Category: Opinion

Modi and Shah are making concerted efforts to ensure that their dominance in the party and the government remains unchallenged

In a series of tweets congratulating Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah recently for taking the bold and historic step of resolving the festering Kashmir problem, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh pointed put that the “groundwork” for this permanent solution was laid down over the last five years.

“In the first five years the government under the leadership of Prime Minister (Narendra) Modi prepared for the ground for a permanent solution in Jammu and Kashmir. Now, after coming back to power, we have taken many big steps in the direction of that solution,” Singh said.

Ordinarily, this statement would have escaped attention but then we are not living in ordinary times. Singh’s throwaway reference to the work done on Jammu and Kashmir in the Modi government’s first term was essentially an attempt to draw attention to his contribution to this exercise and to claim his rightful place in the ruling dispensation’s ecosystem since a systematic effort has been made to sideline him.  

Singh was heading the crucial home ministry in 2014 before he was moved to the defence ministry in the Modi government’s second term. It’s a different matter that unlike Shah, Singh never enjoyed the same clout as his successor today because of his proximity to Modi. Though Singh is technically the number two in this government, there is no doubt that Shah is the de facto second-in-command.

The process of marginalizing Singh, which began in 2014 when the BJP came to power, has continued after the Modi returned to form a government after a resounding electoral victory earlier this year. In fact, the sidelining of Singh is in line with the concerted efforts made by the Modi-Shah duo to see that no party senior or a leader with a mass base is allowed to get out of line or eclipse the BJP’s big two. The wings of such potential candidates are invariably clipped so that BJP ministers and MPs remain faceless and beholden to Modi for their electoral victory.

While Singh has been rendered powerless for the past years, Transport minister Nitin Gadkari has been effectively silenced while former chief ministers Shivraj Singh Chouhan and Vasundhara Raje have been kept out of the power matrix in their respective states. Venkaiah Naidu was given the vice-president’s post even though he was loathed to leave active politics.

The late Sushma Swaraj was never trusted because of her allegiance to BJP veteran leader LK Advani and was accommodated in the government as she could not be ignored given her experience, talent and seniority. However, she was not allowed to function autonomously though she was heading the crucial external affairs ministry. It was, therefore, not surprising when Swaraj opted out of electoral politics before the last Lok Sabha poll on health grounds and was denied a Cabinet berth in the government’s second term though she could have been accommodated in the Rajya Sabha.

Rajnath Singh was put in his place soon after he took over as home minister in 2014 when he was not free to appoint his personal secretaries. He was further pushed on the defensive when the Delhi Durbar was rife with rumours, believed to be circulated by party insiders, that Modi had pulled up Singh’s son Pankaj following allegations that he had taken money for arranging the postings of police officials. The BJP was forced to issue a denial after a furious Singh complained to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. But the damage was already done.

More recently, Singh was kept out of key Cabinet committees and it was only after he threatened to resign that corrective measures were taken. Last month when Amit Shah presided over the groundbreaking ceremony of projects worth ₹65,000 crore in the Uttar Pradesh capital Lucknow, Rajnath Singh was conspicuous by his absence. Singh, who represents Lucknow in the Lok Sabha, was said to be traveling then but questions have been asked if the programme dates could not have been adjusted to ensure Singh’s presence. Similarly, Singh had a minimal role in the government’s recent moves on Jammu and Kashmir, which were handled by Modi, Shah and national security advisor Ajit Doval.      

Known to be a straight talker, Nitin Gadkari hit the headlines in the run-up to the last Lok Sabha elections when a series of controversial statements made by him were seen to be a pitch by him for the Prime Minister’s post. Not only did he invoke Nehru and Indira Gandhi (at variance with party position) and speak of tolerance in his public remarks, Gadkari literally sought accountability for the BJP’s defeat in last year’s Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, and Chhattisgarh assembly polls. “If I am the party president, and my MPs and MLAs are not doing well, then who is responsible? I am,” he said.

Paying tribute to Sushma Swaraj recently, Gadkari dwelt at length on how as BJP president he depended on her for advice. Truly a telling comment in view of Swaraj’s equation with Modi and Shah. Today Gadkari is barely seen or heard and the only time he is in the news is when he has a fainting spell which is quite frequent.

Though he lost his government in the last assembly election, former Madhya Pradesh chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan wants nothing more than to get back his old job. But the BJP’s Central leadership is not obliging him by toppling the Kamal Nath government though it has a wafer-thin majority in the assembly. While it is well-acknowledged that Chouhan’s personal popularity has not dimmed, Modi-Shah duo wants to hand over the reins of the state to a new leader. This was evident when Chouhan was not given charge of the party’s state unit or made the leader of the legislature party.

Former Rajasthan chief minister Vasundhara Raje was also denied a position in the state after her defeat. She had blotted her copybook during her tenure as chief minister when she challenged Modi over appointments in the state unit and distribution of tickets during the assembly elections. Raje has been keeping a low-profile since then though like Chouhan, she was appointed party vice-president at the national level but this was to guard against their interference in the party’s state unit. After the party lost the assembly polls, the BJP made a conscious decision to give tickets to Raje’s detractors in the Lok Sabha elections and followed it up by accommodating them in the Modi government at the Centre. The result is that the two-time chief minister and a one-time powerful leader has been virtually banished from active politics.

It all began in the run-up to the 2014 Lok Sabha elections when senior leaders like LK Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi and Yashwant Sinha were put to pasture. And it is clear this exercise is continuing as Modi and Shah work assiduously to see that their dominance in the party and the government remains unchallenged.

]]>

Indian political stage has lost three of its hearty and humble personalities in a single week, leaving behind a void that will be greatly missed

Politicians come and go. Those who hold office are more powerful as they can do favours, but are also more vulnerable. Assessing them becomes an if-and-but exercise.

Fragrance or odour they spread by their deeds and words matters. And when they go, memories they leave behind. Their political legacies, if any, are for the scholars and historians to study. Their families, mostly, are a different story.

Two diminutive women and a polio-stricken man strode India’s political scene for close to four decades. They passed away in the last three weeks. As a scribe who watched and reported them, I do think they spread frangrance amidst a lot of muck around, and have left something to remember them by. 

Sheila Dikshit, 81, Delhi’s longest-serving Chief Minister, went first on July 20. She can rightly be credited for making New Delhi a world capital worth visiting and a little more habitable.  

Next to go on July 28 was Sudini Jaipal Reddy, 77, a Congressman-who joined Janata Party and Janata Dal and then, returned to the old stable. He was acceptable to all as their spokesman, doing his job with equal dedication and conviction. Remarkably, media lapped up whatever he said in all his avatars.

And last week, on August 6, Sushma Swaraj, the youngest of them at 67, left.  India’s external affairs minister till only two months ago, she opted out of this year’s elections on health grounds. Despite speculation about her willingness, she found no place in Modi-2. If she had a premonition of what was coming, we will never know.

Qualities common to the three were grace and personal charm in whatever they did or say in public, a high level of credibility and the ability to carry others along.

Although belonging to different parties, they got on well among themselves in the country’s political roadshow. Actually, like politicians anywhere, the Indians, too, snipe at each other in public, but the better ones share mutual warmth.

After attacking the Congress-led government from her seat as Leader of the Opposition, Swaraj was among the first to rush to hospital when her political bête noir, Congress President Sonia Gandhi, took ill during the proceedings.

