by Kavaljit Singh

Britain has voted to leave the European Union. In a referendum held on Thursday (June 23), close to 52 per cent of Britons favoured leaving the EU. The referendum results reveal that the arguments put forward by Brexiters found greater resonance with the sentiments of the ordinary people than the ones put forward by the pro-European camps, the establishment and world leaders.

Before the polls closed, the UK's political establishment was expecting that voters would overwhelmingly vote to stay in the EU. In the same vein, most media analysts and market observers were predicting a win for the Remain camp. Even Nigel Farage, leader of far Right-wing UK Independent Party (UKIP) and a staunch supporter of the Leave campaign, had hinted on Thursday that his campaign had apparently lost the vote. But the outcome of the referendum has proved them all wrong.

At the domestic political front, this vote has boosted the morale of the UKIP which has been calling for greater immigration control and restoring the power to Parliament. However, the vote for the Leave campaign should not be viewed as an outright victory for the UKIP and other far Right-wing groups because a large number of voters sympathetic to Conservative and Labour parties also voted in favour of exiting the EU.

The results have already shaken up the political establishment. David Cameron has decided to step down by October and major changes in the leadership of the Labour and other parties are likely in the coming weeks.

This vote is expected to trigger a wide range of far-reaching social, economic and geo-political ramifications at the domestic, European and international levels. Many of these effects would be long-term and are yet to be fully compre-hended. Even though the Leave vote was largely influenced by the immigration issue, other important concerns have not been given adequate attention.

Of course, a lot would depend on the next moves by the UK Government to negotiate and facilitate the withdrawal from the EU by invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. In terms of the UK's future relationship with the EU, various options are on the table. For instance, the UK can opt for a model of semi-attached relationship with the EU, similar to the one enjoyed by Norway. The Nordic country enjoys access to the EU's common market (through its membership of the European Economic Area) but it has no say over EU rules. The UK could also emulate the Switzerland model of a slightly loose relationship with the EU. The UK could put forward a new kind of relationship with the EU as well, provided its proposal gets the support of the EU member-states.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that it would take considerable time for the UK to establish new relationships and rules for travel of people as well as trade of goods and services across borders. At the minimum, one year of political and economic uncertainty is expected. If handled badly, the uncertainty caused by a political crisis could soon turn into a major financial and economic crisis. Even though most British banks are currently in a stronger position than in 2007 when the global financial crisis erupted, the UK banking industry is still not out of the woods. Many banking reforms are still being tarried out and investment banks could face fallout due to higher market and economic volatility as this process unfolds.

On Friday morning (June 24), the British Pound hit a 30-year low and FTSE fell over eight per cent within minutes of the financial markets opening. It is apparent that the statement issued by Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, promising swift policy action to tackle any disruptions had no impact on the market volatility.

This vote will have significant ramifications on the UK's agenda for trade and investment integration with the rest of the world. Through the membership of the EU, the UK has been promoting greater cross-border trade and investment flows in the past. Particularly in the areas of financial services, the UK has been seeking greater market access for its banking industry. From now on, the UK will have to pursue this agenda on its own. This may have both positive and negative outcomes. Besides, the fate of a mega free trade initiative, Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), hangs in balance with Brexit.

Similarly, the EU (minus the UK) would have much less bargaining power to negotiate bilateral trade and investment protection agree-ments. The EU is currently engaged in a wide range of bilateral trade and investment agree-ments with a number of countries including India. With the change in power relations, the EU may not be able to push for higher levels of commitments in trade in industrial goods and agricultural products, services and invest-ment liberalisation, geographical indications and government procurement under the proposed India-EU free trade agreement (FTA). This may also work in favour of other developing countries which are seeking similar trade and investment agreements with the EU.

It is obvious that the UK referendum will encourage Right-wing political parties and groups in France, Italy, the Netherlands, Hungary and other European countries to call for similar referenda. Already the larger EU project towards greater economic integration has been facing a crisis with its flawed monetary union and single currency experiment.

In addition, there are serious geo-political ramifications related to the future role of the UK (and the EU) in the management of international economy and politics, which are yet to be properly analysed and understood.

Kavaljit Singh works with Madhyam, New Delhi. He can be contacted at e-mail kavaljit singh[at]gmail.com

by L.K. Sharma

“Britain has changed.” One kept hearing this lament in London even during the run-up to the historic referendum on Europe. Change can be seen and heard. The armed police presence is no longer a rare sight. Warnings about suspicious objects are heard at underground and railway stations. Many trains get cancelled or delayed. The passengers speak in several tongues and do it loudly. The Englishmen don't read The Times any more. They tap their smart phones and laptops and reschedule the missed appointments.

At the underground stations, unmanageable peak-hour crowds are managed through moveable barriers. The trains run overloaded. The air and bus services get affected for different reasons. Schools and hospitals can't cope with the rush for admissions. Last year as many as 630,000 foreign nationals settled in Britain and all public services are under pressure. Many English people wonder about the future of their nation.

A more momentous change struck Britain on June 23 when it decided to leave the European Union through a referendum, rupturing a 43-year-old relationship.

It was an extraordinary democratic exercise! The voters defied the will of the Tory Govern-ment, Labour Opposition, a majority of the MPs, the big business, the American President and the European leaders, the Bank of England and international financial institutions. They demonstrated that even money and foreign leaders can at times fail to move the voters.

It was known that a vote in favour of leaving the EU would be followed by a period of uncertainty. But the situation in the polarised nation got further accentuated when the Tory Prime Minister, David Cameron, who had led the pro-EU campaign, announced that he would resign. What is more, he is not quitting immediately but will do so in October when the party would elect a new leader! Thus he is not starting the complex negotiations for Britain quitting the EU as he had threatened to do in case he lost the EU referendum. Now he wants the task to be handled by his successor.

So for four months Britain would have a lame-duck Prime Minister.

Is there a conspiracy to subvert the referen-dum result? Some companies have started announcing that they plan to move jobs to other countries. A section of the pro-EU activists and the big business hope that the economic situation may get worse and some of the anti-EU voters start regretting their decision. The media is featuring the voters who are having second thoughts! A mass petition for a second referendum has been launched. There are experts who say that the referendum was only an advisory and therefore not binding on Parlia-ment!

The time-table of Britain exiting from the EU has already become controversial, not just in Britain but also in Europe since the EU says the negotiations should begin as soon as possible. The vote in favour of leaving the EU has created an unprecedented situation. Britain and Europe were not the best of lovers and their marriage was formalised after years of hesitation and controversies.The media described the victory of the “Leave” campaign as a “seismic” event. The adjective seemed appropriate.

The historic decision has been hailed by half the voters as the birth of a New Britain. A fringe party wants to celebrate June 23 as Britain's Independence Day. Those who do not go that far say that Britain has taken control of its destiny or that Britain has freed itself from the dictatorial clutches of the European Union run by the bureaucrats in Brussels.

Britain's decision will affect Europe. It will influence the US foreign policy. It will dishearten the Indian and other Asian business leaders using Britain as a gateway to Europe. Some American commentators say the British blunder of offering a referendum would affect the world!

The victory of the “Leave” campaign will provoke further discussion on democracy, nationalism, globalisation, capitalism, economic inequality, populism and identity politics. Some describe it as Britain's Trump moment!

Britain's relationship with Europe divided each of the two major political parties. It accentuated divisions based on class, generation, region, ideology and the level of education. A strange pattern of the alignment of the rival political forces emerged. Both the “Remain” and the “Leave” camps attracted strange bedfellows. The Right-wingers were happy to join the socialists.

The referendum result highlighted the conflict between Parliament and the people. A majority of the British MPs favour Britain's continuation in the EU while the people voted for an exit. How will this Parliament adjust to the next Prime Minister who led the campaign against the EU? Speculation about a fresh general election has started but nobody would like another election as the present Parliament has completed just one year.

The campaign for the referendum was described as “venal” with the rivals stooping to personal attacks, resorting to lies and scare-mongering. Unsayable things were said. Political correctness was abandoned. The comedians had a heyday because the “Remain” campaigners painted a doomsday scenario in order to mobilise votes.

The dire warnings of an economic meltdown were ignored by the 52 per cent of the voters who heeded the pleas for regaining national sovereignty and for curbing the EU-enabled migration.

Migration was a big issue in the “Leave” campaign. The European migrants were straining the public services, causing job losses to the British citizens and accepting lower wages. Moreover, the recent acts of terrorism in some countries by the citizens of Europe meant that Britain would become more vulnerable because of the free movement of persons.

As the poll results came out, the losers predicted an economic disaster, the victors saw a glorious new dawn! They saw the victory as an affirmation of democracy, freedom, sovereignty and the English identity. They said people had taken their country back.

The headliners wrote: Britain Out, Prime Minister Out. The Tory Prime Minister, David Cameron, was sure of winning the referendum. He led the “Remain” campaign to fix the Euro-sceptics in his own party! Now the ruling party has gone into the campaign mode for electing a new leader.

A storm is also brewing in Labour, the Opposition party, because while its official policy was in favour of continuing in the EU, most traditional Labour voters favoured Britain's exit from the EU. Its Left-wing recalled the legacy of leaders such as Tony Benn and Barbara Castle who in their lifetime had fought bitterly against joining the European bandwagon.

Thus in the hour of a setback for the Tories, some dissident Labour MPs are calling for the resignation of their leader, Jeremy Corbyn, blaming him for not running the pro-EU campaign effectively! Corbyn's election as the leader was the result of the ordinary workers revolting against the elite loyal to former Prime Minister Tony Blair. The Blairites, who have not forgiven this radical leader, are now using a new political weapon to attack Corbyn.

The victory of the “Leave” campaign has given much political mileage to the odd leaders such as Nigel Farage of the UK Independence Party and George Galloway, a former Labour MP who runs his own political outfit.

The referendum has opened the Pandora's Box. Scotland and Northern Ireland voted in favour of the UK continuing in the EU as they see their future closely linked to Europe. Northern Ireland has land border with Europe. The regional differences on the issue were so sharp that it is feared that one day Scotland and Northern Ireland may vote for independence. The ruling party in Scotland has revived the demand for a second referendum on Scottish independence. In Northern Ireland the talk of uniting with Ireland has started again. Their pro-EU movements could lead to a Disunited Kingdom.

London too voted in favour of the EU. The corporate world would not mind London city being turned into an independent nation as part of the 28-nation club that began as an economic project but evolved into a political project!

The “Leave” campaign highlighted the demo-cracy deficit in the EU and said that the club would not last long. Britain's decision has caused unease among the European Union member-nations. They fear that it would encourage the Euro-sceptic political forces in other member-countries and may eventually lead to the disintegration of the EU.

The demands for taking back national sovereignty and rejecting the anti-democratic character of the European dispensation are being raised by the far-Right elements in more than one country. If the exit of Britain from the EU diminishes it, as many British politicians say, it also poses a danger to the European Union.

Britain's verdict has caused tremors in Washington D.C. as America will have to tinker with its foreign policy related to Britain and to Europe. The successive US governments, while pledging their special relationship with Britain, always wanted this country to remain a member of the European Union.

It seemed to matter to the US so much that President Barak Obama during his visit to the UK in April advised the Britons not to leave the EU. That had the opposite effect because many resented a foreign leader telling the British voters what to do. The “Leave” campaign made critical references to “foreign influence and the role of money” in the referendum.

It was hoped that notwithstanding their craving for national sovereignty and Englishness and their economic hardship caused by the European migrants or by the EU bureaucracy, on the voting day, the British people will control their desire for change and hand a narrow victory to the pro-Europe Prime Minister.

Most opinion polls also predicted a narrow victory for the “Remain” campaign which enjoyed the formidable support of the government that churned out frightening statistics about the economy if Britain were to exit. The Prime Minister kept citing opinions by economists whom he called experts to impress the voters who do not trust politicians.

The Prime Minister's campaign enjoyed an active lobbying by the former Tory Prime Minister, John Major, and the former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair. His campaign had no shortage of funds The big business leaders lent their vocal and active support to his campaign. The Bank of England and a bunch of economists backed the “Remain” campaign. But nothing stopped the British voters from setting off a tectonic shift.

Such an explosive mass conduct is usually seen only in the developing countries or in a country such as France where political protests tend to turn violent. The people of Britain are generally conservative. They normally hesitate from rocking the boat or upsetting the apple cart. It is not easy to provoke politics-driven mass hysteria in Britain, unlike in countries of Asia or Africa. The victory of the “Leave” campaign was a triumph of passion over pragmatism.

The democratic exercise allowed the steam to be let off. After such a highly emotional campaign, if the excited people see that voting does not change anything, they may be attracted to violent methods of making a political point. During the campaign, a woman Labour MP was murdered by someone who claimed to be speaking for Britain.

This referendum highlighted a new pattern of voters' behaviour. Elections in Britain are often fought over one-penny or two-penny tax cut! The pro-EU campaign gave primacy to econo-mics, as per the traditional wisdom. It under-estimated the impact of issues such as national sovereignty and English identity. The pro-Europe campaigners kept warning of the economic disaster that would visit the island if it isolated itself from the European Union. They failed to scare the majority of voters.

The politicians promoting the interests of bankers and businessmen had lost touch with the common people. The ordinary voters resented their neglect and the adoration of the elites and experts. When inequality keeps rising, growing affluence angers the disprivileged. In the radio and TV discussions, one detected traces of class hatred. Nasty comments were made about “Them”—the upstairs people—by the lowly downstairs creatures.

It was as if a grassroot movement had targeted the political establishment aligned with wealth-managers and stock-brokers. The dire warnings about a fall in house prices had an unintended consequence. The young Britons, unable to climb on the housing ladder, saw it as a blessing if leaving the EU corrected the sky-high house prices!

The behaviour of the anti-Europe voters was also influenced by a factor that has come to the fore in some other countries also. The masses turn against the political establishment and seek to take control of the situation or at least assert their power by voting against the elite. Every TV discussion during the campaign for the referendum saw the audience laughing whenever anyone cited “experts” to buttress the case for Europe.

The markets may recover from the shock of the referendum result, the fall of the pound and the credit ratings may be arrested, but a climate of uncertainty and contentious debates within Britain and between Britain and Europe will continue for long. The divorce proceedings are expected to go on for two years. The EU does not do things in a hurry.

The euphoria in the “Leave” camp over freeing Britain and its farmers and fishermen from the legislative madness of the European Union will be moderated over the coming months as negotiations over trade and tariffs drag on. Obama had threatened that if Britain left the EU, it would be the last in the line for bilateral trade negotiations with the US.

The new Prime Minister will face several questions in addition to the complex trade and tariff negotiations. What will be the impact of this decision on the EU nationals working in Britain? How welcome would they feel? What will be the plight of the British expatriates living in various European countries?

Britain has entered unchartered waters. The shopping bags displaying the famous war-time slogan “Keep Calm and Carry On” has found new resonance. But during the War there was no cultural or political conflict in Britain. Those living in the manor houses and those working in the coal mines were unitedly engaged in the war effort. Britain today is witnessing a million mutinies!

Britain's divorce from the European Union after more than 40 years of cohabitation is, at a fundamental level, related to the continuing exploration of the British identity and a gnawing uncertainty about Britain's place in the world. Thus once again one recalls American Dean Acheson's words: “Britain has lost an Empire and has not yet found a role.”

The author is a senior journalist and writer who worked in India and abroad (notably Britain) in several major newspapers. Now retired, he is a free- lancer. He was in the British capital at the time of the referendum on whether or not the UK should remain in the EU, and has sent this article from London for publication in this journal.

EDITORIAL

Narendra Modi can justifiably claim to be one of the most articulate Indian PMs in recent times. Not just India but also the world at large has been witness to his oratorical skills since he has used his term in power to undertake major foreign visits, especially to the US. Yet he has been highly reticent to address press conferences in India, unlike his predecessors in the PM's seat, notably Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi.

So it was a pleasant surprise to find him giving a detailed interview to a TV journalist who has been quite close to the BJP line of thinking in general and Narendra Modi in particular. Modi used the oppor-tunity to give an unqualified certificate of 'patriotism' to the Reserve Bank of India Governor, Raghuram Rajan, while openly snubbing his own party colleague, Dr Subramanian Swamy, who ran a veritable campaign against Rajan and other leading officials in the Finance Ministry. But beyond that he did not go as far as to issue any note of warning to the likes of Dr Swamy.

The interviewer, however, was thrilled. “This is a very clear message,“ he blurted out quite contrary to what a seasoned interviewer would ever do (thus giving irrefutable proof of the fact that such journalists do not function as watchdogs that newspersons are supposed to be but as lapdogs of those in power). And Modi fully grabbed this opening to add: “I have a very clear message. I have no two minds about it.”

Modi also asked the media not to make “heroes” out of those in his party or the Sangh Parivar acting as rabble-rousers by making divisive comments. But he himself did not pull up those elements. This led The Times of India to tell the PM: “... it's media's responsibility to report misdeed; his is to check it.” The fact is that Narendra Modi has once again revealed the doublespeak of the BJP dispensation over which he is presiding—he as the PM will speak on development and his government's pro-poor policies and steps, while others, including the BJP President, will go on making divisive comments thereby vitiating the social atmosphere.

Such an approach hardly inspires any confidence in the PM. It also offers a measure of the distance between Modi and his party leader running the PMO, A.B. Vajpayee.

