Category: Opinion

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

]]>

Donald Trump’s strategy on South Asia is not long term; it is focused only on getting his troops out of Afghanistan. Pakistan will use this trump card to get itself out of its current quagmire

Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan’s first meeting with President Donald Trump was an unqualified success from Islamabad’s point of view. After raving and ranting against Pakistan’s perfidy, Trump was on a charm offensive when Khan arrived at the White House.

Will the rapprochement between the US and Pakistan change equations in South Asia, particularly its ties with India? Much will depend on how much Pakistan can influence the Taliban and whether a political deal materializes in Afghanistan. For now India has to wait and watch how the situation pans out.

Significantly, Pakistan’s Prime Minister was accompanied by both army chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa and ISI boss Faiz Hameed for the crucial meeting to reset ties. This perhaps to emphasise that the civilian and military leaders were on the same page and eager to stabilize Pakistan.

The talks centred round Afghanistan as Trump focused on getting Pakistan’s support for a peace deal to “extricate’’ American troops from that country. Trump’s one point agenda at the moment is to quit Afghanistan before Presidential elections next year, to notch up his election promise of ensuring that America is not the world’s policemen, nor is he interested in spreading democracy in far of regions. To do this, he wants Pakistan’s help and Islamabad will play its Afghan card to the hilt in getting Trump to endorse its position vise-a-vise India.

What was a diplomatic victory for Pakistan was mention of Kashmir. The US President declaring he was willing to act as mediator between India and Pakistan. To make things worse Trump said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself had asked him to do so. Hours later India refuted the US President’s claims. This was dismissed by those in the know as a usual Trump-speak with little to do with actual fact. No Indian Prime Minister, be it Modi or anyone else, will ever ask for third party intervention on Kashmir. Mediation is Pakistan’s calling card, not India’s.

The warm meeting at the White House and Trumps take on Kashmir is of some significance to India. For one, Delhi’s rhetoric on isolating Pakistan has come a cropper. Anyway, right from the start the wording was wrong. A country like Pakistan with a population of over 208 million, cannot be isolated from the world. What Delhi meant was that it would talk to the major world powers to show up Pakistan’s role as a terror hub. It was not a difficult task as the world was ready to be convinced.

The US and NATO allies had already experienced Pakistan’s double standards on terror in Afghanistan. At the time when the US and Pakistan were working closely to arm and train the Mujahideen to fight Russian occupation of Afghanistan, the US and its allies were stone deaf to Indian arguments on Pakistan based terror groups working against India in Kashmir and aiming to bleed India through these terror outfits. Is there a chance that the old narrative would occur again? Unlikely, as the Pakistan army has exposed itself blatantly in Afghanistan. But Trump can block all this out if necessary to get cooperation on the Taliban. And Islamabad knows that.

Afghanistan will be used smartly by Pakistan to get itself out of its current quagmire. Trump’s strategy is not long term. For the moment he is focused on getting his troops out of Afghanistan, and for that he is willing to play ball with Imran Khan. If Pakistan cannot deliver Trump may revert back to his old ways and blame Pakistan, but for now he will give Islamabad a long rope. Yet having had excellent ties in the past, and worked closely with the Pakistan army, many lawmakers in the US, especially the revived Pakistan Caucus in the US, believe that by withdrawing from that country, America has left a vacuum which is being filled by China. They would bat for more engagement.

Trump has little interest in Kashmir or charges of human rights abuse there. But he would be open to the idea of India and Pakistan resuming their stalled dialogue to reassure the GHQ in Rawalpindi,that they need not worry about India, but concentrate on getting the Taliban to talk to the Afghan government representatives. So there will be pressure for India and Pakistan to normalize ties. At the moment Narendra Modi will do little, as he would draw flak from the opposion as well as hardliners within his support base. The mediation request that Trump spoke of would be revived if he does so immediately.

But Modi is not averse to the idea of talks. He tried his hand at peace making during his first tenure. Delhi would like to wait and watch to see if Pakistan’s crack down on terror outfits is for real and not because of the fear of the Paris based Financial Action Task Force, placing the country on the black list. Pakistan’s case will come up for review in October. Few in India believe that Imran Khan could be in any position to make much of a difference. So Modi would be merely wasting his time and energy by engaging with Islamabad. Many within the RSS and BJP believe that the only way to deal with Pakistan is to strengthen India’s defences and hit back hard whenever a terror attack occurs. For the rest of the time, Pakistan can be ignored.

That is a limiting view. The world wants India to engage with Pakistan. Apart from the US, China, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Russia and the EU all want temperatures to come down between the two nuclear armed neighbours. A South Asia where India and Pakistan have normal ties, the region would be much more stable.

But even if talks are resumed, would it lead to any breakthrough? For the moment it is hard to imagine. Positions on either side are cast in stone on Kashmir. A blue print is actually already in place to initiate the process. President Pervez Musharraf was pragmatic enough to agree to the Loc becoming the border, better trade and connectivity between the two Kashmir’s and more people to people contacts would be a good way to begin. But before Musharraf could work on the formula, the lawyers agitation distracted him and the proposals were never seriously discussed afterwards. Successive Pakistani governments have thrashed the idea and Musharraf since being out of power has also disowned it.

Whether a final solution emerges or not, dialogue must be resumed. Firing across the LoC must stop. Civilians on both sides are sadly affected. India should not continue to oppose SAARC. It is not fair to the rest of the member states.

The government needs to focus on jobs and development if Modi’s ambitions of making India a five trillion dollar economy is to be achieved in the next few years. He and the entire country need to focus on the economy. That can happen only when the neighbourhood is at peace.

]]>

South Asia is the hub of women politicos born in the crucible of resistance to tyranny and injustice. Maryam Nawaz is the newest entry to the club

“This path is very difficult but as Maryam Nawaz what is important to me is that I am standing on the right side of history.”