That Gandhi had defeated her in an election earlier did not matter. Also forgotten was her declaration when Gandhi was close to becoming the prime minister that she (Sushma) would shave her head off and live like an ascetic in protest. Coming from one woman about another, it was not received well. Yet, Swaraj, with her trademark ‘bindi’ and Hindu-Hindi persona, was BJP’s perennial antidote to Gandhi. That is politics.      

India has lost three sharp minds that went beyond their calling and well beyond the routine and the humdrum. If Sushma quoted Sanskrit scriptures and Urdu couplets spontaneously, Sheila was often seen at Sufi festivals.

Each of them was intensely humane and earned goodwill by helping whoever they could.

Do-gooder Dikshit was called “Aunty Number 1”. Like Reddy, Swaraj, too, was among the more accessible ministers. At the Foreign Office where much of the work was done from the prime minister’s office (PMO) and when she was unwell and unable to travel, she used the social media and provide succor to whoever could reach her. They included a girl who on losing memory had strayed into Pakistan, stranded spouses, someone needing urgent medical help — and they came from across the world.

Diplomats from 51 countries at the United Nations signed her condolence book. Indian diplomats who had worked with her were nostalgic. In Pakistan, there were sentimental outpourings for Sushma even as the neighbour was receiving the shock treatment over New Delhi’s Kashmir move that has since blown into a full-scale political and diplomatic war. Her last tweet was to ‘congratulate’ the prime minister.

Born in Haryana’s orthodox, anti-woman social order Sushma, then 25, was a socialist to boot and the state’s and the country’s youngest Cabinet minister. An effective Leader of Opposition, she was the first full-term external affairs minister. It was no mean achievement.

Political analysts say Modi had ‘downgraded’ Sushma because she belonged to the ‘rival’ L K Advani camp within the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Yet, Modi had tears in his eyes while bidding final farewell.         

Reddy shed his feudal background to join students’ politics. He never let his physical handicap keep him down. “I can take care of myself,” he politely said when I tried to help him balance his crutches, papers and his coffee mug.

His life was a saga of an irrepressible creative spirit that transcended all obstacles to soar to great heights, says India’s Vice President M. Venkaiah Naidu, a long-time associate, but from a different camp.

As young lawmakers, the two rocked the Andhra Pradesh Assembly. Their personal cooperation and political clash is the stuff of how political culture evolves in a democracy. Sadly, the public only gets to know the crude side of politics, which abounds aplenty.  

When Reddy was depressed, it is said, he would lock himself in, read books and take detailed notes. He would emerge fresh with more quotations from Rousseau, Dante, Immanuel Kant, Shakespeare, whoever.

An erudite scholar, among the many that Indian parliament has had, he was both fiery and persuasive. You hardly noticed his Telugu intonations when he spoke in English. Its limited knowledge could make you reach for dictionary, if you cared.

Long before Shashi Tharoor, India parliament’s current super-wordsmith, Reddy gave currency to ‘humungous’ to describe a scandal of the Rajiv Gandhi Government. In the opposition then, he debunked the “Mr Clean” campaign to project Rajiv as one that smacked of “an advertisement of a detergent.” It hit the political bull’s eye.

If Reddy was a man of words, Swaraj and Dikshit were women of action, often para-dropped by their parties when locked in adverse situations. Although from neighbouring Haryana, but undoubtedly BJP’s national leader, Swaraj became Delhi’s chief minister for just three months to quell an internal party rivalry. She lost, besides this rift, to sky-rocketing onion prices in demand during festive season.

She was succeeded by Dikshit. A Punjabi married into an Uttar Pradesh family with deep political roots, she became Delhi’s chief minister — and ruled for 15 years.

Political fortunes changed with her hosting the Commonwealth Games.  She arguably received much opprobrium during its preparations. The Games, though, went off well. But they triggered an anti-corruption campaign that sent Dikshit’s party downhill. She lost by a huge margin.

The Congress has not recovered since. It projected her as is “Brahmin face” in Uttar Pradesh polls, but then abandoned her. At a ripe age, she was Delhi Congress chief, contesting an election, and losing it. Her last act before suddenly being moved to hospital was to address a letter to her paralyzed party.

Think of a minister who can publicly say politicians are “wild animals” who need to be kept in check. None left after Reddy’s departure.

Perceptions matter in journalism while understanding and appreciating politics. The effort was worthwhile with these three stalwarts.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>

Having announced the welcome post for a Chief of Defence Services, the Prime Minister must now integrate the Services HQs with Defence Ministry wherein officers and bureaucrats will sit side by side as equal partners

From the ramparts of the Red Fort in his 92-minute Independence Day speech, the Prime Minister has finally announced the appointment of Chief of Defence Services (CDS) post for the three services. The crying need for the post was felt after the 1971 Indo-Pak War wherein with the consent of the Indira Gandhi Government, Gen SHFJ Manekshaw performed the duties of the CDS for the duration of the war. He was also promoted to Field Marshal, a Five Star General on his retirement. This much-awaited appointment is a welcome step for deteriorated civil-military relations wherein the three services are denied direct access to the Raksha Mantri (RM) and they have to pass through the tinted filters of an under equipped and qualified bureaucracy.

Based on the arrangements in most of the democracies of the world, it was always felt that a single point advisor to the government representing all the three services for all aspects of operations, training and procurement was paramount. The CDS had to be senior to all the serving Chiefs to be effective and as such should be a five star general who would have a direct access to the Raksha Mantri (RM). The bureaucrats in the Ministry of Defence (MoD) were always wary of this arrangement and were against the appointment as their implied authority over all the three services would be diluted. Although, the Chairman Chiefs of Staffs Committee was the right man to perform in absence of the CDS, in various UPA Government tenures, the Defence Secretary, who is lower in status to the three Chiefs was performing this task by default; without adequate in-depth knowledge of the three services, only because he had direct access to the RM.

Successive governments continued to defer the appointment of CDS on the ill advice of the bureaucracy. Thanks to the then BJP Government headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee to have formally identified the need of having a CDS after the Kargil War. The Group of Ministers in the Kargil Review Committee recommended that a Five Star General should be appointed as the CDS. The appointment was related to the integration of services headquarters with MoD as is prevalent in most of the democratic countries of the world.

It is to the credit of the three services that they started preparing the framework of the CDS Secretariat and integration of the services headquarters with MoD. The services set up a joint integrated Headquarters named the Integrated Defence Staff (IDS). IDS has been effectively and efficiently functional for over a decade now and is headed by Chief of the Integrated Defence Staff (CIDS); an Army Commander level Officer in rotation from the three services, who would eventually be the deputy of the newly appointed CDS. Presently, the CIDS reports to the Chairman Chief of Staff’s Committee who is the senior most services Chief and holds two hats in this rotational appointment. The newly appointed CDS will just have to walk in and “plug and play“the role as he already has an effective team in place.

The NDA.1 government identified the need to have a CDS and the late Manohar Parrikar on taking over as RM had promised the services that he would soon get a CDS appointed. However, the three services Chiefs were not on the same page as IAF opposed the idea. The IAF and Indian Navy, because of their smaller sizes, were always scepticle that this post would generally be held by an Army Officer and their priorities of modernisation and acquisitions may be relegated or kept on the back burner. In the Israeli Army in the 2005 war with Lebanon the CDS was from the Air Force and Israeli tanks suffered heavy casualties due to an unorthodox use of missiles fired from basements and windows of houses by Hizbulla. It was then decided that CDS would always be appointed from the Army and is usually from the Special Forces.