Meanwhile the PM's ministerial colleague, M. Venkaiah Naidu, has, in a write-up in The Indian Express today, claimed that the decisive mandate to the Modi-led NDA in 2014 had “busted” the “myth of communalism”. It is for the citizens of this country who are at the receiving end—like the Muslims in Muzaffarnagar and members of Mohammad Akhlaq's family at Dadri—to tell him on his face that communalism under Modi-rule is not a myth but the grim reality.

June 29 S.C.

by Pranjit Agarwala

Cleanopolis Energy Systems India Private Limited is a clean technology initiative located in the middle of the lush green paddy fields of rural Sonitpur district of Assam. Promoted by local educated entrepreneurs, the small-scale biomass gasification unit, now in the pre-commissioning stage, will convert organic waste to sustainable energy and also produce organic fertiliser. The unit will involve the local populace in an integrated system of waste management that will improve the quality of life of the community at large. Besides generating rural employment directly, the unit will also boost the rural economy by providing farmers and their womenfolk with supplementary income from agro- and kitchen-waste, cattle, pig, goat dung, poultry litter, backyard bamboo groves and wetland flora. Cleanopolis aims to address two critical issues of socio-economic develop-ment in rural areas: electricity and waste disposal. It is also a sincere effort, however small, to reduce the import of heavily subsidised petro-leum products and chemical fertilisers, both of which are crippling our economy and environ-ment.

The growing degradation of the earth's biosphere has forced the world's economists, environmentalists, planners and policy-makers to focus on sustainable development. Since the industrial revolution the frenetic pace at which the earth's resources have been relentlessly exploited for economic development, mainly by the industrialised nations, has severely damaged the earth's environment and eco-system. There are now genuine fears that if the developing economies of the world also follow the same pattern of resource utilisation, there will be no resources left for future generations to explore or utilise.

In recent decades the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has taken some serious initiatives to bring down the emission of green house gases (ghg) which are primarily responsible for global warming, climate change and biodiversity loss. The Kyoto Protocol of the UNFCCC has strongly recommended the use of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The CDM's objective is to promote green economies in developing countries and is based on the concept of carbon emission reduction and sustainable develop-ment. Sustainable development means using the earth's resources at a rate that is naturally regenerative.

The global economy is still dependent on fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas for energy. Ninety per cent of India's electricity is produced from thermal and hydel sources. But the country's power generation remains far short of the demand because the growth in the sector has been adversely affected by lagging crude oil, coal and natural gas production, rising energy import bills and increasing environmental restrictions. Burning of fossil fuels contributes 25 per cent to ghg emissions. Another 20 per cent is added by industries. But as electricity is vital for socio-economic develop-ment, particularly for developing countries like India, alternate sources of energy have to be tapped.

There are three main sources of renewable energy, namely, solar, wind and biomass. Power generation from solar and wind energy is subject to climatic conditions and the output may fluctuate according to the season or weather. Power generation from biomass is, however, much more uniform. Biomass gasification plants are ideal for processing cow dung and other crop and agro-wastes for producing clean gaseous fuels which can be used to generate electricity and produce organic fertilisers. Environmentally, the process reduces carbon emissions, helps fight climate change and reduces air pollution positively impacting the health and hygiene particularly of women and children, while the use of organic fertilisers enriches the soil and sustains productivity. Moreover the sale of agro-waste and dung give farmers an additional source of income boosting the rural economy. In many Indian States biomass gasification plants are providing a solution for off-grid decentralised power generation and playing a significant role in rural electrification.

Ironically despite such advantages States with agro-based economies have not fully utilised the potential of this form of renewable energy and the growth of biomass plants have been limited. This is because of the non-availability of sufficient quantities of agro-waste throughout the year as there is a shortage during the long pre-harvest or cultivation season. Stocking up of crop-waste is not feasible.

However, Assam with its predominantly agrarian economy, extensive wetlands filled with water hyacinths, widespread culture of animal husbandry and poultry, dotted with miles of tea gardens has good potential for such gasification plants. Significantly, bamboo can also be a substitute for crop waste and Assam with its tradition of bamboo cultivation and backyard bamboo groves in every village home has the capacity to maintain supplies of biomass throughout the year.

Unlike China, in India there has been a concentration of CDM projects in the more industrialised States. The dearth of CDM projects in the backward States therefore implies that the Government of India is not fully capitalising on the CDM's potential to contribute to sustainable development. Cleanopolis is a cost-effective carbon abatement project. By facili-tating investments in the Clean Development Mechanism in areas that need them the most, the Indian Government could reap the double benefit of climate mitigation and economic development.

“Remember, we do not inherit the earth from our parents, we in fact borrow it from our children.”

The author is an entrepreneur and free-lance writer based in Guwahati.

From N.C.'s Writings

Twentyfive years ago Dr Manmohan Singh as the country's Finance Minister in P.V. Narasimha Rao's Union Government unveiled the new economic policis under the guidance and instruction of the IMF. From the inception this journal's founder voiced his vociferous opposition to this course. Here are three samples of what he wrote at that time.

IMF Loan: Fall-out on Foreign Policy

The storm over the IMF loan that promises to overcast this session of Parliament pertains mostly to the impact of the conditionalities on the Indian economy as such. While one section of Indian opinion is optimistic, almost enthu-siastic, about Dr Manmohan Singh's prescription laying down an open-market approach, others—equally important people—have warned against the danger of economic subservience to the powerful economies, particularly that of the USA.

While this debate is largely confirmed to the fate of the Indian economy as such, there are other consequences of the present government's economic perestroika which will have a direct bearing on our foreign policy. For one thing, India's stand on burning foreign policy issues of international economy will certainly be affected once the present controversy ends up with a closer dependence on the IMF, which in plain words would mean the American stand.

For instance, India has been strenuously resisting, with varying degrees of success, the Western stand in the GATT Uruguay Round. Now that chapter is likely to be over, as the US would expect India to give in to the line dictated by Washington. On the entire controversy over the Intellectual Property Rights and the signing of the Paris Convention, India has been one of the few countries that has so long refused to subscribe to the Western position. Now, after the IMF order is accepted, there is little doubt that New Delhi would have to change its position.

This, in turn, raises new problems. Within the country, there is a powerful lobby of indigenous business interests, particularly in the field of the pharmaceutical industry, which has been stubbornly opposing the Western stand on the issue of Patents and Intellectual Property. Once the government yields ground on this issue and moves towards signing the Paris Convention, it will certainly be resented by the indigenous manufacturers—what may be called the swadeshi lobby—engaged in the products which are bound to be immediately threatened by the invasion of the multinationals. This brings in a new aspect of the IMF loan controversy. Once its whole line is accepted, the government will be confronted with the problem of reconciling its stand with an important section of business interests who have been its mainstay for decades. In other words, the anxiety to invite the multinationals will lead to conflict with what may be regarded as indigenous national capital.

This will result in a totally new scenario with regard to the US Super 301. By complying with the IMF conditionalities, there will hardly be any ground for the Super 301 ban being imposed on India. Obviously, Carla Hills will have the last laugh.

On the wider issues of foreign policy, it is difficult to visualise India taking an independent position once the government falls in line in the economic sphere by going in for the IMF model. This is an important aspect of the present controversy over the IMF loan. The fact of the matter is that this loan is being taken at a particularly difficult time when, as the govern-ment has been telling the nation, there is no way-out but to take a large dose of foreign loan, and no loan is available from anywhere unless and until we have been certified by the IMF about our creditworthiness; and lastly, the IMF can give us the testimonial of creditworthiness once we agree to bend and reshape our economic strategy as per the free-market model that it strongly advocates.

But this exercise at reshaping policies is not going to be confied only to economic affairs, it is bound to invade our foreign policy, our socio-cultural outlook and approaches. One has to understand that the IMF model is an integrated model—it covers the entire spectrum of a country's public life, and the model it has been propping up puts a small affluent elite at the top in the midst of a vast ocean of the underprivileged and the dispossessed. This means that the priorities will change in many issues before the government. Obviously, the anti-poverty programme has to be shortened, if not abolished altogether.

It is worth noting that Prof Galbraith in a recent interview has plainly said that the IMF prescription generally hits the poor in a community. When this was pointed out to a senior member of the present government, he very promptly dismissed it as Galbraith being over 80 years in age—implying thereby that the distinguished economist is old-fashioned, that is, out-of-step with the new radical thinking that the IMF represents.

Once this becomes the official approach, one should be prepared to expect tremendous pressure being worked up to change our foreign policy strategy as well. Why bother about Kashmir? Why don't we sign the NPT? Why waste money on missile and nuclear research? Why bother about the old NAM and the new G-15? Why cling on to the dead concept of a New International Economic Order? Why?

It is to be realised that the foreign policy strategy of the early fifties that Nehru had prepared was organically linked to his concept of the mixed economy, the public sector and the state intervention in economic affairs to safeguard the interests of the dispossessed millions of this country. Once the economic policy strategy is changed, there can be no escape from a shift in the foreign policy strategy.

It is for Prime Minister Narasimha Rao to reconcile his declared commitment to the Nehru line with the economic strategy that his government is now trying to take up.

(Mainstream, July 13, 1991)

III Winds of Change?

Amidst extraordinary effusion of anxiety and interest, the long-awaited Budget was presented to Parliament on July 24.

The anxiety over it come from the high-voltage advance publicity about the country having reached the threshold of bankruptcy from which it could be saved by that mother of all money-lenders, the IMF. And interest in the Budget was generated by the expectation that it would set the lines of modernising our economy through structural changes so that it could be integrated to the global economic momentum. In the event, a veritable campaign was initiated for the instant removal of conrols and regulations which would have gladdened the hearts of Rajaji with his crusade against the licence-permit raj. In the bargain, all the familiar landmarks of our forty-year journey towards economic growth were earmarked for demo-lition, which by itself touched off intense debate and controversies.

It was a challenging, daunting task facing the government and it brought out the prudence of the Prime Minister in harnessing the reputation and erudition of Dr Manmohan Singh for the onerous job of the Finance Minister. It has so far been a heroic undertaking for him to try to convice not only the Opposition but the ruling party, and the country at large, tht the drastic changes now being prescribed by him are not at the behest of the IMF with its patent conditionalities which have played havoc with the economies of many countries in other parts of the world. It would be naive on his part if he thinks that by the master stroke of his Budget he would be able to banish such misgivings about the genuine swadeshi brand of his economic package.

Even many a well-wisher of the present government would prefer to withhold any testimonial for Manmohanomics, as revealed in the Budget proposals and other related moves, as good prescription for the country's economic malaise, that it is not an unsuited imported medicine presented with a local label pasted on it by the erudite Finance Minister; while the critics of this new economic strategy, both in the ruling party and Opposition, will certainly brand it, as they have already begun to do, as a sell-out to the IMF.

It would be a superficial view to look at the Budget with its cosmetics in isolation from the economic strategy in its entirety. Particularly disturbing in this context is the open-door policy for foreign investments. In fact, the government's new industrial poicy takes a come-hither posture towards the multinationals, more unashamed than Ashok Mehta's classic opening-the-womb offer. Apart from the humiliating feelings such beseeching invitation to multi-nationals evoke in the national ethos, the massive invasion of the multinationals will directly militate against the interests of the well-established indigenous industries which have always been an enduring pillar of support for the Congress, and the national movement in general.

Apart from the immediate consequences of the new economic strategy—the inescapable rise in prices with its attendant spread of hardship and discontent among broad masses of the public—what faces the nation today is the challenge to work out a new model of development. It sounds all very exciting to talk about docking ours into the global economy. But as the leading country in the developing world—the world of the populous South in contrast to the super-rich North—it is for India to work out a model of development that shall truly ensure social justice with technological advance, while preserving the environment of the planet so seriously threatened by the ravages of the Western predatory models of development. Our economic strategists alongwith our political planners have to be constantly aware of this historic responsibility. The so-called structural changes under the IMF prescription can hardly be expected to equip ourselves for it.

The winds of change must blow constantly. We have, however, to ensure that they do not become the harbinger of a cyclone of disaster for this great land of ours. 
('Editor's Notebook', Mainstream, July 27, 1991)

Manmohan's Progress

With Parliament rounding off the general debate on the Budget, this is the point of time when certain reflections on the government's presentation of the economic crisis before the nation may be in order.

Right at the outset, there was both curiosity and appreciation on the Prime Minister having chosen a distinguished economist as his Finance Minister. An outsider in the arena of party politics, Dr Manmohan Singh raised expectations that he would present before the nation a fairly objective assessment of the economic crisis, its origins as well as the way-out of it. With the double-dose devaluation, Dr Singh got involved in a rather unreal argument with many other economists outside the official precincts when he tried to claim that his prescription for the economic ills facing the country was totally indigenous and must not be taken as having been dictated by the IMF.

This heroic effort carried little weight because it had already been an open secret for months that the negotiations for a substantial loan included quite understandably the conditiona-lities of the Fund-Bank type. This was evident also from the experience of Dr Manmohan Singh's predecessor in office, Yashwant Sinha, who, as the Finance Minister of the Chandra Shekhar Government, had gone to Washington for the very purpose or arranging an IMF loan. The announcement of the new foreign trade policy, that followed the devaluation of the rupee, left no doubt that the government had perforce to bend to the conditionalities set out by the IMF. Then came the new Industrial Policy Statement, which made no bones about the urgent need to fall in the line with the IMF, here and now.

It is not that the country was not prepared for the removal of many of the controls on economic activity which had long outlived the purpose for which they had been imposed at the beginning and which over the years developed into a breeding ground of bureaucratic corruption. It is the totality of the reforms that the government brought forward and the manner of their introduction which debunked to a large measure Dr Manmohan Singh's rather pathetic pleadings that he was not guided by the anxiety to placate the IMF.

Dr Singh had begun with fairly plausible credentials. As the Secretary-General of the South Commission, he was known to be trying to sensitise world opinion about the fearsome dimension of the Third World debt, about the experience of the Uruguay Round in tackling the world trade imbalance, and the negative character of the IMF with its conditionalities. Ironically enough, the very week that saw Dr Manmohan Singh present his Budget—preceded by the announcement of the new industrial policy—that very week found Julius Nyerere, the head of the South Commission, in New Delhi on his way back from Beijing. One wondered if the Chairman of the South Commission could convince himself with equal felicity about the line of consistency between the Commission's views and Dr Singh's prescription for our country's economic ailment.

Then came the long-looked-for Budget. One has to confess that many of his friends and admirers were disappointed by Dr Manmohan Singh's presentation speech as well as by the measures proposed. What one had been looking forward to was how he would utilise the occasion to unfold a new vista of India's economic development alongwith an objective appraisal of our economic strategy and its application in the last four decades. He needs no introduction as one of our leading economists, widely renowned, who has long been associated with the government in many important capacities. With his experience and erudition, he evoked expectations that he would present a major testament of New Thinking for India's march towards the twentyfirst century.

It is against this background that the Budget—the speech and the proposals—were disappoin-ting. Neat but pedestrian. There were plenty of emotional touches in it. In fact his very first sentence was a lonely-heart tribute to Rajiv Gandhi. Beyond that, however, the speech failed to take a broad panoramic view of India's economic activity—an exercise that was expected from an intellectual of Manmohan Singh's standing.

There were copious references to the unprecedented crisis, but no explanation worth the name about the reasons for the crisis. Further, he gave the impression of having equated the balance-of-payments crisis with an overall economic crisis. That can at best be a book-keeper's view, not an economist's wide-angle approach. Here was a great opportunity for an economic thinker to unfold before his countrymen the momentous opportunities opened up by resorting to New Thinking for preparing this great country for its role of destiny. In dismay one has to confess that Dr Manmohan Singh missed a great opportunity for himself, for his government and for the country.

Not being an economist but just a concerned citizen, the present writer is in no position to pass judgement on the measures that the Finance Minister has proposed. Comments and criticisms galore have already appeared and they will persist long after the Budget session. However, there are one of two aspects of his presentation which may be specifically noted.

For one thing, Manmohan Singh in his Budget speech has glossed over the reasons for the BoP crisis, saying that the present government “inherited an economy in deep crisis” and sought to emphasise that things started going down only after the Congress was displaced from power in November 1989. On the other hand, the Economic Survey, which preceded the presentation of the Budget, made it amply clear that the malaise should be traced to the profiligacy in the management of finances in the previous period, that is, during the Seventh Five-Year Plan. And there is good ground for believing that the Economic Survey itself was suitably “edited” under the present Finance Minister so that a frankly objective picture might not turn out to be damning for the previous government run by the party to which he recently joined on being taken into the Cabinet. Besides the fact that the five-month delay in the presentation of the Budget from February to July—which worsened the BoP crisis—was due to the Congress party's anxiety to escape the responsibility for a harsh Budget before an election battle, does not of course find even a remote reference in the Finance Minister's analysis.

This takes one to the very interesting impact of Dr Manmohan Singh's joining the Congress party—a sort of structural adjustment for a scholar falling into the company of politicians and trying to keep up with the Joneses. As one read the Budget speech and his copious interventions—more than perhaps any other Finance Minister before him—he has repeatedly been swearing by “our party”. One can under-stand his complex on that score after having burnt his fingers in the very first round before the Budget when he honestly conceded that the Congress election manifesto promise to roll back prices to the July 1990 level in “the first 100 days” of a Congress Government was unrealistic. The flacks he got from his party colleagues for this piece of honest opinion seem to have made him wiser and that explains his repeated references in his Budget speech to the Congress' election promises.