Bold statement this from someone convicted for graft, rightly or otherwise, moving in and out of courts (120 appearances in six months) and rallying people when free in support of her imprisoned and ailing father Nawaz Sharif, the thrice-deposed Pakistan’s premier.

It also seems meant for an uncertain future since Prime Minister Imran Khan retains firm backing of the military-civil establishment. And he has just met US President Donald Trump, accompanied by the Army Chief, when Trump needs the two as much as they need him to quit Afghanistan.   

But leading a rally in Faisalabad last Sunday, she declared that the government that had “gone all-out to detain opposition leaders, arrest political workers and block rallies and suppress voices is taking its last breath.”

The establishment, Maryam alleges, got her father deposed in collusion with the judiciary and then ‘selected’ Imran through “electoral engineering.”  

Only another election, or a movement on the streets, could challenge Imran. Neither is in sight.  

Yet, Maryam has been able to shake Khan and his alleged mentors. On July 6, she made public video clips showing the judge who convicted Nawaz in one of the many graft cases ‘admitting’ that he (judge) was ‘blackmailed’ and had acted “under pressure” when there was no case against Nawaz.

The judge denied the confession, counter-charging that he was “threatened and offered bribe”. But he did not deny meeting the man, allegedly close to the Sharifs, whom he should not have while dealing with Nawaz as an accused.

The government is forced to remove the judge and probe him. Maryam now demands why her father is imprisoned when the judge and the judgment stand discredited. She has scored a brownie, pushing the government and the Supreme Court on the back-foot.

Besides Khan’s references to “Maryam bibi” at his Washington rally, this is a triumphant pause for her amid serious adversities. It marks the advent of a pretty mother of three, 46, who could have been a housewife or a socialite – except that she has a famous family name.

‘Sharif’ is her political identity. Her critics in the government address her officially as Maryam Safdar, wife of retired Captain Mohammed Safdar Awan. 

Adversity has produced many leaders, but South Asia is the hub of women politicos born in the crucible of resistance to tyranny and injustice. With few exceptions, they come from privileged classes, but that doesn’t always reduce their woes, one of them being born in patriarchal society.

Indira Gandhi and Benazir Bhutto were assassinated. Sheikh Hasina was abroad when Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and entire family were gunned down. Her principal rival Begum Khalda Zia’s husband, Ziaur Rahman, was also killed, like those of Sri Lanka’s Sirimavo Bandarnaike and Chandrika Kumaratunga. We can add Sonia Gandhi to the list.

Like those listed above, Maryam belongs to a family oligarchy, as oligarchies go in South Asia, where traditionally, at least one child joins parent’s profession.

She has surged past her brothers and cousins. This is unlike in the Muslim world. But this is Pakistan’s second exception.

She is often compared with Benazir. Belonging to a rival party, Maryam once said: “I have a lot of respect for the lady, but … the only thing which is common between us is gender.” She would rather carry her father’s legacy in her own distinct way.

In 2016, when Nawaz was the premier, a Chinese minister wrote: “We will be happy if you include your talented daughter Ms Maryam Nawaz in the visiting delegation.”

Given Pakistan’s burgeoning ties with China (the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor was taking off), this triggered speculation. She was compared with Benazir’s accompanying father Z A Bhutto to Shimla in 1972 to sign an accord with India.  

Benazir had uneasy relations with her brothers, both of whom died mysteriously. Maryam’s two brothers are not in politics. But she is mindful of her first cousin Hamza and always refers to him as “bhai” (brother). Family ties matter as Shahbaaz, the chacha, (uncle) heads the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz). Indeed, adversities have so far failed to split the family.

But it’s not hunky-dory – in politics it cannot be. In a recent interview with VOA Urdu Service, Maryam talked of Pakistanis’ “misogynistic mindset”. She has had to make ‘sacrifices’ to have her way in politics. “I had to struggle within PML-N to be accepted and make my place.”

“The criticism is more scathing [as such women] are judged more harshly. If a woman has formed ideals, principles, ideologies, convictions, values and wants to carve a niche for herself, it will always be viewed with a little suspicion. Such women are sometimes viewed as “negatively ambitious”.

Being a Sharif has not been easy. Controversies have dogged Maryam even as a student. Her admission to a medical college was questioned and so were her MA and Ph.D. degrees. It is not clear if the doctorate is earned or honorary.

Maryam joined politics by her father’s side in 2012 to rival Imran who was attracting the youth. It made sense since almost half of Pakistan’s 20 million is in 18-35 age. The slogan then was “Waqt Ki Awaz – Maryam Nawaz.”

It’s not going to be easy. While an older Imran did and still attracts the young, she must also contend with a younger Bilawal Bhutto Zardari. Other political families are also projecting their young. 

Like many women who married young (at 19), Maryam is now relatively free, to do full-time politics. Her children have grown up and Safdar has crafted a political career for himself.

Over the years, she has shed her tentative presence and halting talk with fiery speeches. The fire has enhanced since Nawaz resigned. She campaigned tirelessly for her ailing mother who won the election but later died.  

She is passionate about getting justice for father – and for herself since she too is convicted and on bail. Her new attire is kameez with Nawaz’s photo.

She vehemently denies that Nawaz plans to strike a deal with Imran, like he did with military dictator Pervez Musharraf. The entire family was exiled to Saudi Arabia. Maryam had agitated and was detained before being exiled.

Does she fear assassination like Benazir was? For now, Maryam’s concern is her father. “Will not allow him to become Morsi of Pakistan”, she said in June, referring to Egypt’s ex-premier Mohammed Morsi. Deposed by the military, he died during court trial.        