Due to his proximity with the PMO, NSA Ajit Doval has been willy nilly performing the duties of the CDS from Pathankot Incident to surgical strikes to Balakot and now abrogation of Article 370. While it may be acceptable for internal security situations to have an ex police officer taking charge of the situation, for an external threat he would woefully fall short. PM needs to be congratulated for not succumbing to the suggestion of a four star general to the job because Chairman of Chief of Staff Committee, a four star General is presently performing the duties and cannot be very assertive on the other two chiefs of the same stature.

Ideal choice for the first CDS are two learned and very well read Generals who have retired in the last two years and are still current. The first one is Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi who was wrongfully denied the appointment of the COAS in spite of being capable, and the second choice is Lt Gen DS Hooda who was at the helm of Northern Command during the launch of surgical strikes. Otherwise, a serving Chief may be promoted and another chief appointed in his place. The front-runners amongst them are the Air Chief BS Dhanoa after Balakot and the Army Chief Bipin Rawat. Government will do well if they appoint the first CDS who is a visionary and acceptable to all services. 

The new RM Mr Rajnath Singh needs to be congratulated on rolling back of income tax levies on disabled soldiers and announcement of appointment of CDS within three months of his taking over. He needs to restore the confidence of the serving military soldiers in their government who has been systematically relegating their rightful stature in NDA 1 period. Since the Central Police Forces Officers have already been granted Non Functional Financial Upgradation (NFFU) and the services have been denied the same; the elite defence services have for the first time in history of India been relegated to a position below the CPOs. This does not augur well for the morale and motivation of the defence forces of a country which aspires to be a regional power within a decade.

The modernisation and acquisition plans of the defence services need an immediate impetus with infusion of necessary funds. This is also the ideal time to integrate the services headquarters with MoD wherein services officers and bureaucrats will sit side by side as partners and MoD will stop pretending to be a higher Headquarter. Lots of overlapping will be removed with savings to the defence budget and efficiency and accountability would be ensured.

]]>

To bring our readers a separatist’s view on the Kashmir issue, LokMarg speaks to Zafar Khan, head of diplomatic affairs in the Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). Khan believes that by abolishing Article 370, India has taken the status quo in the state back to August 1947. Now, he insists, it is no longer a regional issue between the two countries and the international community must assert on tripartite talks.

What do you make of this step taken by Government of India on Article 370 and 35A?

Article 370 defined a temporary constitutional relationship between Jammu Kashmir and India. Its abolition does not mean Jammu and Kashmir becomes a territory of India. What this chauvinistic and confused Government’s betrayal of an agreement made to the international community in fact means is that there is no longer a bridge between Jammu Kashmir and India. In reality and under international law, Jammu Kashmir has reverted to its constitutional position which it had prior to creation of Pakistan, and modern India on 14 and 15 August 1947 respectively. In other words, the temporary and provisional accession of Jammu Kashmir with India no longer exists. Indian position in Jammu Kashmir today is that of an occupying power without legal justification to be there and hence open to international interference. This now opens the long dreamt legitimate hope of the people of Jammu Kashmir gaining complete independence because the status quo has been pushed back to the 1947.

Today as India holds on to Jammu Kashmir with its military might, brutal force and brazen denial of the inherent, inalienable and internationally recognised sovereign right to self-determination of the people in Jammu Kashmir, it is important to appreciate some legal and constitutional facts as well as responsibilities under international law.

But article 370 is part of the Indian constitution and India can change any constitutional article by its majority if it wants, can’t it?

Article 370 of the Indian constitution defined the sphere of responsibilities between Jammu Kashmir and republic of India pending resolution of the Kashmir issue through UN sponsored Plebiscite. Under article 370, India was responsible for defence, Foreign affairs and Communications. While 35A protected in particular property rights and citizenship. Article 370 didn’t make Jammu Kashmir part of India. It is only part of the Indian constitution for convenience of Indian State to define its administrative status with Jammu Kashmir. India does have right to change aspects of its constitution but by rescinding it, India is effectively breaking that relationship and its arrangement thereby restoring the status of Jammu Kashmir to pre Article 370. It does not have the right to occupy, or change the status of Jammu Kashmir because the State is not part of India. To date and after the 1948 war between India  and Pakistan, the partitioned Jammu Kashmir has been known as Indian occupied Kashmir while Azad Kashmir has been called Pakistan occupied Kashmir.

What about the treaty of accession?

The treaty of accession between the ruler Hari Singh and India was challenged by Pakistan because the will of the people had not been taken into account. It was offered by India at the UN to have Article 370 as a temporary measure until a plebiscite was held. There have been 15 UN resolutions concerning India and Pakistan and there was the 1972 Shimla Accord with Pakistan. In all these the third party in dispute was and continues to be the people of Jammu Kashmir.

Unlike Modi, who has essentially land grabbed Jammu Kashmir, one of the founding fathers and first Prime minister of independent India, Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, declared in a statement in the Amrita Bazar Patrika of Calcutta on 2 January 1952 that “Kashmir is not the property of India or Pakistan. It belongs to the Kashmiri people. When Kashmir acceded to India, we made it clear to the leaders of the Kashmiri people that we would ultimately abide by the verdict of their plebiscite. If they tell us to walk out, I would have no hesitation in quitting Kashmir.” He continued by affirming that “we have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honour for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.”

Is there ambiguity which enables India to see the situation differently and think it has to integrate Kashmir with rest of India?

There is no ambiguity. What ambiguity? By derogating from the promise made by India’s first Prime Minister India has colonised Jammu Kashmir. India has now deployed well in excess of 800,000 military and paramilitary forces to occupy Jammu Kashmir, disregarding internationally accepted agreements and commitments and violating human rights with impunity. While Modi calls this integrating Jammu Kashmir with rest of India, the simple historic and legal facts seem to have been missed in the calculation. They cannot be ignored.

The presidential order on 5 August 2019 with which Modi government annexed Jammu Kashmir and dismembered its political and territorial unity by its absorption of the entire Indian occupied part of the state as a union territory with direct rule from New Delhi has no locus standi. It is plain and simply an invasion and an illegal occupation, continuing colonialism under a new regime. This day will for ever be etched in the memory of Jammu Kashmir citizens as a black day, and a catastrophe, and a day of Nakba on both sides of the ceasefire line in Kashmir and throughout the world.

On this day, India’s communalist and chauvinist leadership, representing the so called largest democracy in the world, disdainfully with a stroke of pen, defied the international community by disregarding international agreements, the regional commitments and the promise to the people of Jammu Kashmir. Human Rights violations have increased exponentially.

What sort of human rights have been violated?

You don’t need to take our word for it. The Office of UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights published its second report on 8 July 2019 to follow its first ever report on human rights situation in Kashmir of 14 June 2018, which  identified human rights violations and use of militarised violence with impunity against civilian population, and recommended among other things that the  Armed Forces Special Powers Act AFSPA, which gives complete immunity to the security forces must be repealed, and recommended that changes to the draconian Public Safety Act, P S A, should be made to make it consistent with international law.

The UNHCHR has asked the Indian government to be allowed to visit both Indian and Pakistani sides of the divided land to investigate and verify allegations of human rights violations. But India has consistently refused to accede to the request of the Human Rights Commissioner. Ironically Indian government demands that it should be made a permanent member UNSC.