Much along the same line has to be seen the Finance Minister's announcement of “Five New Initiatives”—a Backward Classes Welfare Corpo-ration; a National Renewal Fund; a National Foundation for Communal Harmony; extension of the navodaya programme for youth exchange; a National Committee for popularising South-South Cooperation—plus, to cap it all, the mammoth Rs 100 crore grant for the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation. Leaving aside the Rajiv Gandhi Foundation which has attracted due share of notice in Parliament, one wonders how this list of miscellaneous items deserve to be tom-tommed as “initiatives”. Do these Man-mohan Initiatives point towards “the emergence of India as a major economic power in the world” as he promised in the concluding lines of his Budget peroration?

Controversies, misgivings and provocations a Budget in difficult times is bound to touch off, but what is indeed disturbing is that at the helm of affairs entrusted with the charge of providing a clear direction to the national economy, one finds a distinguished economist choosing to play the stereotype of a run-of-the-mill politician. In the life of a nation, rejuvenation has to come from the sturdy independence of the intellectual spirit. If the degeneracy of our politics can overpower our intellectual indepen-dence, that itself becomes a matter of utmost concern.

Is that the reflection of the sorry state of national morale today?

(Mainstream, August 10, 1991)

What the leading economists of the country had highlighted twentyfive years ago is of great sginificance even today. Hence it is being reproduced here. The statement—‘Structural Adjustment: An Alternative Viewpoint”—was issued on July 8, 1991 and carried in this journal's July 13, 1991 issue.

To meet a financial crisis, the nature and magnitude of which have been shrouded in secrecy, the government has launched an all-out effort to obtain a large loan from the IMF. Despite protestations to the contrary, it is now clear that domestic policies are being refashioned in keeping with the requirements specified by the IMF. In a peculiar effort at a two-stage devaluation of the rupee, its value has been reduced by around 20 per cent relative to most leading currencies. And judging by statements by government spokesmen, a major liberali-sation of the trade regime, the financial structure and industrial policy, as well as a substantial reduction in subsidies on food and fertiliser are in the offing.

The implications of the devaluation are manifold. To start with, by rendering imports more expensive, it is inflationary. This would be so even if the government does not raise the administered prices of goods like oil which it imports. But that would mean an additional burden of expenditure on the government in a period when there is general agreement that the fiscal deficit should be cut. Further, the rupee cost of servicing external debt will rise in proportion to the depreciation, aggravating the fiscal crisis. So the net effect of devaluation will be higher inflation, worsening fiscal problems, greater recession, or a combination of these. Since the responsiveness of exports to the steady real devaluations of the 1980s has not been remarkable, it is not clear that the costs of this devaluation will be compensated by increasing exports, especially since export subsidies are to be reduced even as costs of production increase.

Some economists have argued that indepen-dent of the need for balance of payments financing from the IMF, policies of the type advocated by it are desirable in the Indian economy. This strategy achieves balance of payments adjustment within an open trade regime, essentially through domestic deflation via cutbacks in public expenditure and/or devaluation. Such a strategy is not merely recessionary, affecting industrial demand and employment, but also entails cuts in social and developmental expenditures, thus affecting both the growth prospects of the economy and the welfare particularly of the poorer sections.

Our perception is different. While there is definitely the need to reduce the fiscal and external imbalances, the mechanisms of ensuring this should include a more restrictive import regime, that corrects for the foreign exchange profligacy during the 1980s, a reduction in the revenue deficit of the government through increased direct taxes and rationalisation of expenditures and the provision of incentives in the form of tradable REP licences to those who earn hard currency through exports. This would improve government finances, while allowing some expansion in subsidies targeted at the poor, providing employment guarantees, raising expenditures on education, health, sanitation and drinking water and increasing capital expenditures aimed at raising the growth potential of the system.

In the short run, these measures must be accompanied by efforts to raise access to international liquidity. A gradual process of trade reform that helps enhance competitiveness without leading to closures and unemployment, a balanced approach to foreign investment and technology, special incentives to non-resident Indians and efforts at saving foreign exchange by cutting back on some mega-projects of doubtful value, could all play a role in this connection.

As opposed to this, there have been official declarations of acute financial stringency that makes IMF borrowing “inevitable”, panic statements about the foreign exchange reserves position and talk of “floating” the rupee, all of which reduce India's bargaining position with the international financial institutions and in international capital markets. Instead, we strongely recommend a carefully modulated reform programme, wherein the highest priority is given to raising the productivity of all the Indian workers, through better education, while the system is debureaucratised and strengthened before subjecting it to international competition in a fundamentally iniquitcus world system.

Signatories:

Prof Bhabatosh Dutta,

Calcutta;

Prof C.H. Hanumantha Rao,

New Delhi;

Dr Rajni Kothari,

New Delhi;

Dr Ashok Mitra,

Calcutta;

Dr Arun Ghosh,

New Delhi;

Prof G.S. Bhalla,

New Delhi;

Dr K.S. Krishnaswamy,

Bangalore;

Prof I.S. Gulati,

Trivandrum;

Dr P.C. Dutt,

New Delhi;

Prof C.T. Kurien,

Madras;

Prof Amiya Bagchi,

Calcutta;

Prof Moni Mukherjee,

Calcutta;

Prof Deb Kumar Bose,

Calutta;

Prof Biplab Dasgupta,

Calcutta;

Krishna Raj,

Bombay;

Prof Krishna Bhardwaj,

New Delhi;

Prof Prabhat Patnaik,

New Delhi;

Prof Satish Jain,

New Delhi;

Prof Utsa Patnaik,

New Delhi;

Prof Atul Sarma,

New Delhi;

Prof D.K. Reddy,

New Delhi;

Prof M.C. Purohit,

New Delhi;

Prof D.K. Srivastava,

Varanasi;

Dr Raghabendra Chattopadhyay,

Calcutta;

Balraj Mehta,

New Delhi;

Prof K.N. Kabra,

NewDelhi;

Prof Ventatesh Athreya,

Tirchi;

Dr K. Nagaraj,

Madras;

Dr Pulin Nayak,

Delhi;

Dr A. Majid,

Delhi;

Dr Kumaresh Chakravarty,

Delhi;

Dr Arun Kumar,

New Delhi;

Dr Abhijit Sen,

New Delhi;

Dr C.P. Chandrasekhar,

New Delhi;

Dr Jayati Ghosh,

New Delhi.

(Mainstream, July 13,1991)

by Kadayam Subramanian

The BJP, which fared badly in the recently concluded State Assembly elections in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Union Territory of Puducherry, nevertheless did remarkably well in the Assam State Assembly elections. The party won 86 out of 126 seats in the State Assembly with its allies—the Assam Gana Parishad (AGP) and Bodoland People's Organi-sation (BPO). The reasons for the remarkable success call for an analysis.

The basic issue of contestation in the 2016 electoral battle in Assam related, among others, to illegal immigration from neighbouring over-populated Bangladesh. The issue has led to continuous political conflict and turmoil in the State since 1947, when the partition of India led to the emergence of Pakistan and then again the division of Pakistan in 1971, which led to the emergence of Bangladesh in the North-East.

The Assam movement of the late 1970s and early 1980s led to the enactment of the Illegal Migrants (Determination by Tribunals) Act of 1983 to check and eliminate illegal migration of population from Bangladesh into Assam. In 2005, the Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of India, which said that it had resulted in ‘massive illegal migration' from Bangladesh to Assam and had created ‘insurmountable difficulties in the identification of unauthorised immigrants'. The Supreme Court was responding to a Public Interest Litigation filed by Sarbananda Sonowal, the present Chief Minister of Assam who was then a leader of the All Assam Students Union (AASU).

During the 2016 election campaign, Sonowal, as a BJP Member of Parliament, promised to usher in a ‘Khilonjia Sarkar' or a government of indigenous people, if he came to power, which went down well with the people.

The previous two State governments led by the Assam Gana Parishad (AGP), a party which had arisen from the Assam Movement of the 1980s, had failed to do much to address the problem of illegal migrants from Bangladesh. It remains to be seen whether Chief Minister Sonowal of the just set-up BJP Government of Assam would be able to do anything significant about the complicated issue.

India's ruling BJP repackaged its core ‘Hindutva' agenda in the Assamese context and took an inflexible stance on the issue of illegal immigration from Bangladesh and chose the local leaders from Assam to lead the election campaign. It did not quibble about ideology. Sarbananda Sonowal, a local leader, had been proclaimed as ‘jatiyo nayak' (national hero) by the Assamese middle class for his successful effort in getting a favourable verdict from the Supreme Court judgement on the IMDT Act declaring it ‘unconstitutional'; he was selected to lead the BJP-led ruling coalition government.

The charismatic and able Congress party dissident and former Congress Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi's close colleague, Himanta Biswa Sarma, was recruited to the BJP to supply organisational inputs with his established talents. Further, the party discarded its overcentralised model of electioneering and went with the local leadership's assessment on alliances and candidates. The party openly positioned itself as the protector of the ‘khilonjias' and indigenous Assamese identity and interests and appealed to both Hindus and Muslims. But it astutely whipped up the fear of Badruddin Ajmal, the leader of the Muslim-centric All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF), in order to prevent the Opposition Congress party from taking advantage of the situation and collaborating with him. This had an effect on the Hindus of the Barak Valley and caused a split in the Muslim vote.

The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, the BJP's mentor, which has been active in Assam for a long time provided support for the BJP's election campaign with its 22 front organisations and over 100,000 volunteers. The BJP successfully produced a Hindu-Muslim political polarisation and isolated the Congress party and AIUDF from mobilising the Muslims of Assam, the second largest community after the Hindus.

It inducted Prime Minister Narendra Modi into the electoral campaign only in the last stages of the contestation. It made sure that the chemistry of the electoral campaign, if not its arithmetic, went in its favour. It entered into an effective electoral alliance with the regional parties—the Assam Gana Parishad (AGP) and the Bodo People's Organisation (BPO).

Thus, the BJP, with 29.3 per cent of the vote- share, managed to bag 60 seats in the State Assembly for the party while the Congress party with 31 per cent of the vote, could muster only 26 seats.With the support of the AGP (14 seats) and the BPO (12 seats), the BJP had a tally of 86 seats out of the total 126 seats in the State Assembly.

The Muslim-dominated All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) led by Badruddin Ajmal won 13 seats.

Surprisingly, the several ethnically divergent and mutually differing tribal groups in the State too voted for the BJP.

The corrupt, inefficient and dynastic Congress party, led by Tarun Gogoi, was out-manoeuvred in the State Assembly elections 2016. Hindus constitute over 60 per cent of Assam's population and Muslims are over 34 per cent. This is a sharp and significant division.

The victorious BJP thus used two trump cards: i) the anti-incumbency wave against the corrupt and inefficient government led by Tarun Gogoi's Congress party; and ii) the anti-immigration issue which weighs heavily with the Assamese middle class.

The immigration issue was highlighted in the BJP's Vision Document.

A survey found that 75 per cent of Assamese Hindus and 68 per cent of Bengali Hindus saw the ‘illegal migration' issue as important.

This remarkable Hindu coalescence around the BJP was, however, not matched by a counter-consolidation of Muslims behind any one party. In a State where Muslims constitute 34 per cent of the population, Muslim voters were divided.

While language has ceased to be a factor in determining Hindu political preferences, it continues to be a factor with Muslims. Whereas two-thirds of Assamese-speaking Muslims voted for the Congress, among Bengali-speaking Muslims, the vote was divided almost equally between the Congress and AIUDF.

The Hindu-Muslim divide was thus so strong that it overpowered every other identity, social characteristic or political opinion. The survey's questions on political matters elicited diame-trically opposite answers. As high as 76 per cent Muslims were satisfied with the Congress Government's performance, as opposed to just 47 per cent Hindus.

Hindu preference for Sarbananda Sonowal as the Chief Minister was 15 times more than the preference for him among Muslims. This diver-gence among Hindu and Muslim preferences on political matters has been seen in the past Assam elections too, but never was the divide so sharp.

Of the seven States in the North-East of India, the ruling BJP is now in control of two States: Assam, the biggest State (population: 31 million) and Arunachal Pradesh, the second smallest State in population terms (1.3 million). The party's control over the latter was established in controversial circumstances. There were defections from the then ruling Congress party and the State Governor played a partisan role.

Of the remaining five States in the region, three (Manipur, Meghalaya and Mizoram) are Congress-controlled just as Assam was before the elections; while Tripura is ruled by the Communists and Nagaland by the Naga People's Front (NPF). It is far from clear whether the recent controversial Naga Peace Process would have an impact on the electoral processes in the State.

After its recent victory in the Assam elections, the BJP has set up the North-East Democratic Alliance under the party strategist and Assamese leader, Himanta Biswa Sarma, to activate party work across the region.

In Manipur elections are due next year. The BJP performed well in the previous November by-elections. It also did well by bagging 10 out of the 27 seats in the State capital Imphal Municipal Corporation elections; the Congress got 12 seats and Independents five. The party feels that this performance will help it in the State Assembly elections in 2017. The agitation in the valley for the introduction of inner line permit to prevent immigration is opposed in the Hills, which also demands Sixth Schedule provisions for the autonomous tribal districts. The BJP would have to mollify both groups in different ways to gain the upper hand in elections. The Manipur valley is predominantly Hindu and the Hills are Christian. How the BJP/RSS will deal with these differences would be interesting to watch.

In Meghalaya too there is an internal revolt in the ruling Congress party which the BJP will try to take advantage of to gain power. Mizoram (population: one million) too suffers from internal dissensions though it appears to have a stable Congress Government right now.

The ruling political parties in the North-East (except in the Communist-ruled Tripura) often shift loyalties depending on who is in power at New Delhi: the Congress or BJP. They do this knowing fully well that governance in the region depends crucially on significant financial hand-outs from whichever party is in power in New Delhi. Since the BJP is in power at the Centre and has just won a major victory in the most populous State of the North-East, its magnetic attraction is likely to be greater.

The Lok Sabha in Parliament has 542 seats and the Rajya Sabha has 241 seats. The seven North-Eastern States have together 23 seats in the Lok Sabha (Assam—13; Arunachal Pradesh, Meghalaya, Manipur and Tripura—two seats each; and Nagaland and Mizoram—one seat each). They have together 13 seats in the Rajya Sabha (Assam—7; and the six States—one each).

The then undivided State of Assam has given rise to the present tribal-majority States of Meghalaya, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh in the North-East. Manipur (about three million) and Tripura (about 3.7 million) are former princely states which were integrated into India in 1949.

All the six States became autonomous States of the Indian Union in 1972. The total population of the seven North-Eastern States (about 45 million) can play an important role in shaping the course of Indian politics if they are united. This is at present not the case. All of them now compete for the Central Government's attention.

Assam shares with other North-Eastern States the problems of insurgency, poverty, poor human development et al. Political change in Assam affects developments in the rest of the region.

Finally, the extremist United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), with its lasting demand for independence from India, did not exercise much influence in the State Assembly elections, 2016.

The organisation today is divided into three factions, the Paresh Baruah, the Arabinda Rajkhowa and the Anup Chetia factions. The first is intransigent while the other two seem to have opted for a dialogue process with the Government of India.

In Manipur, which boasts of several still-active extremist groups, the government needs to address the persisting hill-valley divide. Though political benefits could occur in the long run, electoral benefits depend on immediate results.

Apart from Nagaland, the States of Mizoram and Meghalaya are Christian majority States. However, Manipur, like Assam, has a Hindu majority and could fall prey to the BJP's Hindutva agenda. The RSS too has a base in the districts of the Manipur valley.

The BJP has a presence of two members in the Manipur State Assembly. The party may benefit by supporting the demand amongst a section of the majority Meitei community for Scheduled Tribe status though the demand is opposed by the tribal communities in the Hills. The ruling Congress in Manipur, like its counterpart in Assam, completes three conse-cutive terms in office this year and will face anti-incumbency and corruption charges. The BJP's success in the Assam elections will push the party's fortunes forward in Manipur.

The author was a Director-General of Police in North-East India. He is the author of State, Policy and Conflicts in North-East India (Routledge, 2016).

by Ram Puniyani

This time around (2016 elections) the BJP has managed to come to power in Assam, though as a coalition with its allies. Its vote-share this time came down to 29.5 per cent from the earlier 36.5 per cent (2014); still because of the strategically stitched alliances it beat the Congress in the number of seats won. The BJP's election appeal was centred on the divisive issue of Bangaldeshi immigrants. It took care to regard the three per cent native Muslims on the ground of ‘Native Assamese identity' while the Bengali Muslims (32 per cent) were singled out as immigrants, outsiders. The Bengali immigrant Hindus were projected as refugees. The BJP's propaganda was on the lines of Hindus versus Muslims. Cleverly it was presented as natives versus outsiders.

Elections 2016

Taking recourse to communal historiography the election was presented as the second battle of Saraighat, where Lachit Burfukan had defeated the Mughal Army in 1671. As such the many commanders and soldiers of Lachit were Muslims also like Bagh Hazarika. The Mughal Army had many Hindu Generals and soldiers. But the tale was spun directed against the Mughals who were projected in the form of Badruddin Ajmal; the latter was the main target as he was presented as a symbol of Bengali Muslims. At the electoral level the Muslim votes got split between the Congress and Ajmal's party. Now the new government is planning to identify the Bangaldeshi immigrants and throw them out. As such Assam has been witnessing the harassment of Muslims and many of them have been denied voting rights by putting them in the D voter category (D for doubtful).