Critical of the army like her father she, however, balances her observations. She told VOA that she was “ready to take a bullet” for her father, but as a Pakistani, her purpose was “not to fight against the country’s institutions.”

Only time can tell if Maryam is “on the right side of the history.”

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>

Can Tamil machismo hold back a sophisticated and relentless BJP-RSS machine from breaking its resolve?

Tamil Nadu along with Punjab is one of the last bastions that has not fallen to the BJP’s nationalism led drive to paint all states with Saffron. Tamil Nadu has resisted imposition of Hindi. It is proudly a Dravidian state with deep suspicions of North Indian Hindus and Brahamins. But how long can Tamil Nadu’s own nationalism hold back a sophisticated and relentless BJP-RSS machine from breaking its resolve? There are signs that other states, such as Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, may be wilting. Can this crushing juggernaut be stopped?

When the Bharatiya Janata Party swept the Lok Sabha election in 2014, its president Amit Shah had directed party cadres they should not rest on their laurels and should instead start work on expanding the party’s footprint in  West Bengal and Odisha.

The mission proved to be a resounding success as the saffron party made huge inroads in these two states where it replaced the Congress and the Left parties as the main opposition party in the last Lok Sabha election.

Shah gave a similar clarion call to the BJP rank and file to go into unchartered territory after its resounding victory in the last Lok Sabha election. Having consolidated its position across large parts of the country, Shah said the party should now focus on growing in the Southern states.

The BJP has already swept Karnataka made a significant dent in Telangana and improved its vote share marginally in Kerala though like Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh, it remained immune both to Modi’s personal charm and the BJP’s nationalist and majoritarian agenda.

But this has not deterred the BJP which has drawn up a blueprint for expanding in the Southern region. For instance, party workers have been told to especially target new areas and to reach out to different sections of society in its ongoing membership drive. In addition, the BJP took a calculated decision to appoint Rashtriya Swayamsevak Swayamsewak Sangh ideologue B.L. Santhosh as party general secretary (organization) in place of Ram Lal who has returned to the RSS.

Fluent in Tamil, Telugu and Kannada and an engineer by training, Santhosh is a long-time RSS pracharak who was credited with the formation of the BJP’s first government in Karnataka, his home state. He has also been working in Kerala and it was at his instance that Shah undertook a padayatra in Kerala to protest the spate of political killings.

Having set its eyes on the Southern states, Shah’s game plan is to utilize Santhosh’s organizational skills as well as deep knowledge of the region to ensure that the saffron party is no longer considered a North Indian party here.

However, the Southern states present a mixed bag for the BJP. While it is hoping to inch ahead in Telangana and Kerala,  the saffron party faces its biggest challenge in Tamil Nadu.

BJP insiders admit that their attempts to make the Sabarimala Temple controversy in Kerala into an emotive issue like  Ayodhya did not pay them electoral dividend and instead it was the Congress which benefited from it in the recent Lok Sabha election. The BJP failed to open its account in this election but party strategists are convinced the party has the potential to grow in “God’s Own Country”. The BJP’s optimism is based on the increase in the party’s vote share, which has now climbed to 13 percent. According to a BJP leader, this will serve as a solid foundation on which they can build upon in the coming years.  

“It is our experience that once we have a vote share of 12 percent in any state, it serves as a springboard for the party’s  upward climb,” remarked a BJP strategist.

The saffron party is, therefore, paying special attention to Kerala. It was no coincidence that Prime Minister Narendra Modi traveled to Kerala soon after his massive electoral victory to offer prayers at the famous Guruvayur Sri Krishna Temple. The BJP is banking on its Hindutva agenda to wean away the majority Hindu population which has been voting largely for the Left Democratic Front and partially for the Congress-led United Democratic Front which also has a strong base among the Muslims and Christians.

Besides wooing the Hindus, the BJP is also reaching out to the minorities in Kerala, which constitute nearly 45 per cent of the population. Working in this direction, the saffron party recently inducted former Congress MP Abullakutty into its fold in the hope that he can help the BJP dent the Muslim vote. However, this could prove to be a futile exercise as the minorities remain wary of the BJP and are unlikely to shift loyalties easily as proved in the recent general election. The BJP also depended on Alphonse Kannanthanam and former Kerala Congress leader P.C.George to win over the Christians but to little avail.

Though the Hindus preferred to go with the Congress-led UDF in the last Lok Sabha poll, there is no doubt that the majority community, especially the upper castes, are becoming impressed with the BJP’s Hindutva agenda. Despite this,  the BJP will not have an easy ride in Kerala given the high literacy rates and the fact that its people have strong ideological roots. More importantly, the BJP is handicapped because it does not have powerful state leaders and a strong organization to take on its well-entrenched opponents.

While the BJP is hoping to work on its weaknesses in Kerala, party insiders admit that it is a long haul for it in Tamil Nadu. While the rest of the country was mesmerized by Modi’s persona and the BJP’s nationalist agenda, Tamil Nadu was a rare state which witnessed anti-Modi protests. The BJP had hoped that the broad alliance it forged with the AIADMK and other smaller parties would help it make inroads in Tamil Nadu but it could not win a single seat here while its vote share is less than four percent.

Besides the fact that like Kerala, the BJP does not have local leaders or a party organization in Tamil Nadu, the people of this Southern state are wary of the saffron party as they believe it seeks to undermine their regional and cultural identity. The strong anti-Hindi protests witnessed in Tamil Nadu each time the BJP attempts to impose the use of Hindi in an indication of the prevailing public sentiment.

Tamil Nadu has always been dominated by strong regional parties and its politics heavily influenced by the anti-Brahmin Dravidian movement. It is not easy for a national party to get a foothold here on its own and, more so, for a party like the BJP which is considered an “upper-caste Brahmin party”.  A national party necessarily needs the help of a regional player to register its presence in Tamil Nadu. The Congress was in luck this time as its senior partner, the DMK, was on a strong wicket.  The BJP floundered as its allies were weak. From all accounts, the saffron party faces an uphill task ahead here.