Now an iron curtain has descended over Jammu Kashmir and the huge occupation force has imprisoned millions of men, women and children in their own homes. Thousands of para military and military troops are taking out flag marches throughout the cities, towns, hamlets and villages of Kashmir to instil fear, and awe of the Indian state’s oppressive power. Internet and telephone service are disconnected and an indefinite curfew on the helpless population is enforced at gun point. This is against international law.

Is there a way forward?

Nehru’s statement in 1952 in fact explains the essence of the Kashmir issue. Because at the heart of the conflict in Jammu Kashmir, lies the fundamental principle of the, inherent and inalienable sovereign right of Kashmiris to determine their political destiny. Nehru as well as other Indian leaders in the past including even Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the first ever BJP Prime Minister of India accepted, and respected the democratic rights of the Kashmiris but Modi and ultra-chauvinist successors are nothing like Vajpayee. As a staunch Hindu, Vajpayee, believed and followed god Ram who was legendry for upholding promises and ethics. Which god is Modi following? Modi is not Vajpayee. He does not come close to him.

What if India does not accept your proposition?

As Kashmiris we strongly believe that the history of the almost seventy two year old Kashmir dispute is full of betrayals, duplicity and hypocrisy by India in particular, indifference and abandonment of Kashmiris’ basic rights by the big regional and other powers.

In this desperately fraught situation with national annihilation of the Kashmiri nation under the oppressive onslaught of Indian juggernaut, people of Jammu Kashmir justifiably appeal for support in their struggle to exercise their national self-determination. Kashmiris have always sought to make their country a bridge of peace in South Asia.

Now the international community must intercede since by unilaterally rescinding Article 370 and 35A, India has taken the situation to pre August 1947. India must be made to engage in dialogue with the people of Jammu Kashmir and Pakistan under the United Nations auspices for a just and equitable resolution of the issue.

Is there anything else you wish to say?

The post August 1947 arrangements have ended, hence the international community should insist on tripartite talks and demand the release of leaders like Yasin Malik and others, illegally incarcerated. It should insist on lifting the ban of political parties like the JKLF which is committed to a peaceful political solution of the long standing Kashmir issue. In fact there is a hearing next week in front of the tribunal to lift the ban which should never have been placed in the first place. JKLF is a peaceful political organisation representing the aspirations of all Kashmiris regardless of their religion or background. An international mediated way forward starting the clock from 1947 is now the only way forward to extract the region out of the Kashmir imbroglio. Modi has unwittingly brought it to this, now the international community must act.  

(Zafar Khan is a retired academic. He has served JKLF in political and diplomatic fields for 41 years. The views expressed are his own)

]]>

Abrogation of Article 370 will bring the same accountability, transparency and rule of law to Jammu and Kashmir that the rest of Indians take for granted

On 5th August 2019, ten days before India’s Independence Day, Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi gave a gift of Independence to Jammu and Kashmir. The Article 370 which was a noose around the neck of India was abrogated and the state was bifurcated into Union Territories of Ladakh and that of Jammu and Kashmir. This is a historic moment for all Indians living in and outside India.

There are several myths surrounding the Article 370. Here, I shall try to address these one by one.

People say that it was a condition of J&Ks merger to India. Nothing could be further than truth. Only 3 months after India’s independence in August 1947, Jammu & Kashmir was attacked by Pashtoon Kabailis supported by Pakistan Army. Their mission was to annex the Muslim majority Kashmir valley with Pakistan – the ‘unfinished business of partition’ that Pakistan often refers to. The Hindu Maharaja Hari Singh who initially wanted to stay independent from both Pakistan and India had to sign a document of Accession with India in return of armed assistance. There were no conditions to this Accession.

ALSO READ: Abrogation Of Article 370 – Can India Bear The Cost?

The UN resolution on Kashmir of 1948 declared Pakistan an aggressor and asked it to vacate the land that it had illegally grabbed. India was asked to secure law and order in the whole of Jammu and Kashmir including the annexed part and hold a plebiscite to ascertain people’s choice on merger with India or Pakistan. Needless to say Pakistan never fulfilled the condition of vacating the occupied land that it had annexed. Still there was no Article 370.

So, where does this Article come from? Well, like all princely states of the Indian Union, Jammu and Kashmir had set up a constituent assembly to determine which parts of Indian Constitution would apply to them. In 1949 while all other states accepted the Indian Constitution in totality, Jammu and Kashmir Constituent Assembly asked for time to come to a conclusion. As a result a ‘temporary and transient’ Article 370 was inserted in the Indian Constitution, which stipulated that the other articles of the Constitution that gave powers to the Central Government would be applied to Jammu and Kashmir only with the concurrence of the State’s constituent assembly.

This ‘temporary provision’ was intended to last till the formulation and adoption of the State’s constitution. However, the State’s constituent assembly dissolved itself on 25 January 1957 without recommending either abrogation or amendment of the Article 370. Thus the Article has become a permanent feature of the Indian constitution. It must be stated here that J&K constitution adopted on 17 November 1956 clearly enshrines in its preamble that the State of Jammu and Kashmir is and shall be an integral part of the Union of India. The unresolved question of Article 370 looks therefore as a deliberate mischief as it directly contradicts the intention of the J&K Constituent Assembly.

Second myth that’s doing the rounds is that Article 370 gave special status to the people of Kashmir. One might be mistaken for thinking that this special status makes all J&K citizens prosperous and self sufficient. The facts are disappointing. Ladakh with 58% land mass and most iconic scenery doesn’t have a higher education institution and young students have to travel to Jammu for further education. Jammu region only in the past 3 decades has got some infrastructure but compared to any other district in India, it is severely lagging behind both in quality and quantity. Be it water, electricity, job opportunities, trade, industry – it is very sparse and compared to the population it services; woefully inadequate. So where do the central funds to the tune of ₹7,000/head go?

You can see palatial houses, wide roads and reliable electricity and transport connections in Srinagar city and around Dal Lake. As you go further out, the condition of the poor farmer tilling fields or a shikarawala is very similar to a vegetable vendor in Jammu. The pumping of central funds has made the politicians from Kashmir valley super rich but hasn’t alleviated the lives of common people of the valley who have been kept busy with the dangerous toys of Jihad. Literacy rate, especially among women is one of the lowest in the country and infant mortality rate among the highest. The special status obviously hasn’t helped where it should and only corruption and nepotism has thrived.

There’s is another myth; around protection of demographic uniqueness of the state through Article 370. This is often linked to  the promise of plebiscite as per UN resolution. This argument falls flat on its face when we realize that Pakistan has flooded the Pakistan Occupied Jammu and Kashmir (PoJK) with Punjabis and Mirpuris who have no cultural, heritage and linguist connection with erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir; while the Legislative Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir reserves 24 unelectable seats for PoJK districts.

Ladakh, a Buddhist majority district was flooded with Muslims and now the balance is 50:50. Kashmiri Hindus, the aboriginals of the land with 5000 years of civilizational connect to Bharat and Sanatan Dharma were systematically thrown out of the valley to create a 100% Muslim majority state. Hills of Jammu which reverberated with sounds of temple bells has been flooded with Muslims from Kashmir who buy property at a premium and Rohingyas who surrounded critical infrastructure and institutions. Hindu refugees from West Pakistan streaming in since 1947 have not been given state subject while Rohingyas are seen with Adhaar cards and jobs. Under the garb of Article 370 no Indian can settle in Jammu and Kashmir, so the demographic changes we see in Jammu and Ladakh have been systematically engineered by vested interests.

