asking whether this is a virus produced in India or is it a variant that mostly affects Indians, or is it a virus that mutated after infecting Indians. In fact, it is none of these. What are variants, mutations and why do viruses get names after countries? We have the Hunan Virus, the Brazil variant, the English Variant ( or Kent variant), the South African variant, and now the Indian variant.

Covid-19 virus, like other viruses, is merely an RNA string with some protein coating. It is a gene. It only exists when it is in a living cell of another body. Viruses can be in humans, in animals, in insects, in amoebas, in bacteria, in plants, trees, in fact, any living thing. The virus needs a host to replicate and spread. That’s all they seem to do.

During replication, errors occur. These are mutations. Many mutations end up damaging the gene itself and it becomes ineffective. In some mutations, the gene becomes more effective and natural selection enables it to survive better.

All genes mutate from time to time as they replicate. Human genes in the cells also mutate. That’s how evolution happens. Viruses also mutate for many reasons. Mostly in a few million, some replications help genes to survive better.  In the case of viruses, some mutations can help them to defeat the antibodies that may have been formed against them.

There are in fact thousands of variants of the Covid-19 Sars virus.  Most of the variations are in those parts of the gene that do not do much. It is mostly variants in the so-called spike protein that are important. These spikes are used by the virus to push through into a host cell.  Antibodies generally exist to disarm the spikes thus rendering the virus unable to get into a host cell to replicate. Antibodies recognise the spikes, latch onto the virus and help killer cells in the human immune system to engulf the whole virus. These killer cells, called macrophages dismantle the virus. Or antibodies recognise the spikes and make them useless.

Some mutations in the spike protein fool the antibody, thus the antibody does not recognise it. In some mutations, the spike protein is more efficient in getting through the host cell, thus getting in before an antibody gets to it.  It is the genetic variations that significantly change the spike protein so that the antibody does not recognise or the spike protein is more lethal that really pose challenges.

Mutations can occur anywhere in the world. It’s where they are first decoded in significant numbers by scientists that the name of the country sticks. So the English variant could easily have happened in Italy or Sweden. But it was first decoded in England from Covid patients in Kent, United Kingdom.

The Brazilian variant was first decoded in numbers from patients there, as was the South African and subsequently the Indian variant.

The Indian variant also could have its origin anywhere. Indians do not need to be guilty about it. It’s just that India has decoding labs, so when the gene was broken down, it so happened the gene code was first to read in India or from patients in India.

What is a variant and what exactly do they do?

The technical names that scientists use are not country names. They are complicated and understood by virologists. Ordinary people will simply get confused.

Take the common variants.

THE SPANISH VARIANT

The first of the significant variants was the Spanish Variant. Its technical name is  20A.EU1. B.1.177. Its notable mutation is B.1.177. Remembering that in common language can be a memory feat. So it’s best to call it Spanish mutation. Although originally it was not thought to have any better transmissible power than the original Covid virus, when Europe lifted restrictions, this virus spread fast across Europe.

THE ENGLISH VARIANT

Technical name 20I/501Y.V1, VOC 202012/01, B.1.1.7 , the notable mutation is N501Y

Again a mouthful to remember. Better to call it the English or Kent variant. This has about 17 mutations. One of them N501Y in the spike protein helps the virus to bind more tightly to the cellular receptor. It is not the number of mutations in a variant that is important, but a couple of the mutations that make it more virulent. There are still studies going on on whether the English variant is significantly more able to spread than the original Covid virus.

SOUTH AFRICA

Technical name  20H/501Y, V2, B1.3. The notable mutations in it are E484K, N501Y, K417N

This variant quickly became the dominant strain in South Africa. The N501Y mutation is like the European version although scientists think it arose independently. This means that the same mutation can arise in several parts of the world without people having transmitted it there. The more dangerous mutation in this variant is E484K that enables the virus to evade the immune system.

BRAZIL

Technical B1.1.28, VOC 202101/02. 20J?501Y.V3, P1 with the notable mutation beings E484K, K417N/T, and N501Y

And another one VUI202101/01, P2. The notable mutation is E484K

Brazil seems to have had two main variants. Again some of the mutations it has are similar to ones in Spanish and UK. They are efficient in avoiding being recognised by antibodies.