Background

The immigration has been presented in the communal colours in Assam. Essentially the problem is due to pressures related to jobs and other livelihood issues. In the decade of the 1980s, the parochial forces gave the slogan ‘Assam for Assamese' quite on the lines of Maharashtra for Marathis by the sectarian Shiv Sena in Mumbai. The first major catastrophe in this context occurred in the 1980s, when the All Assam Students Union (AASU) demanded exclusion of Bangladeshi immigrants from the electoral rolls. In 1983, over 3000 people were killed in Nellie, near Guwahati. Those killed were Muslims, dubbed as illegal migrants and occupants of land that belonged to the Lalung tribe. The Tribhuban Das Tiwary Commission was constituted to inquire into the Nellie massacre, but the AASU, now the Assam Gana Parishad (AGP), after coming to power dropped all the criminal cases against the culprits and the report of the Commission was never made public. A decade later there was another series of violence, the victims of which are still living in relief camps.

At another level the agitation of the Bodo's led to the creation of the Bodo Territorial Council (BTC), giving most powers to Bodos in the four districts, Khokrajhar, Chirang, Baksa and Udal-giri; three of which have undergone massive violence in July 2012. This violence was preceded by a rumour that people from Bangladesh have brought in a huge caché of armaments. This rumour soon triggered into violence that left lakhs of people displaced and some killings.

The claim that Bodos are a majority and need to preserve their ethnic identity and interests in the area, does not hold any water since the estimate of percentage of Bodos in this area varies from 22 to 29 per cent only. With full powers given to them under this Council they have marginalised the other sections of society very badly. The other point of view is that despite the formation of Bodo Territorial Council, the Bodos did not surrender their arms, which was one of the conditions for accepting the demand of this Regional Council.

Bengali Immigration: History

The study of population statistics will make it clear that the beginning of the coming of Bengali- speaking Muslims in Assam was due to the policy of the British in the early part of the 20th Century. There is a long history of Bengali-speaking Muslims in Assam. For example, there were close to five lakh Muslims in Assam in 1931. In the beginning Bengal was a very populous and politically the most aware area. Assam at that time was sparsely populated. The British undertook a ‘human plantation policy' in the beginning of the twentieth century. The basic idea of the British policy was three-fold. One was to ensure the shifting of people from the overpopulated Bengal to Assam. Two, it aimed to reduce the incidence of famine and unrest in Bengal. And three, the British wanted to make Assam habitable and collect revenue from that area.

Irrespective of the propaganda about Bangla- deshi infiltrators, research based on population statistics of the last century shows that Muslims in the region are settlers from pre-partition Bengal to begin with. Later, there was some migration at the time of partition in 1947 and still later in the aftermath of the 1971 war with Pakistan, leading to the formation of Bangla-desh. Nilim Dutta in ‘Myth of Bangladeshi and Violence in Assam' shows that migration has taken place over a period of time and the increase of population stops after 1971.

The Assam Accord of 1985 granted citizenship rights to all those who had settled in Assam till 1971. This accord recognises all those living in this area as legal settlers and so most of the Muslims fall in that category. Not to deny that that a small number of illegal immigrants, the ones forced to migrate for economic reasons, may also be there.

Despite these facts, the issue has become a big fodder for communal politics, which keeps harping on ‘Bangaldeshi infiltrators'. They go on with the propaganda that ‘Hindu migrants from Bangladesh are refugees while the Muslims are infiltrators'. Even the 2012 violence was labelled by the communal forces as the consequence of strife between Bodos (nationa-lists) and Muslims (foreigners!). The plight of the Muslims who speak Bengali is pathetic as not only are they marginalised and looked down upon, many of them do not even have voting rights and some of them are put in the category of D voters. There is an active hate-industry blaming the ruling party of encouraging infiltration for the sake of votes while in reality the economic migration, which is associated with regional disparities, has also come down heavily with the Bangladesh economy looking up in the last few decades.

The Political Challenges

During the last Lok Sabha elections (2014), the BJP won seven (out of 14) MP seats from Assam. Though the present victory of the BJP is not due to its vote-share, still it has brought the BJP Government to power and is giving it further opportunity to strengthen the work of the RSS combine in the State. The RSS has been very active in the State and has started Ekal schools (nearly four thousand), Sarswati Shishu Mandirs (590), nearly 100 student hostels. There are nearly 12,000 RSS shakhas in Assam. It is these thousands of RSS volunteers who campaign during elections for the victory of the BJP. Through Seva Bharati they are running health services in villages.

All in all the challenge for the democratic forces will increase tremendously as these RSS- run organisations now will have more influence due to direct state patronage. The RSS indoctri-nated teachers and volunteers will be spreading their sectarian ideology in a more cohesive way. Already there is a plan to open RSS-run schools in most of the areas.

Tasks Ahead

The Bihar experiment of mahagathbandhan (Grand Alliance) did tell us that it is possible to halt the march of the communal forces if the political elements believing in pluralism and democracy come together. At another level the social and cultural work to promote the values of pluralism and amity are the need of the hour. The major acts of violence have been precipitated on the issue of Bangladeshi Muslim immigrants. As these Muslims have a long lineage in India, they need to be given due justice as Indian citizens. The process of identification and exiling them leads to great harassment to many Bengali- speaking Muslims. The plan of the RSS-BJP to identify and exile them needs to be opposed. The role of the BJP has been of exerting pressure to target them to create a social divide. Social groups have to take up the challenge of communal politics at multiple levels, not just on the electoral ground.

(Courtesy: www.kafila.org)

The author, a retired Professor at the IIT-Bombay, is currently associated with the Centre for the Study of Secularism and Society, Mumbai.

TRIBUTE

Krishan Kumar Katyal, who died in New Delhi on Wednesday (June 8) at 88, was a distinguished political reporter who had a nose for news, persistence in following up on tips and a talent for cultivating sources in political parties as well as several wings of the government. In the world of journalism, he was universally known by his initials and took jokes on KKK, matching the infamous Ku Klux Klan in America, in his stride.

We were colleagues on the political reporting team of The Statesman in New Delhi at a dramatic time in Indian politics. The tempestuous political saga began with the Bangalore session of the undivided Congress, which led to the first split in the party engineered by Indira Gandhi. But it was an act of many scenes as Indira's men, subsequently known as Congress (R) for requisitionists, and their opponents, Congress (O) for organisation, battled it out.

The objective of both sides was the media before the age of television news came into play. They were hankering after headlines in print, with each section scheduling their press meets late into the night to have the last word. Imagine the plight of political reporters working late into the night, night after night, to cope with this strange competition. In The Statesman, it was KKK and I who had to take turns so that we could catch up on some sleep before starting work the next morning.

KKK was (later) with The Hindustan Times in Chandigarh, and I often had the feeling that he had left part of his heart behind. He was an impressive, tall man with a Punjabi fondness for good food. He later worked for The Hindu.

It is a somewhat different world in the media today, influenced in part by profusion of private TV channels, which often give a breathless quality to reporting. In the days of KKK's prime, the accent was more on assiduous cultivation of sources, patient pursuit of leads and the greatest accolade a political reporter looked forward to was to be greeted by fellow journa-lists on a scoop in the Central Hall of Parliament and MPs' glee or moroseness, depending upon which side of the fence they were on. Despite moments of drama and political upheavals, those were more leisurely times. There was bonhomie in the Press Club and in coffee houses, and perhaps a greater sense of belonging to a unique profession.

KKK's cremation took place Wednesday (June 8) afternoon. He leaves behind his wife Darshan and two talented daughters, Anita and Sugita, who have chosen to follow their father's profession.

(Courtesy: The Indian Express)

The author, a veteran journalist, who edited several newspapers in New Delhi, is a prominent columnist.

TRIBUTE

In the death of Inder Malhotra, India has lost its most outstanding chronicler.

As a young man of 17, Inder Malhotra was there somewhere in the multitudes of people who went up Raisina Hill to watch the birth of free India at the stroke of midnight of August 14-15, 1947.

From then, the careers of both India as a free nation and Inder as an aspiring journalist ran parallel to each other—until Saturday (June 11) when he breathed his last.

Over nearly 70 years, Inder watched and reported on the shaping of a new India, and analysed and commented on the nation's travails of Partition, its ups and downs, its hopes and moments of despair as faithfully as he could — first as a young reporter in UPI, precursor to the UNI, and later, in The Statesman and The Times of India.

When I joined the profession, Inder Malhotra was a big name as the political correspondent of The Statesman, a job to reckon with in those days of the early 1960s. He went on to become its Resident Editor before migrating to The Times of India to work with two other giants of the newspaper world, Sham Lal and Girilal Jain. Later, he branched off as a syndicated columnist, a Nehru Fellow and a writer. All along, he continued to report India for the most respected British newspaper, The Guardian. He also wrote a substantive political biography of Indira Gandhi.

During his last few years, he regularly wrote an immensely popular column called ‘Rear View' in The Indian Express, where he was Contributing Editor—a gripping narrative of some of the most significant events of the history of contemporary India, curated from the pages of his reporter's notebook. He looked back and forth like any good chronicler ought to, commenting on how Indira was facing succession battles, the making of the Constitution, the course India had chosen in the 1971 War, the Emergency and its aftermath, the era of coalitions and instability, the rise of dynasties, and much else that goes with a big emerging nation's career.

He also recorded the plus points and short-comings of leaders, their ego clashes, and how these had an impact on decisions. Politics, ambitions, at times behind-the-scenes intrigues, did not escape his sharp eye.

He closely followed the war with China in 1962, the 1965 and 1971 wars with Pakistan, and the negotiations with Pakistan on Kashmir with a rare objectivity that can be emulated even now.

By 1965, he had become a formidable journa-list. I was just two years into the profession, when UNI told me to cover the infiltration in Kashmir. I found myself on the same flight as Inder Malhotra. For a while, I did get a kick that I was on the same assignment as Inder. But later, some trepidation sneaked in that Inder, with his immense contacts, would do a much better job. Luckily, he was too senior to stay away from Delhi for too long.

I spent three weeks more in the Valley, and went on to cover the Hajipir Pass battle. On my return, I found him very appreciative of my efforts, which was encouraging.



Besides being an outstanding political corres-pondent, he has been perhaps the best defence correspondent since Independence. His commen-taries on India's defeat in the 1962 China war were unsparing. Despite being a Nehruite — who wasn't those days? — he was critical of the policy and flawed decision-making at high levels.

Unlike these days, Inder never mixed comments with news reporting. He never got too close to a political leader. He chose to be a detached observer. He never disclosed his sources.

It is not just Prime Minister Narendra Modi who can call President Obama ‘Barack', Inder would not hesitate to call his interlocutors by their first names, sometimes surprising his colleagues at press conferences.

During the last two or three years of his life, he was in and out of hospital, fighting a battle against the odds. However, he did manage to write his columns whenever he was able to physically, drawing from his tremendous memory and lifelong habit of keeping notes. At the end of the day, he would still like to write a column or two more. The spirit was willing but the flesh was weak. However, there comes a time when even the spirit gives in.

(Courtesy: The Indian Express)

Former ambassador and erstwhile nominated Member of the Rajya Sabha, H.K. Dua is a senior journilist who was the editor of leading newspapers in the Capital. He is currently an Adviser in the Observer Research Foundation (ORF).

When l was studying in a journalism school abroad, l was told by my professor that a news story should be like a skirt: long enough to cover the subject and short enough to be attractive. Over the years, the story has assumed the shape of pontification and inevitably padded.

When senior journalists are kicking the bucket, the question that stares at us is: what kind of journalism will be there in future? Of course this is not confined to India. All countries, whether in the West or the East (barring the totalitarian regimes), are asking the same question: which is the Lakshman rekha that journalists should not cross? Or should there be any Lakshman rekha at all?

Individuals are increasingly posing the question: why are journalists prying into their private affairs? Journalists, in turn, defend themselves on the ground that if they were not to probe, the skeletons would not come out of the closet. The government has a standard reply: some things cannot be disclosed in the public interest. In this way even big scandals are covered up.

I recall that when l wrote against the supersession of three Supreme Court judges, Hegde, Grover and Shalat, l was criticised by the then Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi, who argued that journalism did not mean preaching about the “commitment” of judges. She did not elaborate what that “commitment” was. I can understand the judges having commitment to the Constitution, but not to a person however high he or she might be.

What Mrs Indira Gandhi was demanding from the judges was a commitment to follow her way of thinking. That is the reason she appointed Justice Ray, a junior judge in the Supreme Court, as the Chief Justice, ignoring the seniority of three others. She did not show even the courtesy of informing them beforehand. They heard the news on All India Radio.

This kind of political manipulation runs contrary to the transparency that a democratic system cherishes. Indeed the structure of democracy stands on the pillars of both the division and limitation of power. For example, the Army does not interfere in the affairs of the government because it is a force under the civil administration. Some countries, like Pakistan, have gone under because the military, although it has recently gone back to the barracks, is still very much there. The same is true of Bangladesh, although in that country some journalists do dare to criticise the armed forces.

Democracy expects all its wings to function independently but still in a way that sovereignty stays with the people. It is another matter that rulers themselves become authoritarian and behave like the worst of the Mughal emperors. Those who ensure that democracy functions in the interests of the people are the judges who even have the power to go into the pronouncements of the legislature. The debate about whether the judiciary is supreme or the executive is an ongoing discussion.

If there is criticism of what judges do, or even the manner in which the legislature functions, that comes from journalists. It is the duty of journalists to do so. If they are afraid of carrying out what is expected from them, it is unfortunate for the system. I have experienced how during the Emergency, which completed fortyone years this week on June 26, the entire Press caved in. Initially, there were protests and a large number of journalists—including editors—assembled at the Press Club in Delhi to pass a resolution that Press censorship, an integral part of the Emergency, was not acceptable to them. Yet, as days went by, fear engripped them and they became part of the system, even accepting the orders of Mrs Gandhi's son, Sanjay Gandhi, an extra-constitutional authority.

I recall that as a member of the Press Council of India, I went to its then Chairman, Justice Iyer, to urge him to summon a meeting of the Press Council, an apex body. I did not know by then that fear had also made him subservient. He told me there was no use of summoning a meeting of the Press Council because there would be no publicity about its proceedings. My argument was that if there were no protests then many years later, when the archives would be opened of this shameful chapter, there wouldn't be any record about any protest by the Press Council, the journalists. After hearing me, he reluctantly convened a meeting of the local Press Council members. To my horror I saw in the White Paper, issued after the lifting of the Emergency, that he had written to the then Information Minister, V.C. Shukla, explaining how he (Justice Iyer) was able to stall the effort by Kuldip Nayar to convene a meeting of the Press Council.

The same question about the independence of journalists comes before us again and again in different situations. And I find that increasingly we, the journalists, are failing in the standards required from us. None of this has been helped by the new digital technology that promotes very short stories or sound bites. In fact things have deteriorated to such an extent today that news columns can be bought. It is an open secret that several stories are nothing more than paid news. Some leading newspapers feel no shame in selling the space to whoever wants to buy it. For them it is purely a question of revenue.

How low have we sunk from the heights that we once enjoyed! There was a time when we were able to bring before the public such scandals as the Mundhra insurance scam during the time of Finance Minister T.T. Krishnamachari. Jawaharlal Nehru, the then Prime Minister, forced him to resign from the Cabinet. But even when I subsequently met TTK, he did not seem to realise the harm he had done to the polity.

India is oblivious to the privations of individuals. In contrast the UK media has in the past been prepared to take up cudgels on behalf of innocent victims from different walks of life. For example, the Sunday Times, for which I was a stringer, is still remembered with affection and gratitude for the work it did on behalf of those parents whose children were born handicapped because of the Thalidomide drug prescribed to the patient. Public pressure eventually forced the drug manufacturing company to pay out the needed compensation. Can we emulate those examples today when our very integrity as journalists is being questioned, not to speak of the high standards we once followed?

The author is a veteran journalist renowned not only in this country but also in our neighbouring states of Pakistan and Bangladesh where his columns are widely read. His website is www.kuldipnayar.com

by Binish Maryam

Ethnic violence leaves in its wake devastation on the one hand and deep psychological trauma on the other. The suffering of the victims becomes part of the collective psyche of the society. The strategies that the Indian state generally adopts to build peace in the post-violence scenario are not well equipped to take care of the antagonisms, grievances and pain that constitute the collective consciousness of the conflicting communities. Often monetary compensation and legal justice are used as tools to gain normalcy, but the erosion of trust and confidence between commu-nities is hardly addressed. In such circumstances although there is absence of violence, the apprehension and prejudices become an integral part of the community and its consciousness. Unless we initiate a process of restorative justice along with retributive justice, building peace will remain a distant dream and society will continue being prone to the recurrence of communal violence.

The Nuremberg trial, held by the Allies after World War II, brought all the perpetrators of human rights violation in Germany to undergo the legal judicial process. The culprits were held responsible for their crimes and sentenced under the criminal justice system. This model of justice was not accepted in South Africa in the post- apartheid period. In his book, No Future without Forgiveness, Desmond Tutu, the Archbishop and social right activist in South Africa, writes that the retributive justice system is more acceptable in the case of inter-state conflicts where people are confined to their own boundaries whereas in case of intra-state conflicts where the con-flicting groups have to stay together, there is a need for restorative justice so that the relations between the groups are restored.

Justice as a concept can be of two types: one that is retributive in nature and the other that is restorative in character. When we talk about justice, it is mostly in the legal context where the guilty are punished for their crime. This kind of justice is retributive justice. One argu-ment given in favour of legal justice is that if the offenders are not put behind bars, the victims may develop an idea of personal revenge and vengeance, which could be more dangerous for the society. It is argued that only trials serve to reinstate the lost dignity of the victims and re-establish their faith in the political system and its value. The legal procedure establishes individual accountability and thus eliminates the perception that the whole community is responsible for the wrong done. It also brings an end to impunity that sometimes is considered as a reason for increased human rights violations.