Under the garb of Article 370 state subject laws were manipulated to suit a patriarchal, regressive arrangement. A man could marry anyone from India, abroad or even Pakistan and his state subject rights would remain unchanged. He, his spouse and children would be able to study, get a job, own property, set up a business in Jammu and Kashmir unhindered. A woman upon marrying had to reapply for her state subject certificate. If she married a man from outside of the state, she would lose all rights stipulated by her maiden state subject including inheritance, jobs and education.

Under the garb of Article 370 many weaker sections of the society were disadvantaged as the state legislative assembly didn’t adopt laws such as The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, The Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 , Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, The Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act and The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, Hindu Marriage Act , RTI Act , Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Hindu Succession Act, Religious Endowment Act, Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, National Commission for Minorities Act  and so on.

This meant that menial workers, SC/STs, nomadic people and forest dwellers didn’t have their rights protected as in the rest of India. Valmikis for example, even if a PhD could not get any job except for a sweeper in the state government – something unheard of in the rest of India. Minority reservations were granted to the Muslim population which was incidentally a majority in the state. Tax avoidance was rampant and there was no right to information. There are 106 such central laws that will now be applicable in the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir and union territory of Ladakh post abrogation of Article 370.

As an Indian, I am really pleased that abrogation of Article 370 will bring the same accountability, transparency and rule of law to Jammu and Kashmir that the rest of Indians take for granted. Central funds that were previously diverted to the coffers of ruling clans such as Abdullahs and Muftis will now be utilised in building the lives of ordinary citizens of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. There will be roads and trains, educational institutions and industry, water and electricity, tourism and jobs in an appropriate proportion to all the regions.  As a Union Territory both Ladakh and Jammu and Kashmir will prosper without corruption. Ladakh and Jammu will get their due share of development and growth.

The prospect of losing control over the narrative and power is currently driving certain sections of media and politicians in a frenzied opposition to the move. They feel that elections, education and employment will empower the ordinary citizen of Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh and throw them out of the business of minting money. Ordinary Indians should stand with their fellow countrymen from Jammu, Kashmir & Ladakh as they will taste real independence after 70 years of independence. Let’s give this seed time to grow.

]]>

Internal dimensions look scary in Kashmir as terrorism is likely to increase in the months to come and hardcore jihadi groups will mushroom across the state

Muscular nationalism is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s USP. That policy has paid rich dividends to his party. Some would say the Uri surgical attack and the Balakot air strike, were responsible for the BJP’s comprehensive 2019 election victory.

Buoyed by the success, the government has now scrapped Article 370, and stripped Kashmir of the special status it enjoyed since 1947. Not just that, but the state has been bifurcated and made into two union territories. But, has Modi carried it too far this time? Will this bold act, hugely popular with the rest of the country, come to haunt the BJP in years to come? How this plays out in the valley and in the larger neighbourhood is yet to be determined.

Pakistan has expectedly reacted with shock and anger, calling it a violation of the UN resolution. Islamabad will mount an all-out diplomatic offensive against India. It has downgraded ties with New Delhi, asked Indian High Commissioner Ajay Bisaria to leave and suspended the Samjhauta Express. The little trade there was with India will also stop now. People in Punjab would be worried about what happens to the Kartarpur project, since the bilateral relations have reached such a low point. But that remains to be seen.

India has asked Pakistan to review its decision and said that it was done with an eye to grab international attention and present an “alarming picture to the world.’’ It is well known that the international community is concerned about a possible nuclear flash point in South Asia. Now more than ever, considering the rising tension between the two nuclear armed neighbours.

Islamabad has always maintained that Kashmir is a “disputed’’ territory and a solution to the problem must be worked out between India, Pakistan and the people of Kashmir. Prime Minister Imran Khan has predicted that the freedom movement will gain momentum in the valley. This is certainly a given considering that there has been no consultations with the people at all. Kashmir has also been in lock-down mode since Sunday.

Islamabad has already called for a meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation (OIC) to discuss the situation in Kashmir. The OIC will certainly issue a statement, but beyond that not much can be expected. India has worked on ties with both Saudi Arabia and the UAE, the prime movers of the group. The Gulf states are now engrossed with Iran, Yemen and Syria, in their immediate neighbourhood. The UAE has already backed India. “The reorganisation of states is not a unique incident in history of independent India and it was mainly aimed at reducing regional disparity and improving efficiency. It is an internal matter as stipulated by the Indian Constitution,” Dr Ahmad Al Banna, the UAE’s ambassador to India has said.

Pakistan will also take up Kashmir to the United Nations Security Council. The Human Rights Council in Geneva will also be approached. There will be a flurry of diplomatic activity with Islamabad possibly sending out envoys to world capitals to explain what India’s latest action means. Pakistan expects Kashmir to go up in flames but as of now the heavy military presence has ensured there are no protests in the valley.

Can Pakistan galvanise world opinion against India? Has Delhi handed over Kashmir in a platter to Pakistan? Can India get away with it at a time when each nation is looking out for itself and unlike in the past the liberal values — human rights and moral positions — are no longer at the core of international diplomacy. The liberal world is crumbling and the BJP government must have taken all this into account before going ahead with its latest Kashmir move.

It is but natural that Pakistan will play its Afghan card to the hilt. At a time when the US –Taliban talks have reached a crucial stage, Washington will not wish for distraction on the India-Pakistan front .Pakistan will let the US know that the situation in Kashmir would distract Islamabad and shift its focus from peace moves in Afghanistan to the India-Pakistan border.

PTI reported a State Department spokesman as saying: “The US is closely following India’s legislation regarding the new territorial status and governance of Jammu and Kashmir. We note the broader implications of these developments, including the potential for increased instability in the region.”

Hostile fire across the India-Pakistan border has continued unabated in the last few years. Tension between the nuclear armed neighbours is something Washington does not need at the moment. Prime Minister Imran Khan has already said that a terror strike in the valley now could even provoke a full scale war between the two arch rivals. This is something which will worry the Trump administration. President Donald Trump, facing elections next year wants a complete US troop pull- out before that. A military confrontation between India and Pakistan would be the last thing Washington wants at the moment when an agreement with the Taliban appears imminent. Perhaps with this in India, the US has said there was an “urgent need” for dialogue among all actors to reduce tensions and to avoid a potential military escalation in South Asia. Washington has also asked Pakistan to ensure that infiltration does not occur. This is to make sure that a military confrontation does not take place at this crucial juncture.

The US pointsman for Afghanistan, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad was in Delhi on Tuesday and briefed foreign minister Jaishankar on the Taliban talks. The Indian minister must have also given the envoy a briefing on India’s recent action regarding Kashmir. Little is known about the talks. From the photograph and relaxed body language of the two, the talks appear to have gone smoothly.

China has already expressed its concern about developments in Kashmir. It has questioned the bifurcation of Ladakh. “China is seriously concerned about the current situation in Kashmir,’’ went on to say that the issue is a legacy of history between India and Pakistan. In a separate statement, the Chinese foreign ministry reacted to India’s decision to create Ladakh as a Union Territory. “China always opposes India’s inclusion of Chinese territory in the western section of the China-India boundary under its administrative jurisdiction,” it said. “This position is firm and consistent and has never changed. The recent unilateral revision of domestic laws by the Indian side continues to undermine China’s territorial sovereignty, which is unacceptable.’’