“There are several factors which are at play in an election. It is a combination of a strong organization, charismatic leaders, an emotive issue and a critical mass of voters. We have to work on these in the South,” a senior BJP leader rightly pointed out. How long can Tamil Nadu hold the fort against a slick and determined wave?

]]>

The latest spate of restrictions on journalists may lead to other forms of control on media’s ability to report and comment fairly on government affairs

“Freedom of the Press,” George Orwell famously said, “if it means anything at all, means the freedom to criticize and oppose.” In the current context and events that appear to affect the Indian media that quote is most relevant. India’s press freedom is often touted as being high and its media landscape is described as being vibrant and versatile with print, news TV channels, and a burgeoning breed of online publications.

However, if you scratch beneath the superficial layers, the story is quite different. The newest developments are the biggest eye-openers. Recently, shortly after India’s new finance minister, Ms. Nirmala Sitharaman, presented the Union budget for 2019-20, she also announced a restriction on accredited members of the press on their access to her ministry’s officials in its New Delhi’s North Block offices. Journalists now will not be able to move around freely in the corridors of the ministry unless they have prior approved appointments.

Traditionally, accredited journalists have been allowed entry to government buildings and offices. At the finance ministry, as in most other government ministries, accredited journalists have for long been allowed entry to facilitate building contacts, developing vital sources among officials, and meeting their sources. A ban on such movements is tantamount to a serious curtailment of India’s press freedom. Ms. Sitharaman’s diktat was soon followed up by the announcement of restrictions on access to several other government buildings and offices in New Delhi.

In response to the finance minister’s directions, many publications first decided that they would boycott her official post-Budget dinner, a ritual that has been around for decades. However, it’s a reflection of Indian media’s current state that the boycott, for the most part, never actually happened. Journalists and editors from most of India’s largest publications and TV channels eventually attended the event and the Indian press has largely restrained itself from commenting on the restrictions in publications although the Editors Guild of India has called for their withdrawal.

These recent government directives are yet another blow to India’s press freedom, which has already been under siege. India’s press is not as free as it may seem. In the annual rankings for freedom of the press across the world, a well-respected list by Reporters Without Borders, a non-partisan, non-profit organisation, India ranks a lowly 140 among 180 countries. Indian journalists, particularly those working in small towns and semi-urban areas, routinely face violence, bans, and coercive pressures from politicians and local governments. In recent years, there have been many instances of fatal attacks against journalists.

The ability to freely access the offices of a democratically elected government is one of the basic aspects of press freedom. Journalism, especially when reporting or researching on government policies and other governance-related issues, cannot be a straitjacketed affair. Journalists gather information from various sources—some are by means of officially sanctioned meetings and on-record interviews but a lot of it is based on informal off-record or “background” conversations. Prohibiting journalists from accessing government buildings will seriously inhibit their work, and, therefore, the quality of what they are able to publish as stories. If the government decides who can meet its officials and when then the quality of reportage on the government’s affairs will be jeopardised.

India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi has avoided meeting the press during his first inning in power. He did not hold press conferences; nor did he take with him a contingent of reporters on his frequent visits abroad. Traditionally, Indian prime ministers have always done so; and journalists got an opportunity to speak with them aboard the same aircraft or during and after summits and meetings. Of course, Mr Modi did agree to interviews with carefully selected editors (who asked questions that were usually pre-vetted by his office), but these happened to be at the end of his first term and just before he and his party contested the 2019 parliamentary elections and were by and large favourable or “positive” towards him and his government.

India’s media has been under pressure in other ways as well. Governments—both at the Centre and in the states—account for sizeable portions of the advertising revenues that media outlets earn. Government advertising is—for many small publications—the mainstay of revenue. And governments are known to use that factor to dictate how the editorial strategy concerning stories on government is adopted. This is an unhealthy trend, but reports suggest it is a growing trend.

Mr Modi’s government has been particularly prickly towards criticism in the media. The mainstream media, on the other hand, has been particularly favourable towards it in its reportage, editorial comments; and other coverage. Large media groups in India are almost entirely run as proprietorial enterprises and in many cases the proprietors have other business interests to protect. Sometimes those businesses depend on the government for contracts or even as a customer for their products and services. The conflicts of interest are obvious.

Many fear that the latest spate of restrictions on journalists could lead to other forms of control or pressures on media’s ability to report and comment fairly on government affairs. The protests by the Editors Guild notwithstanding, there has been no attempt by the government to rescind the restrictions. If free and fair journalism gets hobbled by government controls, it will be tantamount to compromising the democratic principles by which India lives. That brings us back to what Orwell said. A free media or freedom of the press is all about the freedom to criticise and oppose. Without that the press really means nothing.

]]>

Whatever be the outcome of the US-Taliban peace dialogue, Afghanistan is certain to remain the deadliest conflict zone of the world in 2019

A minor casualty ahead: Screening of Indian films in Kabul cinemas. ‘The End’ does not herald the typical triumph-of-good-over-evil. The do-gooder, now dispensable, can only hope to hum “kabhi alvidaa na kehna.”  

There is nothing filmy about India being cast aside after 18 years of investment in goodwill and $3billion in development of the Afghan people who have no say in the way outsiders are hurtling towards a “peace agreement” to end a long-drawn conflict, whatever that costs.

There is a strong sense of déjà vu. India was close to the Soviets in the 1980s. When they quit Afghanistan and eventually disintegrated, India earned some opprobrium and went ‘friendless’. And the West withdrew triumphantly, leaving behind the mess.