After every episode of mass violence, people long for justice but this wait hardly ends as the record of delivering legal justice to victims of communal violence is not very impressive in India. Gujarat has been one of the first cases where the culprits of mass violence have been brought to justice. This is a welcome step towards reinstating faith in the democratic and judicial system of our country. In earlier episodes of mass violence—like Nellie (1983), Delhi Sikh Riots (1984), Bhagalpur (1989), Mumbai (1992-93) and Kandhamal (2008)—a culture of impunity has prevailed. In such a scenario the Gujarat verdict comes as a ray of hope where the perpetrators of riots can be sent a message that impunity won't remain a norm anymore, and if they are involved in the violence they will be prosecuted and justice will be done.

On February 28, 2002 the Gulbarg society in Ahmedabad witnessed brutal killing of 69 innocent persons, including former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri. Fourteen years after the incident 24 people have been convicted in the case, 36 have been acquitted and the charge of criminal conspiracy has been dropped. While the prosecution wants stringent punishment for the convicted, the defence seeks leniency in sentencing the convicts. For the family of the victims it is half-hearted justice as the masterminds are still roaming free. They call it a diluted and weak verdict. They believe that the 32 convicts should not have been acquitted in the case and among those convicted all should have been given life imprisonment; whereas families of those convicted believe that those with money and influence have got away while the poor and the weak have been caught in this case. Even after the announcement of the sentence a legal battle will continue between the two parties to prove guilt and claim innocence. The closure of the case and closure of pain remain elusive at the moment for either side.

Today in Ahmedabad the riot survivors live in desolate ghettos and resettlement colonies that at one and the same time remind of supreme neglect and denial. More than a decade has passed but the building where Ehsan Jafri resided is left all empty with no sign of life in it. The blackened walls of the Gulbarg society reflect wounded psyche, withering trust and permanent divide. The mistrust amongst the communities is so high that a day before the Naroda Patiya verdict most Muslim residents locked up their houses and left for a safe destination. People living in the relief colonies believe that real peace can come when the two communities will share maximum space with each other. Polarisation of communities on religious grounds is so stark that the peace that is visible in the form of absence of direct violence can be easily disturbed anytime. An atmosphere of mistrust and apprehension has developed amongst the people, thus raising the need for authentic reconciliation.

The retributive system recognises criminal guilt, not political or moral responsibility. The court is able to punish only a handful of culprits involved. Further, the emphasis on the individualisation of guilt is inherent in the retributive process, which overlooks the community dimension in conflicts. The legal sentences assuage the grievance and pain of the victims, still the family of convicts is left unsatisfied and broken. One community is at peace and not the other. Therefore the idea of justice needs to be revisited. Retributive justice alone cannot establish peace. For rebuilding relations there is a need for restorative justice as well.

Restorative justice seeks at mediating peace between groups in conflict. The ultimate aim is to restore relations as far as possible. In the restorative justice system the problem is viewed as that of the community as a whole with the purpose of achieving reconciliation and social harmony. This is a process where all the members of the community get involved and they are given a lesson on how to peacefully resolve a conflict. The healing process starts with a personalised description of the traumatic events by the victims or their representatives. The acknowledgement of the tragedy and injustice of losses by the aggressors is accompanied by a formal apology and a request for forgiveness.

The concepts of acknowledgement, apology and forgiveness are not familiar to the Indian system. Never after any gruesome event of violence has our society felt the need to indulge in these ideas. Amidst this battle for legal justice what we often forget to notice is the individual pain, trauma and permanent scar on the minds of the victims as a result of these brutal massacres. The Gulbarg Society judgment has succeeded in bringing legal justice but it has failed to bring peace for the victims and society at large. The survivors of violence are living with deep psychological trauma, as there is no formal mechanism to address this traumatic mindset; so the pain lingers. The individual pain of the victims of violence, if not addressed properly, leads to the permanent division of society. There is a need to come up with a peace model that takes care of both the physical and emotional damage done during riots. Any society should build upon the strength of the criminal law process, the retributive model, but to move it as far as possible towards the restorative ends. Both the retributive and restorative justice systems are equally important for the establishment of long-term peace.

References

1. Annelies Verdoolaege, Reconciliation Discourse: The Case of the Truth and ReconciliationCommission, John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam Philadelphia, 2008.

2. Antonia Chayes and Martha Minow, Imagine Coexistence: Restoring Humanity After Violent Ethnic Conflict, ed. Boston: Jossey-Bass, 2003.

3. Colin Knox and Padraic Quirk, eds., Peace Building in Northern Ireland, Israel and South Africa: Transition, Transformation and Reconciliation. MacMillan Press, 2000.

4. Charles Webel and Johan Galtung, eds., Handbook of Peace and Conflict Studies, Routledge: Taylor and Francis Group, 2007.

5. David J. Whittaker, Conflict and Reconciliation in the Contemporary World: The Making of the Contemporary World Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 1999.

6. Desmond Mpilo Tutu, No Future Without Forgiveness, Doubleday, 1999.

7. Ho Wen Jeong, Peace and Conflict Studies: An Introduction, Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2000.

8. John Paul Lederach, The Journey toward Reconciliation, Herald Press, 1999.

9. John Paul Lederach and Angella Jill Lederach, eds. When Blood and Bones Cry Out Journeys Through the Sound Scape of Healing and Reconciliation, Oxford University Press, 2010.

10. Luc Reychler and Thania Paffenholz, eds., Peace Building: A Field Guide, Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2001.

11. Veena Das, Mirror of Violence: Communities,Riots and Survivors, Oxford University Press, 1990.

12. “Gulberg Society Massacre: Court Sentences 11 Persons Convicted Of Murder To Life”, The Indian Express, June 16, 2016.

13. “Gulberg Society Verdict: This Is Not Justice, My Struggle Continues”, Says Zakia Jafri, The Indian Express, June 17, 2016.

14. “Gulberg Massacre: Teesta Setalvad to Appeal against ‘Diluted, Weak' Verdict”, The Indian Express, June 17, 2016.

15. Martha Nussbaum, “When is Forgiveness Right?”, TheIndian Express, October 9, 2012.

16. “A Ground Zero in Gulberg Society: the Remains of 14 years, Blackened Walls, Broken Soft Toys”, Ritu Misra and Leena Misra, The Indian Express, June 3, 2016.

17. Rasheeda, personal interview, Naroda Patiya, Ahmedabad, October 22, 2012.

18. Rehana Rathore, personal interview, Naroda Patiya, Ahmedabad, October 22, 2012.

19. Abida, personal interview, Naroda Patiya, Ahmedabad, October 23, 2012.

20. Rehana Bano, personal interview, Naroda Patiya, Ahmedabad, October 24, 2012.

Dr Binish Haryam is an Assistant Professor (Ad-hoc), Maitreyi College, University of Delhi. She can be contacted at e-mail: binish.maryam@gmail.com

EDITORIAL

The terror attack on a Spanish restaurant in Dhaka's diplomatic zone of Gulshan late on July 1 has caused consternation not just in Bangladesh but South Asia as a whole and neighbouring India in particular. It resulted in the death of 28 persons, including six gunmen, who had stormed into the Holey Artisan Restaurant to hold all those present there as hostage. Those killed included nine Italians, seven Japanese, one American, a 19-year-old Indian student and two Bangladeshis (one of whom refused to leave his friends even though he was allowed to exit the cafe). The Islamist State has claimed responsibility for the terror strike, although the Hasina Government has till date dismissed all reports of the presence of the IS and its affiliates in the country.

Regardless of whether the Hasina Government changes its stance and acknowledges the IS role in Bangladesh, it has been pointed out in The Hindu that “IS-style rhetoric against minorities and foreigners and the use of horrifying violence are influencing Bangladeshi militants”. In the last two years 49 persons—bloggers, writers, publishers, Hindus, Christians, two foreign citizens and secular Muslims—have been killed in targeted attacks by Islamists.

However, the July 1 terror attack on the restaurant in Gulshan has led to a qualitative change in the situation with regard to Bangladesh's threat perception which has now increased substantially. And the recurrence of such a terror attack at the country's largest Id congregation at Kishoreganj, 80 km from Dhaka, today, the sacred day of Id-ul-Fitr, has further enhanced that threat perception even though only two persons, including one of the attackers, were killed in this operation. But this latest attack has cautioned the authorities that they cannot lower their guard under any pretext.

It is also important to note that the speeches of some Muslim clerics based in India, like Dr Zakir Naik, in the social media had influenced young Islamists as the ones who attacked the restaurant in Gulshan.

Some commentators are laying stress on uniting the entire polity of Bangladesh forgetting the values which Bangladeshis held aloft when they opted for liberation from Pakistani yoke in 1971. No doubt the unity of the polity is essential in the face of the crisis the country confronts today. But that does not mean that the values of 1971, so dear to the hearts of the secular nationalists of the nation, need to be jettisoned in order to unite with elements allied to the Islamic fundamentalists who have never been reconciled to the birth of independent Bangladesh.

On July 5 the Narendra Modi Government carried out major changes in the Council of Ministers. The most significant development in this exercise was the elevation of Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar to the Cabinet with charge of the Human Resources Development Ministry which was held by Smriti Irani who is now relegated to Textiles; the new Environment Minister is the new entrant, river conservationist Anil Madhav Dave.

With 19 new Ministers of State the strength of the Council of Ministers has risen to 80—an eloquent commentary on Narendra Modi's catchy slogan: “minimum government and maximum governance”.

Also significant is the RSS role in the changes—because of stiff opposition from the RSS Modi could not drop a high-profile Cabinet Minister he had planned to remove. Moreover of the 20 Ministers upgraded as many as nine are from the RSS.

The whole exercise was undertaken with an eye on the impending UP Assembly polls which the BJP is desperate to win after its humiliating defeat in Bihar.

July 7 S.C.

India and its politicians must introspect as to why there has been such a mass outpouring of grief and support for Burhan Wani, a militant who was killed in an ‘encounter'. Already news reports confirm that over 30 unarmed protestors have been killed by the police and scores more have been injured. The death-toll itself indicates and reports confirm that the lethal force used by the security forces were absolutely dispropor-tionate. Some reports suggest that even hospitals and ambulances are being targeted. This only shows that even those wishing to express solidarity with Burhan Wani are willing to do so under the gravest of risks.

How can any democracy allow the killing of unarmed protestors? And not spend a moment to reflect on and mourn the situation? Sadly this is not an aberration in Kashmir's history. Only in 2010 over a hundred were killed while protesting.

In an extremely tense, volatile, tragic and dangerous situation, such as we are witnessing today in Kashmir, what is called for is extreme caution and empathy for those who have lost their loved ones. This would naturally include the family and relatives of the one policeman who has died and the three who have gone missing and to date remain untraced. However, vitriolic voices in the media calling for the burning of so-called terrorists with garbage, and ghoulish celebration of Wani's killing only serves to escalate an already fragile situation. It leads to the brutalising logic of merely sending in more troops. Greater militarisation of an already extraordinarily militarised zone is surely not an answer to mass protests.

Those screaming about the ‘natural justice' that ought to be meted out to militants as well as those who have already passed judgment on Wani and others would do well to listen to the voice of the highest court of the land. In the recent ruling on AFSPA, the Supreme Court has clarified that “It does not matter whether the victim was a common person or a militant or a terrorist, nor does it matter whether the aggressor was a common person or the state. The law is the same for both and is equally applicable to both...This is the requirement of a democracy and the requirement of preservation of the rule of law and the preservation of individual liberties.” Rejecting the government's submission that any arms bearing person in the “disturbed area” was to be defined as an enemy under section 3(x) of the Army Act, the Supreme Court held: “Each instance of an alleged extra-judicial killing of even such a person would have to be examined or thoroughly enquired into to ascertain and determine the facts.”

In deference to this ruling by the Apex Court, the security forces must therefore be required to demonstrate that the force used against militants, as well as unarmed protestors, was proportionate and justified. Hospitals and nursing homes must remain out of bounds for the security forces or police. We should not be condemned to witness yet more violence and greater militarisation.

Jamia Teachers' Solidarity Association

July 12, 2016

by Meghna Kajla

Citizenship in France and Debate on group Rights

The term used citizenship/rights will be interchangeable for both.

As T.H. Marshall explicates, citizenship is evolving and it's a combination of three rights: civil, political and social. It is the combination of these three rights that makes citizenship. How does France define citizenship? The Republican French model of citizenship is based on the mixture of jus sanguinis and jus soli. (Steiner N., 2009) The country has come to be known with the assimilationist and liberal conception of citizenship. Assimilationist, liberal and universal conception of citizenship require citizens to give up their first languages and cultures to become full participants in the civic community of the nation-state. (James A. Banks)

France clearly explains citizenship on the basis of Frenchness, Lacilite and civic solidarity. It tries to categorise citizenship into three broad categories: French, French natives and foreigners. The citizenship is given by naturalisation and those of French natives are the people of Muslim origin. So the citizenship has been given according to their last names: if the last name is Islamic they are French Muslims; this is a separate category.1

So France tried to convert all the immigrants into one French identity. This indicates that citizenship is directly related to the assimilationist approach. This makes the particularities present in the society and marks the universalistic notion of citizenship. This debate on particu-laristic and universalistic notion of citizenship can be located in the South Asian region. (Jayal) The debate between group rights and individual rights gets a lead from giving rights to different minorities. The rights of minorities can be seen as recognition and representation. Individual rights assume the individual as a rational being and equal, it fails to see the social construction of a human being. Michel Rosenfield states: “The French model is thoroughly individualistic and leaves no room at constitutional level for recognition or deployment of group or national identity.” (M. Rosenfield, 2002) The liberal state does not give recognition to the groups; rather it approaches citizenship on individual basis, leaving no room for community, culture, ethnicity, religion. The history of divergence of the state and church gives secularism the basis to secularism in Europe. So there are causal factors for the rights of minorities as being different from the French. It is on this basis that France does not give rights to Muslim minorities. The state believes in radical secularism of divergence between the state and church. It does not give religious rights, ethnic rights to groups.

It is in France that the controversy over foulard was highly debated. The debate is whether these are individual rights on wearing clothes or do they speak of religious sentiments? This debate over group rights and individual rights is of much relevance to our research. The multicultural citizenship argues that certain marginalised groups should be given citizenship. As Kymlicka argues, group rights should be viewed as a form of external protection against majorities, rather than internal restriction of individual rights. The state of France recognises that if the practice of religion is private, the showcase of religious symbols should be private. Young also emphasises that certain groups are excluded; those who are not judged as capable of adopting the general point of view and adherence to ‘equal treatment', necessarily privilege certain cultures and lifestyles over others. (Nick Stevenson 2003, p. 48) The claim made by Muslims for their religion to the state can be individual rights as well. As with the changing post-war era, the national citizenship rights have changed to human rights. (Soysal 1997) It is only through collective group rights that one has come to achieve the nation.

It is this debate on how the national rights have turned into human rights. They are individual and so should be the rights of minorities as individual and not group rights.

Muslim Minorities in France

The debate over the displaying of religious practice in France is highly contested. One cannot wear or showcase their sentiments in public. It is on the path of citizenship that the minorities and their cultures are assimilated into Frenchness. The diversity in population on the basis of ethnicity and religion has been curbed in France at the national level. So with the break of the 2005 riots in the suburb of Paris, it came to limelight that the distinctions are differences present in the society. The state failed in its assimilationist policy and the world for the very first time saw the intolerance among the people of France. To talk about the Muslims in France, it is the largest minority having about 6-8.5 per cent. This is the highest population of Muslims in any European country. The Muslims have migrated from Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia and Turkey.2 It is very difficult to know about the population of Muslims, as France does not provide statistics on the basis of ethnicity and race. So the data is according to the last names and also their origin.

The citizenship of France has been divided into the three categories, where the Muslim identity is only visible by their last names. These immigrants were workers from slave trade, as France was the coloniser of Algeria. The immigrants were brought to France as labourers and were given a status of “French by acquisition” but later in 1947 the assimilationist policy of France turned them them into French Muslims. They settled in the suburbs of Paris where most of the riots have occurred. The Muslims have created mosques and they have about 1500 Muslim organisations. With this one can see that the Muslims have been accommo-dated as President Sarkozy's view on funding mosques became controversial. According to Alec Hargreaves,3 it has also been regarded that Muslims have changed and assimilated in the French society, they more or less accept the norms of the society. In fact they have changed in relation to France's socio-cultural society.

Riots in France

There have been a series of anger in the population of France. It is mostly in the Muslim- dominated areas. It can have many causal factors. It could be due to their economic and social status in the society. The Muslims in France are living in ghetto-type compounds and there has been constant police surveillance in the area. The history of riots in France dates back to 2005. It was a suburb where young boys jumped into an electricity substation for fear of being caught by the police because there was checking going on in the suburb. Threatened with being caught by the police, the teenagers jumped into the substation and died.

The statistics provide a data on how the Muslims in France are employed, problems they face at the time of interview and how they qualify for an interview.4 It can be seen from this analysis that Muslims receive low response in regard to their CVs accepted and call for interview. This makes the rate of employment within the Muslims quit low. The society in a manner does not accept Muslims as part of their community. The debate on whether the nationalist model of citizenship should prevail or there should be multiculturalism has been already explained.