The MEA has said that the re-organization of the state is India’s internal matter and reminded China that it did not comment on its domestic issues. China faces resistance from local Muslims in Xinjiang, from Dalai Lama’s followers in Tibet, as well as pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong.

With foreign minister S Jaishankar slated to visit China from the 11-13 of the month, this issue will come up for discussion. It is not yet certain how this will pan out with China. But with a trade war on with the US, President Xi Jinping has other more serious issues to worry over.

Two major regional players, Russia and Iran have not yet commented on the latest government move. The world’s appetite for liberation wars, or moral rights and wrongs are no longer as they were earlier. Pakistan’s own credibility is low. Considering all this, while there will be some amount of criticism of India’s actions in Kashmir and China will needle India with this whenever necessary, it will not abruptly overturn the gains of the Wuhan spirit.

More important perhaps is the internal dimensions of the new Kashmir policy. Kashmir valley can be held down by force but at a massive cost. Terrorist attacks will increase in the months and years to come. Hard core jihadi groups will mushroom across the state. The young people have demonstrated earlier how they can face the might of the Indian state. Stone throwing school children will perhaps now take up arms. Kashmiris will feel they have nothing to lose. Few in the valley believe that development will come to the state now that the contentious article 370 is out of the way.

AS Dulat, former RAW chief and the man late prime minister Vajpayee used to help the peace process said in a recent interview that Kashmiris have once again been let down by India. Pakistan will naturally take advantage and continue to stoke the fire. Keeping down a sullen alienated population will not be an easy task for India’s security forces.

]]>

The political pendulum has now swung from one extreme to the other, from ‘appeasement’ to ‘appropriation’ of the community

It is not unusual, given the great churning India is going through, to welcome legislation, soon to be law, with a few caveats and some apprehensions.

With Rajya Sabha doing so last week, both Houses of Parliament have passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019,  that makes talaq-e-biddat a criminal offence. It provides for three years’ imprisonment to a Muslim husband who divorces his wife by pronouncing the word ‘talaq’ thrice, irrevocably, in one sitting.

ALSO READ: The Law Will Get Me The Respect I Deserve

After a prolonged, yet inconclusive, debate in parliament, by top judiciary and the academia, if one excludes sections of the Muslim clergy, the conservatives and sections of the political class (for reasons both legal and political), the move has received widespread approval.

With that India, having the world’s third largest Muslim population, is on par with several Islamic countries, including Sudan, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Yemen and Iraq. Of those with similar social norms to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh had outlawed it in 1961. It remains in vogue in Sri Lanka.

Indian Muslims are governed by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937, as interpreted by the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB). This body comprising mainly Sunni ulema, has rigidly stuck to its turf and opposes any ‘interference’ in the ‘divine’ law.

But others like Professor Tahir Mahmood, an internationally recognized expert on sharia law, support a ban on triple talaq. Mahmood recently told Scroll, an Indian news website: “Ignorance, obstinacy, blind belief in religion and morbid religiosity are undoubtedly the factors responsible for triple talaq being allowed in India.”

ALSO READ: This Law Will Empower Muslim Women

Lawyer-politician Arif Mohammed Khan, who played a key role in drafting the legislation, says despite prohibition, this practice is rampant in Pakistan and many with overwhelming influence of the clergy that propagate it as the “word of God” among illiterate masses.

To end the practice effectively, he justifies a law that deters. However, debate persists on this point. Criticism centres heavily on criminalizing of a marriage that is essentially a civil act. The opposition was outvoted on this in parliament.

Then, there are practical issues: How does one adjudicate in a his-word-against-hers exchange between husband and wife? Who will look after the wife, abandoned and in all probability ostracized by the husband’s family through this illegal act? More importantly, the children, once the erring husband goes to jail? The problem is acute if the wife has no independent income and worse if she is not accepted in her parental home.  

Despite this law as a deterrent, the practice is unlikely to end soon. Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad who piloted the bill, said some 300 marriages dissolved under the spell of instant talaq while the debate was on. In 2017 alone, 574 instant divorces had occurred, just before the Supreme Court declared it illegal.

Seeking to implement this verdict, the government amended some provisions of its original legislation, making the offence cognizable only if the affected wife, or one related to her by blood or marriage, files a police complaint. A man arrested under this law may get bail, after the Magistrate grants a hearing to the wife. Thirdly, the offence is compoundable, that is, the parties may arrive at a compromise.

Questions persist. Why this new law when wife and children’s abandonment, failure to provide for them and dowry harassment can be tackled under the existing law? Once the apex court has declared instant talaq illegal, what is the need for criminalizing it?  The bill doesn’t convincingly answer these and many other questions.

The government has chosen to give teeth through a three-year jail term, ostensibly in keeping with a general approach that makes many other laws, even traffic violation, stringent with higher punishment.

Moving on to giving credit and the blame, a less-talked aspect of the debate is that the predecessor Congress-led government had studied status of India’s Muslims through a commission headed by late Justice Rajinder Sachar. A committee it formed to assess Muslim women’s status said in 2013 that the triple talaq “makes wives extremely vulnerable and insecure regarding their marital status”.

However, over half-a-century in power, the Congress followed the liberal/secular approach of leniency to ‘protect’ the minorities. In the case of Muslims, it adopted the British colonial practice of tackling the community through its generally orthodox clergy. This got institutionalized as AIMPLB in 1973.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its government accuse the Congress and the Left parties of ‘appeasing’ the Muslims and holding them as “vote bank.” Now it ingeniously takes the credit for this Muslim-specific law enacted in the name of “gender justice”. The political pendulum has now swung from one extreme to the other, from ‘appeasement’ to ‘appropriation’ of the community.

This fits in with the BJP’s majoritarian agenda and its two-pronged strategy of neutralizing the community’s vote while seeking support from among its women.

There is another less-talked aspect that needs attention. Given the rising education levels among Muslim women, especially in the cities, it is conceivable that they would vote for Prime Minister Modi for this act. Statistics of the last two decades show that more Muslim girls are entering schools and colleges and into the work force when compared to boys who are either not inclined to study or are required to turn family’s bread-earners early in life.

The community leaders are subdued. The AIMPLB has not reacted. Save some Muslim lawmakers, there is no significant opposition. Including a Congress in disarray, the Opposition was out-maneuvered and outvoted. The government managed the numbers even in the Rajya Sabha where it is in minority, first by engineering defections and then ensuring absenteeism.

India is on the cusp of social and political change. The challenges are all-round and more layered as the changes are being initiated by a Hindu right-wing majority party. Its triumphal mood is palpable.

Doubts and apprehensions arise as it seeks to ‘protect’ women of a community when its men are lynched by right-wing vigilantes if they happened to be cattle traders. Why single out one community when others, too, require reforms?

The social and political cost of not having a Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is showing. Besides being mandated by Article 44 of the Constitution, the UCC is also part of the BJP’s agenda. It would unite India in true fashion where citizens irrespective of religion would follow the same laws for marriage, divorce, succession, etc.

Will Modi and his government bite the bullet while seeking to earn everyone’s saath and vishwas (support and trust)?

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>

As Madhya Pradesh chief minister with a wafer thin majority in the Assembly, Kamal Nath has his task cut out for him – the looming threat to his government calls for his political management skills

The Kamal Nath government in Madhya Pradesh has got a temporary reprieve since Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his second-in-command Union home minister Amit Shah are currently preoccupied in tackling the Kashmir issue following their momentous decision to scrap Article 370 and bifurcate the state.