INDIAN VARIANT

Tech B.1.617 notable mutations are  E484Q, L452R, P681R

The Indian variant has more than 11 mutations but two of the mutations make it particularly transmissible. That is why it is called double variant or double mutation. It is two dangerous mutations that are thought to help make it more transmissible and also capable of neutralising antibody response. This is a double attack. It is thought to overcome the immunity people may have built with a Covid infection last year. This mutation is thought to be 20% more transmissible than the original one and 50% more able to reduce antibody efficacy.

However, the Indian version is still being studied. It is concerning scientists that this variant also seems to occur in people who have been infected before.

WILL VACCINES WORK AGAINST THESE VARIANTS

The 3-4 main vaccines claim that they are effective against the variants. However, vaccines are constantly being updated. The booster shots that will be given later in the year are more likely to counter the variants.

The fact is that Sars Covid -19 Virus is here to stay. It’s done the original jump from animal to man. Although the coronavirus family of viruses does not mutate so fast and usually remains stable for a long time, the Covid-19 coronavirus is acting like a flu virus and mutating faster. So every few months a new variant is likely to be found and scientists along with vaccine manufacturers are going to be busy developing upgraded versions of the vaccines with new boosters

Baishakhi 1699 — The Understated Revolution

By Jasdev Singh Rai

This week, Sikhs around the world celebrated Baisakhi on 13th April and some on 14th. Perhaps as a legacy of colonialism, the world and most Indians know about the 1788 French revolution and attribute human rights, republican government, and equality to it. Yet nearly a century before that another profound and wider revolution on human rights, fight against tyranny, the end of hereditary leadership, the emergence of republican order, and a truly democratic polity based on ancient Indian ideas took place on Baisakh 1699 on South Asian soil without the reign of terror that accompanied French Revolution. Few Indians know it and only a rare Indian academic recognises its significance.

On Baisakh 1699, the tenth Guru of the Sikhs, Guru Gobind Rai called a large gathering at Anandpur Sahib. His father, the Ninth Sikh Guru, Teg Bahadur Ji had been beheaded in 1675 on orders of the Mogul Emperor, Aurang Zeb, for refusing to convert to Islam. Guru Teg Bahadur wanted to show others by example that freedom of conscience comes at a price. Unfortunately, the message was lost on most Indians.

Guru Teg Bahadur went to the Mogul Emperor to argue for pluralism after Kashmiri Pundits pleaded with him to help them as persecution of ‘nonbelievers’ had taken on the new drive.

On Baisakh 1699, in a gathering of some 80000 followers, Guru Gobind instituted the order of the Khalsa, an ethical community of saint soldiers who served humanity rather than a ruler or an elite or a single religion.

A ceremony took place. Amrit was prepared, called Khande Ka Pahul. The first five came from different regions of South Asia and from different Varna Jaatis (castes) representing the diversity and regions of South Asia. They drank from a common bowl breaking the taboos of Varna Jaati (caste).   

These were Daya Ram, a Khatri from Lahore district, (now Pakistan).  Dharam Das was a Jaat from Hastinapur, Meerut (now UP, India). Himmat Rai was a water carrier from Puri, a town in modern-day Odisha (India). Mohkam Chand was the son of a cloth printer, a Kamboj from Dwarka, (in modern day Gurjrat). Sahib Chand was a barber or Nai who is generally considered to have been from Bidar (in modern-day Karnataka)

They were called Punj Pyare (five venerated). Guru Gobind gave them the surname Singh.  After taking Amrit, they became Daya Singh, Dharam Singh, Mohkam Singh, Himmat Singh, and Saheb Singh. He then asked them to give him Amrit and became Guru Gobind Singh.

Thousands took Amrit. The men took the surname Singh while women became Kaur. They were asked to live a disciplined life and wear five Kakkars of which two well-knowns are keeping unshorn hair and a Kirpan (small sword). They were to treat all humanity with respect, fight for justice against tyranny, practice no discrimination, share their wealth, and govern by consensus. Any five Amritdhari Sikhs would constitute the five venerated and they would make final decisions after consultation with the masses. There would be no absolute leader and no hierarchy of power and no hereditary privileges.