The riots did not stop after the 2005 riots, a state of national emergency was imposed. It is the state of emergency which is important for us in reconfiguring the rights of minorities. I will elaborate on the same later in the paper. The Charlie Hebdo magazine printing a cartoon of Mohammed, this was accompanied with the killing of writers of the magazine in 2015. The act of blasphemy has been considered only on the Christian ideology and not Islamic. A similar debate occurred in the Dutch society, after the cartoonist drew a cartoon of Mohammed in a paper. This was seen as an attack on Islam. A similar sentiment has been seen in France after Charlie Hebdo. But the society rose with placards of Je suis Charlie. The Paris attack of November 13 at five locations shook France. The effects can be seen with the imposition of the emergency for six long months. It is this power of the state to impose emergency that needs to be analysed and problematised. The nationalist model of France failed in assimilating cultures.5 The Paris attack can be seen in relation to many aspects of the society. The state can look at it from many aspects, including Muslim minorities in France and the wave of immigration due to the ISIS war on Syria. The debate in the world over the migration wave has taken the centre-stage due to the human rights and hospitality6 practised by states. As Germany allowed a certain number of refugees, other countries have allowed refugees or asylum seekers to pass through.

Theoretical Debate on the Rights of Minorities

The minorities in every country are considered as bare life.7 The concept of bare life stands on the practice of the state of inclusion and exclusion of citizens. The inequality in the majority and minorities of any state, till they are not represented equally, results in the minorities continuing to be a victim of bare life. The republican state of France manages to ascertain separation between the church and state, the public and private. This raises the debate on not allowing schoolgirls to wear foulard and scarf in 2004. The display of religion was condemned by the state policy. It is since the debate on Muslim minority from the headscarf that they are considered as minorities in their own nation. The rights of these minorities are being reconfigured and also with the policies of the state changing. This gained a lot of debate in world affairs. There have been incidents and cases on which the Muslims have been targeted. Starting from the Charlie Hebdo, 2005 riots, this change redefined the way Muslims were being treated. The 2004 foulard debate and 2005 riots changed the rights of Muslims. The Paris attack seems to be the most shocking attack in France; this has changed a lot of what is happening in the society. After having been drawn into the scenario of migration and minorities in France, the Muslims have been looked at from a very different perspective. Not only with the French people but the state has been trying to redefine the whole notion of citizenship. At the time of emergency the state redefined and reconfigured the rights of minorities. To borrow the concept of bio-politics8 from Foucault, he describes the micro power of the state to study a human body precisely. He has elaborated this in his lectures delivered at the College de France. The concept of bio-power comes with neo-liberalism as the state policy.

What is bio-politics? It is the microphysics of the human body, a detailed study of the human body. This idea gave rise to the new art of government in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. A series of Foucault's concept can be devised like surveillance, governmentality. Governmentality9 is a new art of governance with the help of different administrative bodies of government. It is with the neo-liberalist state that the practice of bio-politics comes into being. Foucault states: “Police state entails precisely an objective or set of objectives that could be described as unlimited, since for those who govern in the police state it is not only a matter of taking into account and taking charge of the activity of groups and orders, that is to say of different types of individuals with their particular status, but also by taking charge of activity at the most detailed, individual level.” This new art of governance, called govern-mentality by Foucault, is about the constant and detailed surveillance of the state over its citizens. These were the techniques that gave power to the state over the citizens. This idea of governmentality can be related to the way the state uses its power over the citizens to make them feel protected. This protects some from the others. The division of self and the other, where the self gives power against the other. This idea of Foucault will be used in the way the rights of Muslim minorities are being reconfigured in France. The Paris attack over five locations leaving 130 people dead and several injured came as a shock to France as such an attack was never faced by the state.

It is for various reasons relating to security that the state pushes the surveillance and police to the front. There are those citizens who have to be protected and some about whom the state does not seem to care much (minorities). The Muslims living in France are the bare life, to use Agamben's term. It is the state that decides for some to be included and others to be excluded. Most cases come from the minorities being excluded and the majority gets included. France disregards to recognise itself as a multicultural state. It tried to make the population fall into the straight line of equality. This was an artificial divide, according to some scientists, because the society and its contradictions are really impor-tant at the time of driving policies. It is on this basis that the Muslims of France have more or less tried to adapt and evolve with the French society but claims of inequality have nevertheless been made. The state, as Foucault describes, takes particular care about its citizens and it is in this that there are certain citizens whose status is accommo-dated, redefined for the comfort of others.

The state reconfigures the rights of Muslims in France on the basis of the power that it exercises over its citizens. It is not in terms of legitimate force10 that it is exercised but a different kind of power which is, in Foucault's term, reproductive.11 The subjects give power to the state in order for the state to become powerful. It is through the unseen power and its various techniques that the state uses to reinforce the concept of security. The subjects give power to the state and in return the latter defines various laws to protect the subjects. The state has a relationship of the protector with its citizens. The certain laws defined by the state tend to be equal before law but the differentiation occurs at the time of the state of emergency, where state has the power to suspend laws and govern in its own way. I will not go into details of the civil and political rights of an individual, which gets suspended along with the emergency. It is the state that reconfigures the rights of the state. As can be seen in France after the Paris attack, Muslim houses have been raided because of the ‘Islamophobia' present in the society. In what terms are the rights reconfiguring? La police de recherché etd'intervention.12 It is raiding the Muslim houses, interrogations are taking place and every Islamic person is being viewed from a very secluded eye, the police is constantly outside their houses. There is anger in the society and the suburb has police as souvenirs.13 It is in this manner that the rights of Muslims living in France are being reconfigured.

The term reconfigured means to re-structure or re-model differently. It is with this that the basic rights of Muslims living in France are reconfigured. The issue is different whether it will be done for the French as well or not. This will be done in terms of the security threat that the state faces. It has to be seen from the perspective of Muslims living in France. This will also affect the migration that has been taking place at the international level. With Germany accepting migrants and the state of France not accepting refugees by giving a statement of security threat to the nation, also creates a debate on human rights and calls the cosmopolitan notion of citizenship into question. (Soysal) Muslims and their rights are being reconfigured with changes being brought about in their daily lives. There had been troubles with employment and education-related issues and when such an attack is tackled by the state, it tries to ensure the security and governance at the micro level. So have the Muslim citizens the same rights and do they also practise them? Have the rights been reconfigured? The rights, as can be seen from the newspapers, media and magazines, have been listed out by the state to ensure that no other attack of the same sort takes place. The rights of Muslims are not the same not only after the attack but it leaves a taboo for Islam in the society.

Debate on Policy

The debate on rights depends on the govern-ment's ruling. If the leaning of the government is towards the Right, then the policies enunciated by the same will be changing the horizon of rights accordingly. The local elections in France were just round the corner after the Paris attack. The Right-leaning party will be nationalist and strict with the immigration policy and also towards the minorities as one party, the National Front of Jean Marie La Pen, behaves in that way. It will act as a pressure on the Parti Socialist of Francois Holland, the present President of France elected in 2011, and force it to carry out restrictive and strict policies towards the immigrants. The National Front party had sent shock waves by not accepting immigrants in 2003 when Sarkozy was the Interior Minister.

The history of Muslims in France dates back to the days of colonialism and it is the effect of slave trade for which France has to accommodate them. The elections won by the National Front in December 2015 was a sign of aggression among the people of France regarding the Jihadist and Islamophobia being experienced in the society. It is also to be seen that the people have voted because of the Paris attack and Je suis Charlie taglines. The party coming to power effects the policies and functioning of the state.

The French society has been a multi-ethnic, multi-racial and multicultural society but the idea of citizenship modulated by the state leaves no room for debates and adjustment to the diversity. But the policies adopted by the state have always been on the path of liberalism and the debate is on whether the liberal states should be accommodating immigrants. (Seyla Ben Habib) The debate that liberal states have always been accommodative to unwanted labour can be correctly located in the case of France where it has always accommodated the minorities but with its own policies. (Joppke)

Conclusion

The rights of the minorities in every state are reconfigured by the state especially when there is a threat perceived by the state from outside or inside. Foucault highlights the power of governance given to the state by the citizens themselves. It is the state which further recon-figures certain rights the minorities can exercise as seen in France. The state of emergency is another excuse to exploit the minorities as the civil and political rights of minorities are curbed. It is through this state mechanism of emergency that the state further exercises its power. It is not today that the debate over French Muslims will be over but whenever there arises a threat to the state, it will again reconfigure their rights. After being reconfigured do the rights of the minorities remain permanent or are they temporary? The social conditions of the minorities do not change for long and leave a taboo but do the legal rights remain permanent? As they can be raided after two years for the same cause and interrogated, their right to privacy in this manner remains curbed. The surveillance and taboo with the French Muslims will stay on as it did after 9/11.

References

Foucault, M. (2004), The Birth of Bio-politics, Lectures at the College de France.

Levevy, G.B. and Madood, T. (2009), Secularism, Religion and Multicultural Citizenship.

Willes, E. (2007), Headscarves, human rights, and harmonious multicultural society: Implications of the French ban for interpretation of Equality.

Stevenson, N. (2003), Cultural Citizenship.

Steiner, N. (2009), International Migration and Citizenship Today.

Rosenfield, M. (2009), ‘The identity of the constitutional subject; Selfhood, citizenship, culture and community'.

Retrieved: December 14 2015, French Politics and Society, Vol. 15, No 2 (Spring 1997), pp. 67-70.

Retrieved: December 14, 2015, Changing Parameters of citizenship and claims-making: Organised Islam in European Public Sphere, Vol. 26, No 4 (Spring 1997), pp. 507-597.

Retrieved: December 13, 2015, ‘Diversity, Group Identity and Citizenship Education in Global Age', Educational Researcher Vol. 37, No 3 2008, pp. 129-139.

Retrieved: December 13,2015, ‘The choice of ignorance: The Debate on Ethnic and Racial Statistics in France', Vol. 26, No. 1 (Spring 2008), pp. 7-31.

Retrieved: March 23,2010, ‘Why Liberal states accept unwanted immigration', Vol. 50, No. 2 (1998). p. 266-293.

Bibliography

Marshall T.H. (1950) Citizenship and Social Class and other essays.

Miller, D. (2000), Citizenship and National Identity.

Agamben, G. (1998), Homo sacer Sovereign Power and Bare life.

Foucoult, M. (2004), The Birth of Biopoltics, Lectures at the College de France.

Browen, J.R “Pluralism and Normativity in French Islamic Reasoning, chap 13.

Stevenson, N. (2003), Cultural Citizenship.

Steiner, N. (2009), International Migration and Citizenship Today.

Levevy, G.B. and Madood, T. (2009), Secularism, Religion and Multicultural Citizenship.

Willes, E. (2007), Headscarves, human rights, and harmonious multicultural society: Implications of the French ban for interpretation of Equality.

Rosenfield, M. (2009), The identity of the constitutional subject; Selfhood-citizenship, culture and community.

Retrieved: December 13, 2015, ‘Religious Expression in Public Schools: Kirpans in Canada, hijab in France'. (1997), pp. 545-561.

Doi: 10.1080/01419870.1997.9993974.

Retrieved: December 13, 2015, ‘The Return of assimilation? Changing perspective on immigration and its sequels in France, Germany and United states', (2001), pp. 531-548.

Doi: 10.1080/01419870120049770.

Retrieved: December 13, 2015, ‘National models of integration in Europe: A comparative and critical analysis' (2011 Sage pub), pp. 1-20.

Doi: 10.1177/0002764211409560.

Retrieved: December 14 2015, ‘French Politics and society' Vol. 15, No 2 (Spring 1997), pp. 67-70.

Retrieved: December 14, 2015, ‘Changing Parameters of citizenship and claims-making: Organized Islam in European Public Sphere' Vol. 26, No 4, (Springer 1997), pp. 507-597.

Retrieved: December 13, 2015, ‘Diversity, Group Identity and citizenship Education in Global Age', Educational Researcher, Vol. 37, No 3, 2008, pp. 129-139.

Doi: 10.3102/0013189X08317501.

Retrieved: December 13,2015, ‘The choice of ignorance: The Debate on Ethnic and Racial Statistics in France', Vol. 26, No. 1 (Spring 2008), pp. 7-31.

Retrieved: March 23,2010, ‘Why Liberal states accept unwanted immigration', Vol. 50, No. 2(1998). pp. 266-293.

Footnotes

1. This category of Muslims in France is highlighted in the paper written by Patrick Simon ‘The choice of ignorance: the debate on ethnic and racial statistics in France'. Spring 2008 pp. 7-31.

2. This is the data collected through http://www.euro-islam.info/country-profiles/france. I am relying on this data for the number of Muslims in France.

3. Alec Hargreaves writes on France ethnicity, racism and culture. He writes in his book Multi-ethnic France that Muslims of France have tried to adjust according to society of France and they have done this very exceptionally.

4. ‘Identifying barriers to Muslim integration in France', Claire L. Adidaa, David D. Laitinb, 1, and Marie-Anne Valfortc.

5. Christophe Bertossi, ‘National models of integration in Europe', Sage Publications, 2011.

6. Hospitality by Derrida. It gives a sense of how to accommodate the migrants by the state. The should welcome refugees, migrants and later on the legal basis should give accommodation. The states should not close doors.

7. Giorgio Agamben: the concept of bare life refers to the Roman law, which barred any human, who committed certain crime his rights of being a citizen will be scarepped. He could be killed by anybody.

8. The birth of Bio Politics Lectures at the College De France 1978-1979' The concept of bio-power of Foucault tries to make sense of security, population and territory. Bio-power is the new rationality of government. Though the term first appeared in “The will to knowledge”

9. ‘Governmentality' is an idea of Foucault', He conceptualises a police state form of governance in the eighteenth century.

10. Max Weber's concept of legitimacy that a state has authority to use force.

11. Foucault describes reproductive power by describing the relationship as not dominating rather the subject produces power and the state reproduces power. It is a mutual and positive relationship.

12. ‘Le Canard enchaine', Joounal Satriqueparaissant le mercredi, December 9, 2015. It gave a detail on how the raids, interrogations after the Paris attack.

13. Courier international.com N 1310 du 10 au 16 decembre 2015.

The author is an M.Phil scholar at the Delhi University's Department of Political Science. Here is the paper she wrote for her course work in M.Phil at the University.

BOOK REVIEW

‘INDIA NEEDS GANDHI MORE DESPERATELY NOW THAN EVER'

by Aejaz Ahmad Wani

Hindutva or Hind Swaraj by U.R. Ananthamurthy (translated from Kannada by Keerti Ramachandra and Vivek Shanbhag); Harper Perennial, Harper Collins; 2016; pages: 120+ xxii (foreward); Price: Rs 350 (Hardcover).

Introduction

In the wake of a recurrent rallying cry of Hindutva in the country, U.R. Ananthamurthy's Hindutva or Hindu Swaraj is a chef-d'oeuvre that purports to light up the inherent ‘darkness' of nation-states. In doing so, he attempts to make sense of the rise of Hindutva nationalism, its underlying ideological motifs, and seeks its justification in a comparative analysis of Savarkar's Hindutva, and Gandhi's Hind Swaraj. For him, the recent power changeover represents a transition from Gandhi's dream of Hind Swaraj to Savarkar's Hindutva. This book aims to understand the thematic effects of new power structures on the ‘idea of India'. The author employs diverse ways—stories, speeches excerpts, personal experiences, and scriptural references, to unleash narratives that make a case that India needs Gandhi even more desperately now than ever.

Making Sense of Ultra-nationalism and Ideological Rhetoric of Development

Is democratic majority an end in itself? For the author, the real test for a democracy is whether it provides space for those not in that majority. For this reason, there must never be political gratification of masses of any sort with the democratic majority. The author has his reason to believe so. For him, goodness and evil are inextricably linked up; thus, the love for the nation also hides within it an inherent evil. This evil is ever present in society. Like Ravana's head, it grows again and again each time it is cut off. But Savarkarism wants us to believe that there is no evil in us; in fact, it celebrates that. The author understands well the fact that when each action is seen through the national prism, the everyday morality that Gandhi wanted us to preserve, vanishes. Notwithstanding this tide, the author boldly says that he wants to swim against this tide. Note that Ananthamurthy was a controversial figure all his life whose death was actually celebrated by the Hindutva fans.

With the rise of Modi, a new discourse of ‘development' is doing the rounds thought to be for the nation, by the nation and for the nation. But the author is curious to know its foundational philosophy. For him, development so conceived is, in essence, a move away from nature. Things are filtered and commodified as per their utilities. This sort of development melts ‘big hearts' into ‘brokers' of business and benevolence is considered a feudal legacy and food to the hungry as an impediment to development. In the past, a skill would speak of its origin, but with the great game of hunting—globalisation, it mixes skills in a melting pot, the big hunters lay somewhere else, local participants only get a meagre share. Unlike the Gandhian concept of localisation aiming at sustainability, and self-sufficiency—the globalised localisation is a mechanistic way of appropriating the cheap countryside labour.

For the author, this is the brand of development that Modi wants us to believe in. This recent trend—a power changeover—represents, for Ananthamurthy, a transition from Hind Swaraj to Hindutva, from Gandhi's dream of self-sustainability to the emulation of the West-induced dependency. This is the transition for the author that has recently been heralded by Modi through the rhetoric of national consolidation.