However, Kamal Nath cannot afford to be complacent or let down his guard as the Modi-Shah duo are known to strike when the enemy is least prepared for an attack. This was evident in the ongoing budget session of Parliament when opposition parties like the Congress, the Samajwadi Party and the Telugu Desam Party were caught napping when faced with a string of defections from their ranks in the Rajya Sabha.

After the Bharatiya Janata Party toppled the Congress-Janata Dal (S) government in Karnataka, it was expected that Madhya Pradesh would be its next target since the Kamal Nath government has a wafer-thin majority in the assembly. In fact, the BJP  let it be known publicly after its massive victory in the Lok Sabha polls that the Madhya Pradesh government would not last long.

But project Kamal appears to have been deferred for the time being. Besides the fact that the BJP’s central leadership has more pressing issues to tackle at present, the party has to first settle the leadership issue in its state unit.

It is an open secret that after 13 years in office, former chief minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan is itching to get back his old post but Modi and Shah have other plans for him. The two leaders have signaled that Chouhan’s innings in the state is over and  have deliberately denied him charge of the party’s state unit. They did not even  appoint him the leader of the legislature party in the assembly.

The BJP wants a new leader in Madhya Pradesh and there was talk that  Kailash Vijayvargiya, the party’s national general secretary in charge of West Bengal, would be Chouhan’s replacement  but his chances have dimmed after his son courted controversy by assaulting officials with a bat.  Finding an alternative is also proving to be problematic as Chouhan’s popularity has not taken a hit even after he lost the government. He remains the BJP’s top mass leader in Madhya Pradesh.

However, the BJP will move in for the kill at an opportune moment when it stands to gain politically from Kamal Nath’s ouster. Having promised justice to the victims of  the1984 anti-Sikh riots, the BJP would like to stack up sufficient material against Kamal Nath for his role in stoking violence in Delhi following Indira Gandhi’s assassination. The Congress leader was indicted by the Nanavati Commission for his role in the riots but no action could be taken against him for lack of evidence. Nevertheless, this issue comes back to haunt Kamal Nath periodically. His appointment as Madhya Pradesh chief minister met with strong protests from the Sikh community. Though these protests died down, the BJP has a powerful weapon in its armoury to dethrone the Congress chief minister.

Kamal Nath has his task cut out for him. The looming threat to his government calls for his legendary political management skills. He recently provided a glimpse of what he is capable of when Kamal Nath managed to persuade two BJP legislators to vote in favour of a government Bill. The tables have turned as it is the Congress which is now openly declaring that several more BJP MLAs could switch sides in the coming days. Having been caught off-guard, the BJP’s state unit is rattled by this development. It is eagerly waiting for word from the central leadership to proceed with replicating the Karnataka model in Madhya Pradesh but it has not got the go-ahead so far.

During his long stint in politics, the nine-term MP from Chhindwara has held several portfolios at the Centre, ranging from environment to commerce. Kamal Nath has earned the reputation of being an able administrator with a quick grasp of contentious policy issues and has fought well for the country both at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and during the WTO negotiations. While jet setting across the globe, he never lost sight of his constituency, setting up a well-oiled establishment to deal with the grievances of the local people.

But unlike his predecessor Chouhan who was constantly on the move, meeting and connecting with the people, Kamal Nath confines himself to his office as he deals with files and policy decisions. Not just the public but his own party workers have complained about his inaccessibility. The Congress is hoping that as chief minister, he will compensate for his lack of people’s skills by delivering on governance. The fact that Kamal Nath has a wide network of friends in the corporate sector, the party believes, could prove to be a plus point as it could help in attracting investments to the state.  

Like senior Congress leader Digvijaya Singh, Kamal Nath does not believe in antagonizing his political rivals but tends to reaching out to them. Shortly after the Lok Sabha results were declared, Kamal Nath lost no time in calling on the Prime Minister, ostensibly to introduce his son who has replaced him as Chhindwara MP. Only time will tell if this visit will help in saving his government from a predatory BJP.

]]>

While Opposition members have often used standing committees to prolong decision-making by a ruling dispensation, Modi Government’s bulldozing important Bills without scrutiny does not bode well for democracy

When India replicated the Westminster model and introduced the system of Parliamentary standing committees in the early nineties, the basic purpose was to ensure an in-depth scrutiny of proposed laws and budgetary proposals as it was felt that these were often not discussed at length in Parliament due to paucity of time.

A conscious decision was taken to keep the press and public out of these committee meetings so that members were not obliged to take a partisan stand which is the case when legislation is debated on the floor of the House. A free and frank discussion, it was felt, allowed MPs to offer constructive suggestions which would help strengthen and improve a particular legislation.

This system has worked so far. But the incumbent Modi government has been particularly reluctant to refer legislative Bills for scrutiny to Parliamentary committees. The number of Bills which were sent to committees for detailed deliberations dropped to 26% during Modi’s first term. In contrast, the figures for the earlier two Lok Sabhas was a healthy 60 and 71%. The Modi government is yet to open its account in the ongoing Parliament session.

A defanged and divided opposition has looked on helplessly as the Modi government ensured the passage of 20-odd Bills in the first session of the new Lok Sabha without sending even a single one to a Parliamentary committee. These include the amendments to the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, the legislation criminalising triple talaq and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Bill to name a few.

The opposition has registered its protest but these have been ignored by an emboldened Modi government which has used its numerical strength in the Lok Sabha to push ahead with its legislative business.

Realizing that the opposition does not have the numbers or the will to challenge it, the Modi government unilaterally extended the Parliament session dusted up all its old Bills and rushed ahead with their passage. Brushing aside the opposition’s objections, Bharatiya Janata Party leaders maintained that the Bills which had been tabled for passage were not new but those which had been pending since the last Lok Sabha.

Unlike his predecessors, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is particularly averse to referring important Bills to Parliamentary committees. The showman that he is, the Prime Minister wants to set a record for the most productive Parliament session. Second, he wants to take advantage of the disarray in the opposition ranks to literally bulldoze legislation through Parliament. More importantly, Modi does not want any hurdles which can delay the passage of Bills.

Past experience shows that scrutiny by a Parliamentary committee is a time-consuming process. This can impact decision-making as opposition leaders, who head these committees, use it as a political tool by prolonging the deliberations. This is exactly what happened when the Manmohan Singh government was in power. Two of its flagship legislations- the Right to Food Bill and the Land Acquisition Bill – were deliberately delayed by the Parliamentary committees then headed by BJP leaders. Since the reports of the committees were submitted virtually towards the end of the government’s tenure, the Centre did not have sufficient time to implement the legislation and take electoral advantage of its “pro-poor” programmes.

Clearly, Modi wants to avoid a similar situation. Not only is he intent on making a big splash by ensuring the smooth functioning of Parliament, the Prime Minister does not want any roadblocks in the implementation of his government’s agenda which can damage his personal image as a decisive leader. More importantly, Modi wants to use the session to remind the opposition about its diminished strength and the government’s massive majority in the Lok Sabha. Unlike the past, no effort is now made to reach out across the political aisle and establish a working relationship with the opposition. The divide is all too clear as the BJP believes dialogue with its opponents is unnecessary.