ALSO READ: India Must Keep Its Food In The Door

India is now with the government in Kabul that the West helped create and supported, but is ready to ditch. With differing interests, all players seem keen to help the United States extricate itself. For, President Donald Trump must “get the boys back home” in time for his re-election bid next year.

How can you solve this conflict when its fundamentals are ignored? The players don’t want to await outcome of the Afghan presidential polls scheduled for September 28. They are ready to push the Ashraf Ghani Government towards mortuary.

All those who root for democracy want to sidestep this democratic exercise. How is democracy served when an elected government is given no role in the peace parleys at the behest of one of the participants? Isolated, India opposes it. But none of its concerns cut much ice with any of the players – democrats or otherwise. Even former President Hamid Karzai, an old Delhi-ally, is with the peace dialogue.

Afghanistan is the second-largest recipient of Indian foreign aid over the last five years. Although it launched its ‘soft’ diplomatic drive with free distribution of Lagaan film cassettes, India’s popular transcends Bollywood films. It set up infrastructure, including hospitals, roads and dams, and contributed to building of institutions, training of civil servants and students in Indian universities. New Delhi’s support to Karzai and Ghani insured India’s primary investments and attracted others. Will all this go in vein?

Everyone is suing for peace with Taliban who are calling the shots, literally, holding talks even as they kill civilians, including school children. At their meeting at Doha recently, “all participants agreed” to bring down civilian casualties in the country to “zero” and to ensure the security of schools, hospitals and markets. Afghans would say: Thank You, Taliban, and Thank You, negotiators, for this mercy.

The players’ line-up is impressive – only they are not impressed with India’s role. Trump once asked India, China and others in the region to send troops – in effect, to pull his chestnuts out of fire. Some of his apologists are now blaming India for not taking the offer.  

India gets hyphenated with Pakistan by the way the US plans to withdraw from Afghanistan, leaving Islamabad as the principal policeman and guarantor of peace and stability. This is despite knowing well how Islamabad performed that role earlier.

ALSO READ: US Exit Holds Scary Prospects

Russia was once an India ally and so was Iran. China is now firmly a Pakistan ally. All of them are convinced that the threat from the Islamic State (IS) is greater than Al Qaida or anyone else. British, the original imperialists who failed to rule Kabul from Calcutta (now Kolkata) and New Delhi want to stay relevant. Saudi Arabia and the UAE are bailing out Pakistan from its economic stress as Mr Trump’s proxies.  

Trump will be hugging Imran Khan in Washington next week. Eighteen months back, while still unsure whether to quit or not from Afghanistan, Trump had condemned Pakistan’s “lies and deceit” in fighting terrorism. His rant was about Pakistan not preventing — actually nurturing – Taliban and the Haqqani network that attack American interests in Afghanistan. The Haqqanis are not mentioned — not publicly at least. Presumably both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Taliban are being engaged and their mentor Pakistan is on the talks table.

Never really out of American calculations, Pakistan enjoys a win-win situation. It has moved away from America’s threatening embrace to China’s calculatedly welcoming one. It is riding piggyback on China that matters, not just with regard to Afghanistan, but globally.

India is clearly isolated but it has itself to blame. It has failed to anticipate that the US would leave Afghanistan someday and for that it would need Pakistan. One is waiting to have a glimpse of its contingency plan. At least, some behind-the-scene contacts with those who are vary of Taliban and their Pakistan sponsorship. 

India has had two priorities in Afghanistan: To prevent Pakistan from setting up a friendly government in Kabul again, like in 1996 with the Taliban of Mullah Omar and, secondly, to avoid the return of jihadi groups that which could strike in India. On both fronts, India is losing ground.

India has been telling its domestic audience and anyone who cares to listen that Pakistan is being ‘isolated’ because of its terror credentials. But today, on Afghanistan at least, Pakistan is a key facilitator. The US, Russia and China meeting last week ‘invited’ Pakistan to discuss the peace moves in Afghanistan. None from Afghanistan, especially the Ghani Government was present – so scared everyone is of Taliban.

Al Qaida was the reason the US invaded Afghanistan. It is passé today. The Islamic State (IS) is the new global specter. That the Qaida chief Aiman Al Zawahiri recently renewed calls to his followers to inflict punitive losses on the Indian authorities in Kashmir and elsewhere should worry only India. And India would naïve if it expects anyone else to help it beyond harsh warnings and heavily-worded resolutions.

Proximity to Moscow, by hindsight, was never so debilitating. Today, India’s hands are tied down by proximity with the US. Indeed, two pillars of India’s regional foreign policy are shaken because of the American strategy in the region — the relationships with Iran and Afghanistan.

One big casualty is Iran’s Chabahar port through which India connects with Afghanistan’s western flank and to Central Asia. A non-starter due to American hostility towards Tehran, it gained momentum after Obama’s rapproachement. But after its reversal by Trump (meant to spite Obama, we are now told) New Delhi has had to admit that it cannot further develop Chabahar when shippers and cargo handlers are kept away by US sanctions on Iran.

Whatever be the content of the Peace Agreement, still in works, it is clear that Afghanistan will remain the deadliest conflict zone in the world in 2019, far surpassing the levels of violence witnessed in Syria, Yemen, Iraq, and other hotspots.

There will be no victors this time – it will be a victory-less withdrawal, whatever the icing on the “peace cake” now being baked. Every player knows this, but won’t admit — that you are likely to leave behind a mess, again. It could entail another round of the Great Game in future for control of this hapless nation.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>

Indiscriminate extraction of precious groundwater and recurring monsoon deficits are leading the country to a severe water crisis in the near future

Decades of neglect in rightly managing our fresh water resources, which in any case are quite tight considering its multipurpose uses, including supporting agricultural operation and quenching the thirst of over 1.3 billion, is now spelling untold miseries to millions across the country as it poses a threat to India’s ambitious growth targets.