The Integrative and Ecological Hindu Vision, not the Hindutva Leviathan

Away from a very utilitarian and an extrapo-lative narrative of Hindutva, UR unravels a more holistic Hindu vision from the Hindu scriptural traditions. Why do only the poor suffer while the wicked prosper? In one of the stories mentioned in the book, this question is posed by a staunch believer to God to which God tells him to abstain from questioning His decisions. For Ananthamurthy, the Abrahmic religions have no reply to this question. On the other hand, there is no one God in Hindu Dharma but numerous and hence many avatars of Satans, all seeking to reach one god or the other. In the Abrahamic religion, only the committer of a sin is punished, but in Hindu tradition, the perpetration of any sort has a cumulative effect on all and sundry. The guilt is felt widely whosoever commits a crime.

This metaphorical exposition is remarkable in the book because for Ananthamurthy, it is this realisation that keeps people like Gandhi, Teesta Setalvad, Medha Patkar passionately active in the constant fights against the Israeli atrocities, Gujarat pogrom, and for tribal rights respectively as if they themselves have perpetrated these crimes. This integrative Hindu vision is a crucial plank of Gandhi's Hind Swaraj, unlike the divisive and exclusive vision of Hindutva.

Napoleonic Obsession of Nation-Building and the Modi Regime

Ananthamurthy observes that there is a Napoleonic obsession of nation-building in the world. Rulers are hailed even after they have perpetrated mass murders. This obsession was as much in Stalin's USSR as in France, as relevant in China as in today's India. The word history is replete with an unpalatable praise of the ‘heroes' devoid of any moral invocation. He argues that even though Indian history is generally thought to be non-violent, the songs, movies and the art in India clearly indicate that the very Indian psyche is violent. In this, he takes up the historical presentation of India in Savarkar's writings. Savarkar, taking the cue from Napoleon as well as from the pan-Islamic unity, sought to build such a strong nation-state which shall reign paramount with other entities being secondary to it. This utilitarian defence of a nation-state acknowledges the aggressive acts of Indian history as India's ‘essence'; but it to that extent avoids any acts of morality or immorality. Thus, Shivaji is not known for good governance, but for his arms tactics and wars.

With the continuity of this obsession and narrow understanding of history up to our day, Ananthamurthy groans, the heroes of our time have been hailed without any moral retrospection. Thus, Modi, given his Savarkarite ideological pedigree, paradoxically pays tribute to Gandhi. He might have changed from outside, but inwardly his moral dilemma is evident. By playing down differences for the sake of nation-building, the Modi regime has isolated liberals for their skepticism of a possible fascist state should the rhetoric of a nation be stretched too far. With the recession of the Left in India under the rhetorical and oratorical developmental agendas of Modi, Ananthamurthy is quite sure that such develop-mental agendas under the guise of global capitalist expansion and intensification is an anathema for the environment in India which will show its vengeance in the form of uneven rain, climate change, floods, and thunder. This ‘Modi vision' is proximate to Savarkar's ‘mighty India' but quite far away from Gandhi's schema of ecologically sensitive self-reliant agenda of Hind Swaraj.

This book is what the author calls a ‘satvik' (analytical and gentle) response to the vehemence of the sort of nationalism as envisaged by Savarkar. The author, in order to understand the rise of ultra-nationalism in Modi's India, seeks to unravel the roots of Modified nationalism which takes him to Savarkar. Savarkar passed through an initial phase from being a supporter of Hindu-Muslim unity in his early writings to his latter aggressive and exclusive avatar when he viewed the Hindu nation exclusive of Muslims and other groups. Inspired by social Darwinism, utilitarianism and rationalism, Savarkar propounded a creed of nationalism on an essentially violent edifice. It was perhaps, the author points out further, the ideal character of Savarkar and his aggressive ideas which Gandhi refutes while defending the eloquence of Ahimsa in his seminal work, Hind Swaraj. Ananthamurthy visualises the arrival of Modi's regime as a reversal of the dream of Gandhi's Hind Swaraj to Savarkar's Hindutva. What made this reversal possible was the ineffective Congress (which otherwise have many credits to its name), the inactive Manmohan Singh, and sentient Rahul Gandhi but equally Modi's oratorical skills and the propaganda that the media manufactured for him.

Comparing the Dialogical Hind Swaraj with Oratorical Hindutva

Ananthamurthy reviews Savarkar's Hindutva: Who is a Hindu? to underscore his project of an exclusive Hindu nation. Savarkar formulates his ideological construct from a larger Hindu civilisation, its thoughts and actions rather than the Hindu religion. Hindutva denies unity in diversity by framing the identity of Hindus as those whose Pitrabhumi (fatherland) and Punyabhumi (holy land) lay in India, geographically imagined from the Himalayas to the sea. This qualification excludes all except Hindus who have unflinching faith in the Vedic heritage. Ananthamurthy asserts that while Savarkar portrays only one side of the Hindu history that he calls as ‘Glorious Epochs' (Savarkar's book Six Glorious Epochs in Indian History), he overshadows equally negative aspects and evil sagas that manifest deep even in the scriptures. He warns that if one glorifies and lionises one's entire existence, one often forgets oneself in the act.

In this comparative task, Ananthamurthy finds Savarkar's historical analysis and arguments very excessive in comparison with Gandhi's still and constructive presentation. Mahatma Gandhi's Hind Swaraj has dialogical argumentations, first expounding the opponent's radical arguments in great detail followed by a presentation of Gandhi's moral and non-violent answers. In such an open exploration of ideas, the reader makes an informed judgment being acquainted with both sides of the coin. On the other hand, Savarkar's Hindutva is a monologue written in an excellent oratorical manner that only performs an elevation of the exclusive Hindu civilisation, its achievements but masking its ugly sides in totality. Secondly, Savarkar recognised the contribution to the making of modern India of only those who celebrated Vedic cultural ethos. This exclusive mode of argumentation is but based on emotionalism but Gandhi's is on robust introspection. Gandhi is convinced in his belief that the removal of a rung from a ladder will render it useless. For Gandhi, the seeds of nationalism in India were sown by many who had unflinching faith in his non-violent principles. This inclusive and integral approach, for Ananthmurthy, is what makes Gandhi's Hind Swaraj a remarkable humanistic illustration of politics that has an apparent relevance in today's India.

In a rather introspective manner, Anantha-murthy argues that the meteoric rise of a ‘lower caste' person like Modi actually illustrates the Vedic regimen of flexible Varna where one could make a move to another caste though merito-cratic means. However, it was not Savarkar's glorification of Hindu civilisation that made it possible for Modi, rather it was only with the therapeutic contribution of Gandhi, Ambedkar and V.P. Singh who removed fetters on the lower caste that caste Hindus had put on them since ages.

‘Unity in Diversity' or the ‘Fear of Diversity'?

In the concluding chapters, Ananthamurthy lays out some excerpts from Godse's speech justifying the killing of Gandhi, which for him reflects clearly the credibility of both Gandhi and Godse and in effect, Savarkar. The killing of Gandhi, who fought for the ideal of ‘unity in diversity', by a person, whose ideal was ‘unity among the Hindus only', exposes the prejudiced and exclusive character of Savarkarism. Savarkarism sharpens the Indian memory of its ‘glorious past' but causes a deliberate amnesia about the multifaceted origins and development of the Indian nation, of its diversity.

In this comparative exercise between Hindutva and Hind Swaraj, Ananthamurthy attempts to reflect upon the changing political milieu in India and presents both alternatives to the people of India—an aggressive one or an accommodative one. For him, what is desperately needed in today's India is not the development of the Modi way, but Gandhi's Sarvodaya—empowerment of all rather than the development of the corporates and MNCs.

Laconically speaking, Hindutva or Hind Swaraj is an excellent reflection on the ongoing political, social and economic changes taking place in India with the arrival of Modi. At the same time, it seeks to convince Indians about the need for introspection in today's divisive politics so as to preserve, maintain and cherish the ‘idea of India' that Gandhi lived and died for.

The reviewer studied at the Political Science Department, University of Delhi. He has authored the book Political Process in India. He is also the contributing author of the forthcoming book Modern South Asian Thinkers being published by Sage. He has contributed to Economic and Political Weekly and Mainstream.

On April 29, 2016, India's Income Tax Department released tax statistics after a gap of almost 16 years. Till 2000, the Tax Department used to publish All India Income Tax Statistics but the publication was discontinued for some unknown reason. No explanations were given by the authorities for the discontinuation of this publication despite numerous demands made for its release by Indian economists and researchers.

According to media reports, the government released this data after French economist Thomas Piketty, the author of the bestseller Capital in the Twenty-First Century, highlighted the need for greater data transparency to carry out research on income inequalities in India. During his trip to India in January, Piketty also called upon wealthy Indians to pay more tax so as to reduce the levels of income inequality in the country.

The Data

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) has uploaded a total of 84-page aggregate direct tax statistics on its official website. In its official release, the Tax Department said the key objective of publishing these data statistics was to encourage “wider use and analysis of Income Tax data by departmental personnel and academicians”. There is no denying that reliable and timely tax statistics are necessary not only for academic research and public debate but can immensely help in formulating appropriate tax policies.

The time-series data between fiscal 2001 and fiscal 2015 contains valuable information such as the total number of taxpayers (individual and corporate), the number of permanent account numbers (PAN), actual direct taxes collection, number of effective assessees and administrative costs. One hopes that the Indian tax authorities will now periodically put all direct and indirect tax statistics in the public domain. Since most tax returns are nowadays filed electronically, aggregate data could be made available to the public within weeks. In this regard, the Indian tax authorities can seek guidance from the other G-20 countries.

Direct and Indirect Taxes

For those who are not familiar with the taxation system in India, let me explain. In India, taxes are broadly classified into two categories—direct and indirect. Direct taxes are applied directly on individuals and corporations and collected from them. Income tax, corporate tax and wealth tax are prime examples of direct taxes.

On the other hand, indirect taxes are collected by the government from an intermediary and are applied on the manufacture or sale of goods and services. Sales tax, value added tax, service tax, excise duty and custom duty are prime examples of indirect taxes.

By and large, direct taxes are considered to be progressive because they are based on the ability to pay; besides they help in reducing income and wealth inequalities, while indirect taxes are considered to be regressive because every consumer (rich or poor) pay the same price for the purchase of a commodity. The indirect taxes hit the poor more than the rich because the poor spend a large share of their income on consumption. Unlike direct taxes, indirect taxes are easier to collect with less administrative costs.

The Alarming Statistics

The facts revealed in income tax statistics are shocking, to say the least. Any observer of the Indian economy would find it difficult to believe the extent of poor tax collection in India.

Below are some really startling direct tax statistics:

• Only one per cent of India's population paid tax on their earnings in fiscal 2013. India has a total population of 1.2 billion but only 12.5 million paid tax in fiscal 2013.

• In 2015-16, only 51 million (about four per cent) filed income tax returns. It is important to note that the number of actual taxpayers is much lower because many have declared their earnings below the tax threshold. Over half of the tax returns have zero tax liability. For instance, 16.2 million paid zero tax in fiscal 2013 while 28.7 million filed tax returns.

• In fiscal 2013, there were only 18,500 assessees (individual and corporate) who paid income tax in excess of Rs 10 million. Out of them only 5430 individuals paid tax of Rs 10 million or more.

• In 2009-10, the share of direct taxes was 60.78 per cent of total taxes but it fell to 56.16 per cent in 2014-15. It is projected to drop further to 51.05 per cent in 2015-16. Whereas the share of indirect taxes is rapidly increasing since 2010.

• Only three Indians paid tax of Rs 1 billion or more in fiscal 2013. Only eight individuals paid tax between Rs 500 million-Rs 1 billion during the same year.

• In terms of share of direct taxes in the Indian economy, the direct tax-GDP ratio was 6.3 per cent in 2007-08 but is projected to fall to 5.47 per cent in 2015-16, the lowest in this decade. Overall, the growth rate in collection of direct taxes is lower than the growth rate in nominal GDP.

• Just two Indian States, Maharashtra (39.9 per cent) and Delhi (13.1 per cent) account for 53 per cent of India's total income tax. The maximum growth in tax collection has been witnessed in smaller States (Sikkim, Mizoram, Nagaland and Kerala) between 2008-09 and 2014-15.

All the above statistics paint a not-so-rosy picture about the status of direct tax penetration and collection in India.

Several conclusions can be inferred from these statistics. First, the wealthy Indians and big corporations are not paying adequate direct taxes. And there is a complete mismatch between the growing number of dollar millionaires and billionaires in India and tax revenue receipts. Instead of relying on the salaried class (who constitute the biggest segment of taxpayers), the government should target the super-rich for better tax compliance and widening the tax base.

Second, our tax administration is still not free from corruption and abuse of power. Despite two decades of reforms in tax administration, there is a widespread public perception that tax bureaucracy is corrupt and inefficient. Third, domestic tax evasion is rampant but it has not received much attention from successive governments. The present government claims to be focused on bringing back dirty money stashed abroad but, at the same time, strict legal, administrative and political reforms should be undertaken to stop the tax evasion taking place within the country.

Need for Comprehensive Reforms

These statistics call for a fundamental rethink in India's tax policy framework if the country wants to move away from a regressive to a progressive tax regime. Over the years, the successive governments have launched a number of direct tax reform measures.

There is no denying that some eight million new taxpayers have been added in the last five years. Besides, numerous steps have been undertaken to make the tax administration more transparent and efficient.

Nevertheless, these statistics underscore that the current tax reforms fall short of the avowed objective of raising substantial financial resources to meet the country's social and developmental needs.

With such a low tax collection, India cannot achieve its growth potential, leave aside the country becoming a superpower by 2020. India cannot build world-class public infrastructure and eradicate poverty from external financing (commercial or concessional) alone. The fulfilment of basic needs of the masses requires substantial financial resources. Domestic resource mobilisation through progressive taxation should play the lead role in achieving these developmental goals.

In the post-liberalisation period, the policy-discourse on reducing the Budget deficit has been predominantly centred on curtailing government spending rather than enhancing tax revenues and broadening the tax base. These statistics call for a balanced approach.

While the proposed Goods and Services Tax (GST) is expected to broaden the base of indirect taxes, comprehensive administrative and legal reforms are required to curb massive evasion of direct taxes in India. Perhaps the time has come for reforming the direct tax reforms.

Kavaljit Singh is the Director of Madhyam, a policy research institute (website: www.madhyam.org.in) based in New Delhi. He can be contacted at e-mail: kavaljit.singh@gmail.com

The PMO has stated that the Indian economy is now the most open since FDI inflow has been liberalised further and restrictions in certain sectors have been reduced. The Opposition has linked the move to Dr Rajan's announcement that he would not seek a second term as the RBI Governor. It is not that he has resigned. They argue that anticipating negative reaction in the markets, the government had to announce concessions to counter it. The two items of news are certainly connected as signals to lobbies in the BJP and international agencies.

Dr Rajan is going to be around till September 4 when his term comes to an end. He will still steer the economy through the uncertainty raised by Brexit and prepare the ground for the outflow of funds raised in 2013 when the rupee was rapidly depreciating. Further, a new Governor would be in place when Dr Rajan departs and why assume that she/he would not be able to handle the situation given the policy parameters already in place? It is possible that Dr Rajan may be able to handle things well but so could another person in his place, unless of course in a suicidal fit, the government appoints a cricketer to bat as the Governor. There is likely to be continuity in policy in the RBI given that bankers are sedate people not prone to sudden changes. Further, do the Rajan supporters feel that the policy-framework he put in place during his tenure is inadequate and only personal factors matter?

Personalities do matter and especially at the helm of affairs. Dr Rajan is said to know international investors, IMF mandarins and Central Bankers of other countries. It is said that he is highly respected and can easily convince them. But so could others. Investment depends on confidence and it is said that foreign investors' confidence would decline due to Dr Rajan's exit. But it is worth remembering that in the affairs of nations, personalities matter only so much. The US Congress heard Mr Modi and repeatedly applauded but when the next day it came to giving India a special status, nothing changed.

It is said that the autonomy of the RBI is important and Dr Rajan as an academic was taking an independent line. It is argued that the government did not like this and hence forced him to not seek a second term. How important is the Central Bank policy for an economy? It is no doubt important; but is it crucial?

Since 2008 the Federal Reserve tried to boost the US economy by resorting to Quantitative Easing (QE) without much of an impact. The EU Central Bank has also tried to do the same with little impact. Interest rates have been at record low levels (almost touching zero) and yet these economies did not respond. In technical jargon the economies are in a liquidity trap. In India too the RBI has made dozens of policy-announcements in the last five years with little impact.

In India, the food prices do not depend on the monetary policy but on what happens in agriculture. Here too speculation by trade is crucial—it often aggravates shortages by hoarding, as in the case of onions earlier and now tomato. As far as the other major commodities are concerned, their prices are internationally determined, given that the Indian economy has become a far more open economy. The recent fall in prices is a result of falling global prices, especially of petroleum goods. Thus, the fall in the inflation rate in the last two years has more to do with international prices than the RBI's policies.

The rupee has depreciated substantially compared to the dollar since 2013. The present comfortable foreign exchange reserves of $ 360 billion are largely due to borrowings which today stand at around $ 450 billion. Thus, much of the reserves are borrowed funds and can leave Indian shores. Especially, its short-term variety can leave rather quickly. No wonder, every time there is a hint that the US may raise interest rates marginally, there is panic in the Indian stock markets that funds will start going out. In brief, the good news about inflation and foreign exchange reserves are fortuitous and not necessarily a result of the actions of the Reserve Bank.