Baisakhi and taking Amrit is generally characterised as a religious ceremony. Looked from a different perspective, Guru Gobind Singh overhauled the very structures of political power and society, making them horizontal rather than vertical.

Secondly, by taking Amrit from the five, the Guru broke another tradition, the idea of infallible power in a single holy or privileged person. He submitted to the five and during his life, they often persuaded him to change decisions.

He further uprooted the entrenched discrimination of women as lower than men. He armed them along with men and did not give them a different set of Kakkars, or different services or duties.  Many did lead Sikh armies and became leaders.

Further by handing the power of ultimate decision in the consensus of the masses, the idea of a few privileged men deciding laws, economics, and rules for everyone else was overturned as an institution of political power.

Indian society was transformed on that day. There was no scope for Kings, male dominance, religious hierarchy, caste, or privilege. The roots of what is called the republic in modern times were born. Democracy was instituted on the principle of almost total consensus called sarb samti.

Under him, the Sikhs ended up going to war several times against the forces of Aurangzeb. But it wasn’t simply the Sikhs. The revolution had spread and many people associating with the Khalsa were also Hindus and Muslims. They were not seen as religious wars but a war against tyranny and a fight for freedom, dignity, and a new idea of consensus politics. Guru Gobind Singh passed away in October 1708.

In that year an ascetic, Lachman Das joined the Khalsa, becoming Banda Singh Bahadur. Banda carried the revolution forward. His lasting legacy in the short time he led the Khalsa, was to decimate the foundations of Mughal rule in northwest India and strip feudal lords of the land, end serfdom and grant land rights to the tillers of the land.  This memory runs deep in the regions of Punjab and Haryana. Hence the determination of farmers to resist possible corporate take over which they see as a modern form of feudalism.

After Banda Bahadur followed disparate Sikh groups called Misls who finally routed the Mughals and started ruling different regions. Eventually, Ranjit Singh became the so-called Maharajah in 1801. Yet he called his Empire Sarkar-E-Khalsa, Government of the Khalsa, and signed treaties under that. Ranjit Singh had a golden throne that he avoided sitting on. Instead, he sat cross-legged on the floor, knowing the Khalsa does not like hierarchy.

Ranjit Singh’s rule is also renown for inclusiveness, with Muslim and European Generals and Hindu Ministers. He gave grants to all communities to build their religious and community centres. This was a state that practiced no discrimination based on religion, caste, background, or nationality.

In 1843, after Ranjit Singh had died, his wife, Rani Jinda, led the negotiations for the treaty that followed the last Anglo-Sikh war. The Harding brothers sat in disbelief having to negotiate with a woman.

Rani Jinda and Banda Bahadur

Once Colonialism sank deeper, the revolution started in 1699 was given a ‘religious’ characterisation by European colonialists as a baptism service, despite the fact that no new spiritual and other metaphysical revelations or commitments were made on Baisakh 1699. British colonialists did not want to encourage an Indian version of the French revolution to spread through the region as a republican form of governance that would challenge British Crown rule. They preferred to rule directly as Crown land or through compliant Maharajahs.

The portrayal of Baisakhi as a religious event has also been internalised by Sikhs and unfortunately appropriated as such by the rest of the Indians, particularly academics trained in the western instituted education system. The event was a seismic transformation in the way polity started moving in South Asia. It fought the tyranny of both Mughals and Hindu Rajas until colonialism put a stop to that. The Sikhs had unfortunately not put together an institutional structure that reflected the principles established in 1699 and one that could have lived unscathed through western hegemony. Now the event is too marginalised as a religious one to be unpacked for its real significance in the history of political ideas and influences.

It is possible that it might take a western academic to flip the narrative and interpret Baisakh 1699 as the movement for inclusivity, of inversion of power from a divine Raja to the sovereignty of the masses, the end of discrimination and hierarchy based on gender, caste, religion, etc and welfare of all.