Drought having gripped 43 per cent of the country and the monsoon deficit still at 17 per cent, thanks to some strong rains in the north but masking the persistent rains shortfall in the south, a large percentage of population is having a nightmarish existence. The government machinery as usual is found wanting in providing relief to people living in parched parts of our earth.

The principal culprit for the current state of affairs is unarguably the indiscriminate way we have been extracting groundwater and in the process earning the dubious distinction of being the world’s most aggressive miner of the precious resource. To put it in perspective, India’s groundwater extraction exceeds the combined tally of the world’s second and third largest users, namely, China and the US.

India is home to 17 per cent of the world population but has to make do with 4 per cent of the earth’s fresh water. China, which houses more than a fifth of the world population, has only 7 per cent of its fresh water. It, however, faces the perennial challenge of meeting minimum water requirements of North China plains where close to 42 per cent of the country’s population lives but holds only 8 per cent of its water resource.

Like China, the US owns 7 per cent of the world fresh water. But it has the advantage of being home to 4.3 per cent of world population. No wonder, the US indulges in the luxury of leaving an average water footprint that is double the global average. No matter that the country owns the world’s largest fresh water lake system in the world in its Great Lakes and the mighty Mississippi river, the importance of conservation and efficiency in use for future security in water supply is not lost on the US Administration. Incidentally, water is one of the seven science missions of the US Geological Survey.

We in India are sourcing over 70 per cent of our water requirements from below the surface drilling aquifers at progressively greater depths without leaving adequate time for natural replenishment. Mihir Shah, a former member of the defunct Planning Commission says: “Over the last four decades, around 84 per cent addition to the irrigated area came from groundwater. Most of this was from deep drilling of tubewells or borewells, which are the single largest source of irrigation as also drinking water, in both rural and urban India.”

Going deeper and deeper the aquifers for water extraction has meant our mining the resource in a growing number of places where the water comes with unacceptable levels of fluoride, arsenic and iron. Use of such water leaves people with serious bone deformities and lung and bladder cancer. Extraction of groundwater at levels where the resource found is polluted and its use results in the government spending millions for treatment of the diseased.

A major failing of our hydrological planning is not conserving enough water for offseason that is beyond the monsoon months. Even after we have built a few thousand large and small dams in different parts of the country, our per capita storage of 215 cubic metre (CM) compares unfavourably with 1,111 CM in China and 1,964 CM in the US. In water conservation, Russia’s per capita tally at 6,103 is way ahead of other countries.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his first monthly radio broadcast programme ‘Mann ki Bat’ after winning the elections reminded the water hungry listeners that “only 8 per cent of all rain water in India is conserved… It’s now time to solve the problem” by giving a push to greater grassroots water conservation efforts. What the PM has proposed now should have actually been implemented in past years with great force. Maybe the administration is awakened to the situation now because of the spectre of millions of people in drought affected parts of the country are driven to the edge and food production is to take a hammering. The latter is because more than half of the country’s arable land is rain-fed. India receives around 70 per cent of rains during the southwest monsoon beginning in June and petering out in mid-September.

What India must be geared to is the weakening monsoon in South Asia caused by climate change. Rains in the region were below average for five years in a row, with 2015 being the worst at 86 per cent. Think tank Niti Aayog says in a report that the country faces the harrowing prospect of 40 per cent of its people not having access to drinking water by 2030.

Furthermore, at least 21 cities, including the national capital will run out of groundwater in 2020.  Hospitals in southern Indian states finding piped water supply gone dry are getting it for the time being from local politicians owned fleets of water tankers at usurious rates. But this source of water may also run dry and too soon.

In Delhi, less than one fifth of homes have the luxury of piped water supply. In a growing number of places, whatever groundwater is extracted comes with chemicals and other contaminants. It is in the context of tightening water supply is to be seen Modi’s promise of delivering piped water to every home by 2024. As things are now, there is every chance of this post election victory promise remaining unfulfilled as his earlier commitment to create 10 million jobs every year.

Veena Srinivasan of Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and Environment will attribute the deteriorating water scene in the country to “multiple causes, both climate and anthropogenic… Of course, the drought itself is caused by a deficit in precipitation and climate change certainly has something to do with the changing precipitation patterns. But… we can’t absolve ourselves from the crisis that we ourselves have precipitated with mismanagement, and specifically by over-extracting groundwater.” She thinks Green Revolution gave licence to millions of farmers to use groundwater without limits to “rise out of poverty.”

The fact is when in the beginning of the sixties India was plunged in a major food crisis, Norman Borlaug and his prescription for breakthrough in rice and wheat productivity not only made the country self-reliant in food but also generated surplus for exports. Remember when Green Revolution was launched, the awareness of water conservation was hardly there in India or for that matter anywhere else. In subsequent times, however, the administration in Punjab and Haryana should have discouraged water guzzling rice cultivation in favour of less water using crops. In any case, the present crisis could have been avoided by the local government disallowing indiscriminate exploitation of underground water.

Farm and allied sector’s contribution to gross domestic product (GDP) has come down over the years to less than 15 per cent while it accounts for over 90 per cent of total water use. Again nearly 90 per cent of extracted groundwater is used in irrigation. But as Niti Aayog CEO Amitabh Kant says water use efficiency in our farm sector is among the lowest in the world. He says: “Our farmers use three to five times more water than Chinese, Israeli and American farmers for producing the same crop.” The remedy prescribes by Kant is to motivate farmers to “adopt cropping patterns based on agro-climatic zoning” to economise on water use. At the same time, radical modification of “subsidies and minimum support price” is needed to “disincentivise farmers from growing water intensive crops.”