On its part, an enfeebled has objected to the government’s attitude. It has accused Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah of showing scant regard for Parliament and treating it like the Gujarat assembly where the Modi-Shah duo had acquired the reputation of pushing through the government’s legislative business without adequate debate. But to little avail.

Besides the fact that the opposition is in a hopeless minority in the Lok Sabha, it is also a divided house, having also lost the edge it enjoyed in the Rajya Sabha in the Modi government’s first term when it had the numerical strength to challenge the treasury. The ruling alliance has since bridged the gap and is now close to a majority in the Upper House following a series of defections from the opposition ranks. Former Prime Minister Chandrashekhar’s son Neeraj Shekhar, Congress leader Sanjay Sinh and four members of the Telugu Desam Party have switched loyalties to the BJP, swelling its tally.

At the same time, the BJP has succeeded in driving a wedge in the opposition thanks to some deft floor management. This was evident during the voting on the triple talaq Bill when the BJP managed to get the support of the Biju Janata Dal while made sure the Bahujan Samaj Party, the People’s Democratic Party, YSR Congress, the Nationalist Congress Party and the Janata Dal (U) were not present during the vote.  

From all accounts, the pattern set in the first session of the BJP government’s second term will become the norm. It is clear that the future of Parliamentary democracy is in peril as Modi has made it known that he does not like being questioned or opposed.

]]>

The current set of democratically-elected leaders have little understanding of the deep contradictions of global order, or their own conflict-ridden societies

The circle is now complete. Major democracies — the ‘oldest’ (Britain), ‘greatest’ (the United States) and the ‘largest’ (India) – all have elected populist, aggressive government leaders. This sounds the death-knell to whatever is left of political liberalism.

They all want to make their respective nations ‘great’, which is fine. But they stand charged with using divisive methods at home and adopting protectionist and exclusivist measures abroad.

The ‘greatest’ is erecting walls, wooing North Korea while winking at Russia and China and threatening Iran, the bête noire in West Asia. The latest muse is Imran Khan who must keep the Afghan door ajar to facilitate an American flight faster than Vietnam.

The ‘largest’ is calculating a $5 trillion economy and become a ‘guru’ to the world. But on the ground, it protects its bovine population in a mix of death to those who kill or tan it, but profits for those who export it.

‘Outsiders’ and those not in sync with the majoritarian agenda are asked to leave. Someone ordained: “go to the moon” – and this is not inspired by Chandrayan 2, the moon mission.

As their number mounts, finding a common thread becomes difficult. But their varying agendas using race, religion, region, ethnicity, colour, besides trade and global concerns like the climate change, has become the new normal. It has pushed the world further to a restless and triumphant political right.

The democratic distinction that they give themselves but deny to others is blurred. Vladimir Putin recently said: “the liberal idea” had “outlived its purpose.” The growth of populist movements throwing up ‘nationalist’ leaders and political parties across the world suggests he is correct.

Long before Donald Trump, these movements brought to power Viktor Orban (Hungary), Erdogan (Turkey), Duterte (the Philippines) and Matteo Salvini (Italy); with populists sharing power in Poland, Austria, Slovenia, Finland and Estonia. In France and Germany populist parties are set to play an increasing role in coming years. Brazil’s Bolsanero is a latter day addition – and more are coming.

Xi Jinping and Abe Shinzo would fall in that category.  So would Benyamin Netanyahu and a common friend of them all, Narendra Modi.

The latest is Boris Johnson. His aggressive Brexit advocacy is part of the same isolationism.

“I’ll make Britain great again’, Johnson says, distinctly echoing Trump. For a former journalist and editor of prestigious journals, he is being unoriginal. But then, he feels close to Trump and despite Trump’s past fusillades against him, they (add Imran, too) are now a mutual admiration society.

Johnson, a biographer of Winston Churchill, sees himself in that leader. But times and contexts change. As Economist says, like Churchill, Johnson has also inherited Britain’s worst crisis since World War II. Brexit, Britain’s self-goal, could do or undo him, with deep repercussions either way.       

To be fair to Boris, strictly going by promises made last week, he has defied many things that Brexit crusade has been about. Many Britons have viewed it from racism and anti-immigration prisms. Brexit was about reductions in future. But Boris has said he will make legal half-a-million illegal or unregistered immigrants, introducing a number system with some compassion.

Boris, given his Turkish ancestry, perhaps, has done better than Trump who, although of German descent, wants ‘outsider’ to quit America. Sustaining Britain’s inclusive approach, he has a Pakistani Muslim to manage finance and a via-Africa Indian woman to pilot the immigration and counter-terrorism policies. Only time will tell how Britain holds out against the global illiberal avalanche.

There is hope, perhaps. As an Urdu expression goes, “umeed par duniya kaayam hai,” (hope sustains life).  Post World War II, whatever be their political belief, people could aspire for a better future. That hope is sinking with the advent of this century.

Unwelcome, migrants are ghetto-ed and ill-treated, if not killed. No trade union rights. No dissent. Not even disagreement. Even elections, with varying degrees of democratic processes, are only hurtling people in one direction. Humans live by hope. But there is no utopia to live for.     

Sadly, the current set of our leaders have little understanding of the deep contradictions of the global order, or their own conflict-ridden societies. They engage in politics of name-calling and sensationalism, Trump’s boast that he could kill 10m Afghans, but won’t, is a classic example.

If truth be told, this didn’t’ begin with Putin or Trump. From the 1980s onwards beginning with the Reagan-Thatcher combine, ruling classes all over the world presided over a period of psychological repression. A new normal was propagated through media, education and other means — that a world free of exploitation and injustice is impossibile. Inequalities are increasing, and are justified.

By the 1990s, younger generations had come to believe that There Is No Alternative (TINA). They were told that the idea that we share of collective interests is simply hogwash. It was explained in the name of individual liberty and advancement.  

Liberalism is probably more challenged in India today than anywhere else because the country is the most diverse. Self-proclaimed custodians of caste and religion enjoying tacit political support are dictating people who they must meet, converse with, befriend and marry, what they should eat, wear, watch or read, whether or not they can use mobile phones, and even where they can go and when.

Aided by a corporate-owned media driven by profits and eyeballs, a public culture of hurt sentiment, violation of honour, with social and political license given to react to it in any brutal manner possible has been created. This climate of fear affects artists, intellectuals and even ordinary persons in public conversations.

Most founders of the Indian Republic (Nehru above all) aspired to create a liberal society. They did not foresee the extent to which it would, over time, evolve in a decidedly illiberal direction. Today, Nehru is a swear-word.

Here again, if truth be told, this did not begin yesterday. The political forces claiming to lead, and thriving on, a liberal ethos – the Congress, the communists, the socialists and the likes – themselves adopted illiberal courses and have now yielded space to those they fought. They are only whining today, unable to unite and fight back.

Mercifully, societies are not monoliths. Whenever and wherever a new draconian normal takes root, there are always forces who speak out for the oppressed. But as ordinary people increasingly become integrated into a digital political sphere in which melodrama rules, states and corporations will become more adept at manipulating ‘public opinion’. Already, those opposing it are being termed seditious.

Is it, then, the end of liberalism the world over? This is, like asking at the spiritual level: is it the end of Kalyug, the ultimate downfall?

Academic-journalist Pratap Bhanu Sharma says the end of liberalism is announced very frequently globally. “It’s almost like a recurring theme that there is a fundamental infirmity that makes it periodically vulnerable.”

This eludes a clear answer – if there is one.  

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>