Om Prakash Dhanuka, a former president of Indian Sugar Mills Association and a Bihar based producer of sugar, sees no justification of growing highly water-intensive sugarcane in parts of the country, which are highly drought prone and perennially short of water. Because of our surplus sugar production, we are desperate to export large quantities to wriggle out of price falls in the domestic market. But we must remember that when we are exporting sugar or rice, we are also exporting water.

Dhanuka, however, says: “It’s not all despair. For example, at Hiware Bazar village in Maharashtra, the community of farmers is opting out of sugarcane and cotton growing for less water-intensive crops. Farmers are not allowing any more digging of borewells and they are practising water management on scientific lines. We are also seeing similar farmer initiative in Andhra Pradesh and Telengana. Water management will have to be a nationwide movement in which the government, scientists and farmer community must participate wholeheartedly.”

]]>

Having cracked the caste arithmetic in Maharashtra, the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance looks set to continue its winning streak in the state assembly elections due in October

As Congress members make a beeline for the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party in Karnataka to Goa, the election-bound state of Maharashtra is proving to be no exception. With less than three months to go for the assembly polls, cadres from both the Congress and the Sharad Pawar-led Nationalist Congress Party are scouting around for greener pastures and the BJP is proving to their preferred choice given that the saffron party is on the ascendant in this western state. The BJP-Shiv Sena alliance enjoys a massive majority in the assembly and, more recently, it swept the Lok Sabha polls.

What is particularly galling for the Congress-NCP alliance is the erosion in its support base as Dalits, backward classes, upper castes and, now even the dominant Maratha community, have shifted allegiance to the BJP.

The BJP’s success in winning over the Marathas follows the concerted efforts made by the saffron party over the last five years to reach out to them. The party’s focus on the Maratha community is understandable as it comprises nearly one-third of the population in the state and has always wielded strong political influence. Unlike Haryana where the BJP chose to ignore the dominant Jat community and consolidated the non-Jat vote, in Maharashtra the BJP strategized to win over the influential Marathas.

The BJP has been working on various fronts simultaneously to wean away the Marathas from the Congress-NCP alliance. The saffron camp worked hard to weaken the influence of the Marathas over the bank, sugar and milk cooperatives in the state. While draining them economically, the BJP made a special effort to touch base with the influential Maratha leaders in the Congress and the NCP, persuading many local leaders to switch sides. For instance, the Congress was dealt a severe blow on the eve of Lok Sabha elections when the leader of its legislative party Radhakrishna Vikhe-Patil and several others joined the BJP. The NCP also suffered a similar fate.

Then again, the saffron camp moved quickly on the demand for including the Marathas in backward class category to enable its members to avail quotas in government jobs and educational institutions. At the one stage, it appeared that the state-wide protests by the Marathas for reservations would spiral out of control and hurt the BJP’s electoral prospects. But Maharashtra chief minister Devender Fadnavis, under the guidance of BJP president Amit Shah, managed to snuff out the protests. They first identified the local leaders in districts who were spearheading this stir and then proceeded to give them tickets and positions to soften them. At the same time, it worked on meeting the Marathas demand for quotas.

The project, which began in 2014 when Fadnavis asked the State Backward Class Commission for a report detailing the extent of the social and economic backwardness of the Marathas, eventually culminated in the enactment of a law providing 16 percent quota for Marathas.

The BJP government got a shot in the arm when its move was endorsed by the Bombay High Court earlier this year though the quota was slashed down to 12 percent. The decision has since been challenged in the Supreme Court on the ground that this quota exceeds the 50 percent ceiling on reservations laid down by the apex court. The matter will come up for its next hearing later this month. The BJP is encouraged by the fact that the Supreme Court has not stayed the High Court order though it has ruled against its retrospective implementation. In fact, the saffron party is not worried about its decision being struck down as it believes it has succeeded in sending out the message that the Fadnavis government is indeed serious about providing quotas to Marathas and has been working in that direction for the last five years.

This effort is held out in sharp contrast to the previous Congress-NCP government’s decision on quotas which was struck down by the courts. The BJP also tom-toms the fact that a Brahmin chief minister has swung this deal while earlier Maratha leaders had failed to deliver on the long-pending demand. In fact, when the BJP appointed a Brahmin as chief minister, it was believed that he would fail as Maharashtra has traditionally always had a Maratha chief minister, But Fadnavis has proved his critics wrong and like his Haryana counterpart, has managed to hold his own and got widespread acceptance.

Having already won over the other castes, the BJP’s success in winning over the Marathas has underlined its dominant position in Maharashtra. Together with its partner, the Shiv Sena, this alliance looks set to continue its winning streak in the coming assembly elections. Coming a few months after its massive victory in the Lok Sabha polls, the momentum remains in favour of the BJP-Shiv Sena alliance. Besides getting its caste arithmetic right, the saffron camp also has the advantage of the strong religious polarization witnessed in the general election. The same sentiment will prevail in the October state polls.

“We are comfortably placed in Maharashtra. We have a strong party organization, our alliance with the Shiv Sena is on track and, more importantly, there is no anti-incumbency against our governmen,” a senior BJP leader told Lokmarg.    

On the other hand, a demoralized Congress and NCP is in disarray. Not only has it lost its support base, but the Congress organization is also weak and faction-ridden. The leadership vacuum at the center, following Rahul Gandhi’s decision to step down as Congress president, has added to the party’s woes. The grand old party has a serious problem at hand as there is no visible or immediate let-up in the overriding anti-Congress mood. “Anti-Congressism has now become an ideology,” bemoaned a party leader.

]]>

Unbridled population rise in northern BIMARU states will sharpen the North-South discord over sharing the central resources, with grave political ramifications for the country

How does one discuss population explosion in a country where age-old tradition is one of elders blessing the young: “may you be blessed with a hundred children”?

Who would want to pick quarrel with the powerful religious leaders? The Hindus are exhorted to multiply since a Muslim begets a dozen children from his four wives he supposedly marries. And the latter is advised to increase the numbers to fight “discrimination and injustice”; else he would remain “second class citizens” forever.

Like the nuclear mutual assured destruction (MAD), this is mutual assured explosion (MAE), exacerbated by mutual distrust. It remains a major reason why India is poised to outpace China as the world’s most populous nation by 2023, advancing earlier estimates.

Besides the socio-economic complexities this generates, there is an overwhelming, but silent, political factor. Politicians pay lip service to family planning and leave all the action to officials and medicos. Where political thrust is needed, a general lack of political will has scuttled family planning.

Records say Mahatma Gandhi opposed “killing life” and advocated only abstinence. Family planning pioneer D K Karve was attacked by people all around, sacked by the Christian missionary college that had employed him.

Deep scare against family planning seeped in after Sanjay, Indira Gandhi’s younger son, sought to enforce family planning under the coercive garb of Emergency (June 1975-March 1977), contributing to her electoral defeat.

Successive governments have since shunned anything that smacks of coercion and incentives. Detailed plans are carried out, but the soul is missing. Celebrities fight shy of popularizing it. The last national icon to advocate small family norms, entrepreneur JRD Tata, died in 1992.    

If India’s physical map is imagined as an inverted pyramid, its population figures would slide from its north to south. Incidentally, the inverted pyramid is also the official symbol, a red warning signal, heeded only partially and reluctantly.

This unevenness has raised political concerns. Scholar-lawmaker Jairam Ramesh on July 4 sought an assurance from the government that five southern states – Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telengana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala — will not be ‘punished’ by reducing their representation in Parliament just because they have managed to control their population.

The South has reached replacement levels of fertility. Contrast this with the six northern states — Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh. These laggards have total fertility rates in excess of the replacement level of 2.1.

By 2050, population in the southern States will decline from the present level of 15 percent to around 12 percent. But the share of the northern states — Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, bearing appropriate acronym BIMARU (sick) — will increase from 40 percent to about 44 percent.

Political implications are clear. Under Lok Sabha’s current seat distribution, the BIMARUs send 204 members, while the five southern states together elect only 128 members. With decline in their population, the southern states’ representation could reduce further, lowering their role in driving the national agenda. The South losing representation in parliament, Ramesh warned, “will be highly unfair to the pioneers of family planning.”

Lok Sabha’s next seats review will be after the 2031 census. The present distribution among the States, at one seat for a million voters, is based on the 1971 census when India’s population was 543 million, hence 543 seats. Will baby boom be politically rewarded? India is irretrievably heading for this north-south imbalance.

This friction, visible for long, could get sharper with the repeat victory of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Its “one country” advocacy threatens the regional parties that rule in the south.  

During the election campaign, some southern leaders talked of forging a ‘Dravidanadu’. M K Stalin, chief of one of the oldest regional parties, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) supported it. It has swept the polls in Tamil Nadu. Will population imbalance prompt its return to separatist platform that it had shed in 1962?

A southern grouping, however, is difficult given conflicting interests among regional parties and the federal government’s capacity to exert financial pulls and political pressures — and its penchant to declare anything it disapproves as “anti-national.”

Relatively better educated and developed, the South has always felt discriminated on allocation of resources by New Delhi. Analyst Tara Krishnaawamy argues that 20 percent population of the south pays 30 percent tax, creating 25 percent of India’s GDP — which is double that of the north. But it gets only 18 percent of the federal funds.

The baby boom, however, is a national issue. Unless the rapid growth of population is contained, it will be difficult to ensure quality education, healthcare, food, housing, clean drinking water, sanitation, hygiene and a healthy environment for all.

Paradoxically, Indian families are becoming smaller as better nutrition, vaccination and healthcare ensure couples lose fewer children to malnutrition and infections, such as diarrhoea, pneumonia, sepsis and tuberculosis.

India has certainly achieved notable progress in reducing mortality rates. Life expectancy at birth increased from 44 years in the mid-1960s to 68 years today. But the child mortality rate at 38 per 1,000 births lags behind China’s rate of 11. Early marriage and pregnancy still contribute to excessive maternal deaths, and life expectancy of Indian women is eight years less than their counterparts in China.

Today, the official approach is to discourage contraceptive methods that are coercive and potentially dangerous and towards those that enhance reproductive health and empower women and families. But there is a long way to go before this way of thinking becomes a reality.

In this patriarchal society, female sterilization remains the most prevalent method of contraception in India. The procedure is more invasive than other types of contraceptives, and doesn’t allow women to space when they have children and give their bodies time to recover from childbirth.

The government has increased domestic investment for family planning. At the 2012 Summit, India committed to spend $2 billion by 2020 for family planning program and, in July 2017, India renewed its commitment to invest $3 billion by 2020. The Budget 2019-20 allocation is, however, negligible.

The UN population projections for India show different possibilities. Assuming current fertility of 2.3 births per woman remains constant, its population would grow to 1.8 billion by 2050 and 2.5 billion by 2100. Even under the instant-replacement fertility variant, assuming 2.1 births per woman, India’s population would reach 1.9 billion by the century’s close.

The oft-cited UN medium projection, however, assumes fertility will decline to below replacement by 2035 and remain at 1.8 births per woman in subsequent decades. It could, then, peak at 1.7 billion in 2060 before declining to 1.5 billion by 2100.

The low projection assumes more rapid fertility decline to about 1.3 births per woman, resulting in the population peaking at 1.5 billion around 2040 and falling to 900 million by 2100.

Things can improve only long-term and there is no time to lose. Till then, Indians should stop fooling themselves and not be smug about demographic dividend. Millions of under-nourished children born of anemic mothers are burdening the humankind.

The writer can be reached at mahendraved07@gmail.com

]]>