As far as growth is concerned, the RBI has a limited role to play but by not lowering the interest rates more sharply, it did not help matters and this has been a bone of contention between the RBI and the government. The Governor was also one of the first officials (other analysts were quick to question it when the data was released) to question the sharp rise in the rate of growth shown by the new data series put out by the government last year. This did not go well with the government. But the problem is that the RBI did not put out its own estimates in spite of the autonomy that it has. Similarly, it did not present its own estimates of the true inflation since the WPI and CPI are rather inadequate as target variables given that they do not reflect inflation in services which now account for 60 per cent of the economy.

It is well accepted that growth is propelled by investment and that is where the country has faced difficulties. The investment rate has fallen from a peak of 38 per cent in 2007-08 to the current level of about 30 per cent. It is known that the private sector investment has slowed down because of spare capacity which is a reflection of lack of adequate demand. The public sector was also not investing enough till recently because of the cut-back in Plan expenditures. Added to all this is a crisis in the infrastructure sector which has borrowed heavily and is unable to repay the banks resulting in NPAs and the banking crisis. Due to the public outcry on the writing off of debt and growing NPAs, the banks have now become cautious and that is not helping investments. The RBI's rush to get the banks to clean up their balance-sheets of all bad loans has created an environment of over-caution. There is no doubt that cleaning up was a necessary step but the path needed to be tread more carefully.

In such a situation, is foreign investment the route to raise investments in the economy? One needs to ask: would foreign investment enter in a big way to boost the investment rate of the economy? At present, net foreign investment into India is about $ 60 billion (annually) or about 10 per cent of the total investment into the economy. Even if it jumps by, say, 50 per cent, it would not solve the problem of the decline in the investment rate in the economy. Would it generate jobs in the economy and give a boost to manufacturing?

Clearly, foreign investment in the sectors that have now been liberalised, will be largely capital-intensive rather than labour-intensive and would generate few jobs. Further, if the Indian companies, who may fear the deep pockets of the MNCs, exit or slow down their investment, then that would set back output and employment. Take the example of the competition between Amazon and Flipcart, with the latter facing multiple problems as Amazon expands in India. In the case of airlines where there is spare capacity, Indian investors may slow down their investment. Such decisions will aggravate the demand problem since MNC investment would take time while in the meanwhile Indian investment may decline. For instance, investment by IKEA and Walmart has been talked about for quite some time but it has yet to take place.

What if imports are replaced by local manufacture in India like, in the case of defence equipment, which we import in billions of dollars? It is likely that only that defence equipment would be manufactured in India which the military orders. Big orders take years, if not decades, for example, the Rafael deal or the Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft (FGFA) or the import of guns, etc. Thus, such manufacturing capacities will take conside-rable time. As the Rafael deal shows, France is not very keen to set up facilities here while also demanding a high price. Similarly, for the FGFA negotiations with the Russians. How much technology transfer could take place is also unclear given issues of sovereignty, secrecy and dual-use technologies. We have been producing the MIG and Sukhoi for long but upgrades have taken place in Russia even though they have transferred more technology than the West has done.

In brief, which problem does the NDA hope to solve by liberalising FDI—investment, employ-ment, growth, import substitution or technology upgradation? There is little certainty about any of them. So, is liberalisation a knee-jerk reaction to Dr Rajan not applying for a second term? If yes, did the government want him to go at this cost? Did it have to liberalise to show the international agencies that Rajan's going is not a swadeshi move? The swadeshi lobby in the NDA, which wanted to see Dr Rajan's back has got the worst of all worlds, because Dr Rajan's replacement will be someone with a similar economic philosophy.

A retired Professor of Economics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, the author has penned the book, Indian Economy since Independence: Persisting Colonial Disruption, Vision Books.

MEDIA

By Mohd. Afsar

The muder of journalist Rajdeo Ranjan at Siwan—the most recent one in a series of attacks on journalists in recent times, is an alarming sign of danger on freedom to report in India. As per the latest report released by the worldwide known organisation ‘Reporters Without Borders', India is among the top three most dangerous countries for journalists. It has named India as “Asia's deadliest country for media personnel, ahead of both Pakistan and Afghanistan”.

Recent Attacks on Power of Free Speech of Journalists

Violence, including murders and threats, is emerging as a factor to silence the journalists. This is being done by politicians and criminals in particular. The media, which is supposed to have the power of free speech, is being controlled by the influential people (especially those with political links). “Indian journalists daring to cover organised crime and its links with politicians have been exposed to a surge in violence, especially violence of criminal origin, since the start of 2015,”‘Reporters Without Borders' states.1 One more journalist association, ‘Patrakar Halla Virodhi Kruti Samiti', working for the protection of journalists, also states that the number of attacks on journalists is rising by the day in India.

From a long list of murders, attacks and violence against journalists since the last few years, some are listed below.

On May 13 this year, a senior journalist, Rajdeo Ranjan, was shot dead at Siwan town in Bihar. He covered Siwan politics and crime extensively and published several reports on court proceedings against former Siwan MP Mohammad Shahabuddin. The MP is the primary accused in the case of his murder.

A day before the murder of Rajdeo Ranjan, Akhilesh Pratap Singh, a journalist working with the Taza TV news channel of Jharkhand, was shot at least thrice before he died. The reason of his death is that he revealed a number of scandals of corruption in the Jharkhand State and was therefore targeted.

Karun Misra, bureau chief of Jan Sandesh Times, a Hindi daily of Uttar Pradesh, was shot dead in February 2016. The Director-General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, condemned this killing of the journalist and said: “The free flow of information as provided by the media benefits every member of society and must be defended swiftly to ensure there is no impunity for such crimes.”

In July 2015, Akshay Singh, a reporter of the Aaj Tak channel, was found dead in mysterious circumstances near the railway tracks in Madhya Pradesh while investigating the unnatural deaths in the Vyapam scam.

Editor of Khushboo Ujala, a local weekly in Mumbai, Raghavendra Dube, was murdered after he disclosed the alleged nexus between bar owners and police in July 2015.

Journalist Jagendra Singh died from burn injuries in June 2015. His family has made allegations on the UP Minister, Ram Murti Singh Verma. Before his death, he wrote on his Facebook page alleging that “Ram Murti Singh Verma can have me killed. At this time, politicians, thugs, and police, all are after me. Writing the truth is bearing heavily on my life. After exposing some of Ram Murti Singh Verma's acts, he had me attacked...” He reported critically on politics and wrote on illegal mining and land grabs in newspapers as well as on his Facebook page regularly.

In June 2015, a journalist from Madhya Pradesh, Sandeep Kothari, was murdered by those who were involved in illegal mining and running chit-fund companies.

Senior journalist M.V.N. Shankar was brutally murdered with iron rods in Andhra Pradesh in November 2014 by the mafia exposed by him. The mafia was involved in adulteration and illegal distribution of kerosene oil and gas.

In May 2014, Tarun Acharya, a stringer with Kanak TV in Odisha, was found dead with cuts and injuries on his throat and chest. The charge for the murder was made on the owner of a cashew processing factory who used child labour at his factory and this illegal practice was reported by the journalist in his TV news reports.

Increase in murders is not the only concern about the safety of journalists. The number of physical attacks, threats and abuses on journalists is also continuing to grow in recent years and hence newspersons are facing mounting restrictions on the free flow of news and information to the public. A few cases are being mentioned here among the hundreds of such types of incidents.

In the month of April this year, more than half-a-dozen journalists and camerapersons in Jharkhand were assaulted and their equipment was damaged by policemen when they were trying to get pictures of the Cabinet Minister, Saryu Rai, who came to the police station in connection with the alleged illegal detention of a man.

Alok Singh and Kaunain Sheriff, Indian Express journalists, were assaulted by a group of lawyers at the Patiala House court complex in February 2016 while they were covering the sedition case against JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar.

A child died due to firing after the victory of Samajvadi Party MLA Naved Hasan in the block pramukh elections in February 2016. While reporting this incident, the television reporters were assaulted by the SP workers.

In October 2015, several reporters and camera-persons were allegedly assaulted by unidentified men when they were covering the West Bengal civic polls. The Opposition parties in Bengal have blamed the ruling Trinamul Congress (TMC) for the attack and alleged malpractices.

In June 2015. Kanak TV reporter Satyajit Sen and his cameraman were beaten up and their equipments were damaged by a railway security officer while they were covering a protest by the passengers of a train against the delay of the train for several hours in Odisha.

A journalist reports on what's going right and wrong in our society. Journalists communicate facts and news stories to the people that the latter should know; that may change their lives; that inspires and motivates them. Journalists put their best efforts in order to gather evidences and chase sources. And what do they get in return? Death, physical attacks and threats! Furthermore, the attitude of the government dampens the high spirits of journalist when, for example, the present Minister for Women and Child Development, Maneka Gandhi, seeks the withdrawal of government accreditation of the journalist. This is what she did in case of two Reuters India reporters, Aditya Kalra and Andrew MacAskill, after the news agency refused to “amend or withdraw” an October 19, 2015 report headlined ‘India's budget cuts hurt fight against malnutrition: Maneka Gandhi'.

Violence against Female Journalists

Today in India, female journalists are increasingly being attacked, harassed and teased for carrying out their professional duties. This trend has become more persistent with the rise of the social media. They are ferociously trolled on WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites for their reports and news. It is also a fact that the male journalists are also not spared by trolls on social media, but the attacks on women are more severe as they include personal attacks apart from professional ones.2 “There is no doubt that women are targeted in a way that men just are not,” Barkha Dutt, the NDTV consulting editor, said in an interview. She also revealed about an abuse campaign that targeted her by mass-sharing her contact details and attacking her on social media with abuses of sexual nature. Furthermore, it is also a fact that many of these crimes and violence are not even reported because of the powerful cultural and professional blockades in our society.

In February 2016, the house of Malini Subramaniam, working in Scroll.in, was attacked with stones and then was forced to leave Jagdalpur. This happened to her for her critical reporting against the police's manhandling of journalists, social activists and the common people in Bastar.

In February 2016, Sindhu Sooryakumar, a news anchor in Kerala, received thousands of death threatening and harassing phone calls for hosting a discussion regarding the comments by a Kerala Minister on student protests related to the JNU issue. Her number was circulated on social media branding her as a sex worker.

Sonal Mehrotra, an NDTV reporter, was among those journalists who were manhandled and threatened at the Patiala House Court premises by lawyers in February 2016. She told in an interview that “They can get very derogatory with a woman, like question their womanhood. They won't do that with the men.”

In January 2016, Revati Laul, a female journalist in Ahmedabad, was slapped and punched by Suresh for asking a question to a convict in a Gujarat riots case during an interview. She is writing a book on the convicts in the 2002 Naroda Patiya massacre case for which she met Suresh Chhara in his house.

In November 2015, V.P. Rajeena, a sub-editor with Madhyamam, a Malayalam newspaper, received a series of abusive comments and threats on her Facebook page after she posted on the ongoing sexual abuses in “Madrasas”. And later her Facebook account was blocked.

In July 2015, Manashree Pathak, a reporter with the ABP Majha in Mumbai, was verbally harassed and then physically attacked by a group of men when she visited a slum area where a deadly fire took place. She confronted a person who threw a pebble at her and in return some other goons came to abuse and attack her.

It is significant to know that the online abuse of female journalists is not only a gender bias but an attack on freedom of the press to silence female journalists. It must be addressed as a top-priority issue by the society as well as by the government.

Upsurge in Protests to Protect Journalism

Freedom of speech is guaranteed in the Constitution. A question that today every journalist is asking the government and country too is: “What kind of democracy is this where its fourth pillar, the media itself, is continuously being threatened?” Journalists are facing heavy counterattacks for their reporting. They are compelled to come out on the roads to protest and join dharnas so as to re-claim their right to report.

In February 2016, journalists in Mumbai protested against the ongoing violent threats and attacks on them for questioning the policies or the wisdom of Prime Minister Narender Modi.3

In the same month, hundreds of journalists marched from Press Club of India to the Supreme Court. They were protesting against the violence against mediapersons at the Patiala House Courts during the bail hearing of JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar.

The civil rights groups and media groups across India have come out in support of the journalists, Santosh Yadav and Somaru Nag, of Dainik Navbharat and Dainik Chhattisgarh, who are arrested since September 2015, by the Chhattisgarh Police on false allegations of having links with Naxals in Bastar. They are organising protests and dharnas in order to get them released.

Measures Needed to Protect Journalists

Our country's fourth estate, the media and media personnel, must be protected at any cost. It is the responsibility of the government to ensure their safety and protect them in order to enable them to carry out their role without fear. The poor law and order situation is reflected by the increase in the frequency of brutal attacks on journalists.

In India, the violence against media personnel generally goes unpunished. India has a very bad record and rate of prosecution of those who kill or attack journalists. As per the report of the Committee to Protect Journalists, there have been no convictions in any of the cases for the killing of journalists in which nearly all have covered politics, corruption or crime.4 Nintysix per cent of the cases of killing of journalists have not been taken to the logical conclusion and in some cases, investigation reached a dead-end, as reported by a committee of the Press Council of India. The latest Amnesty International report states that “Human rights defenders, journalists and protesters continued to face arbitrary arrests and detentions. Over 3200 people were being held in January 2015 under administrative detention on executive orders without charge or trial.”5 PCI Chairman Chandramouli Kumar Prasad cited two murder cases of mediapersons—Akhilesh Pratap Singh of Jharkhand and Rajdeo Ranjan of Bihar—and said: “It is a matter of grave concern that three journalists were killed in the country in the last four months and another died in a tragic accident while on the line of duty. I urge upon the government of India to enact a special law for protection of journalists and speedy trial of cases of attacks and assaults on them in special fast track courts as recommended by the sub-committee for safety of journalists appointed by the Press Council. The killing of nine journalists last year and three journalists this year so far, does not bode well for the freedom of media and safety of journalists in the country. It is sad that such incidents happen in the largest democracy in the world.”

A number of steps could be taken in order to address the rising challenges to the safety of journalists and to promote press freedom. Some of these are mentioned here.

The government should introduce new laws to give stringent punishment to those who are behind the attacks on journalists. This is required because investigations without any arrests or strong prison sentences for the attackers and killers convey the wrong message that “the messenger can be easily targeted, attacked and even killed”.

Fast-track courts should be used for speedy justice for the victim journalists.

A network of working groups should be established with help from the government, states, media, civil society groups and common people to develop awareness and raise campaigns against the attacks and co-ordinate among themselves to ensure the best implementation of safety measures for the journalists.

The reality at the prosecution stage of any attack on a journalist is miserable. A case gets registered after a journalist gets killed or attacked. One or two persons are arrested or interrogated. But the question that remains unanswered is: “Is this enough?” Is there nothing more the government can do? And if not, then why is there a need to have a government?

Concluding Remarks

The media, the fourth pillar of our democracy, empowers the citizens of the country by aiding dialogue and participation in our democracy. It informs and empowers them to enhance the democratic values. Therefore, any assault on the media's representatives is an assault on our democracy. Hence in order to protect our democracy, a free and safe environment for journalists should be created with a view to strengthening peace, democracy and development in the country.

It is very disheartening and worrying to see that in recent times, the State and Central governments are giving ample amount of space to allow the enemies of the freedom of the media to flourish. They are constantly ignoring the current ambience of violence against journalists. As a result, journalists reporting on politics, corruption and crime are increasingly being murdered, attacked and harassed by groups associated with politics and criminals.

References

1. Reporters Without Borders, https://rsf.org/en

2. Megarry, Jessica, “Online incivility or sexual harassment? Conceptualising women's experiences in the digital age”, Women's Studies International Forum. Vol. 47, Pergamon, 2014.

3. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3494689/Indian-journalists-threats-attacks-Modi-PM.html~

4. Committee to Protect Journalists, http://cpj.org

5. https://www.amnesty.org/en/countries/asia-and-the-pacific/india/report-india/

The author is a senior correspondent, India News. He can be contacted at e-mail: afsar11@rediffmail.com

by Samit Kar

In his recent address in the ‘Man ki baat' aired through the public broadcasting system all over the country, Narendra Modi described June 26 as the Dark Day in the history of India. This year, this day happened to be the 41st anniversary of the day of the declaration of the Emergency by Indira Gandhi in 1975. The Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley, twitted on this day to remind the countrymen how Indira Gandhi on the alibi to restore public order had tried to continue her stint as the Prime Minister beyond five years in the wake of the historic judgement of the Allahabad High Court. The learned High Court observed that owing to severe malpractice in the 1971 Lok Sabha election in the Raibareiley constituency in Uttar Pradesh, the election of Indira Gandhi as an MP was nullified. But considering the nationwide growing unpopularity of her party, she feared to face the repoll and instead declared Emergency to extend her tenure and continue to be the Prime Minister.

The 20-month long Emergency period found India experiencing the worst form of draconian rule putting aside all democratic rights of the countrymen. A spate of arrests of several prominent leaders was made in order to make her the one and only leader of our country. People began to ridicule and say, there is only one male member in the Union Cabinet and the name is Indira Gandhi. Then All India Congress Committee President D.K. Barooah said, Indira is India and India is Indira, and we are proud to be her rubber stamps. Her son, Sanjay Gandhi, began to amass a tremendous amount of exta-constitutional power and many of the severe misuses of power during the Emergency period were his handiwork. The charter of 20-point programme declared at this time was his brainchild. The main brunt of the onslaught was meted out to all the major political parties save the members and leaders of the CPI who were then the ally of Indira Gandhi. Other Left parties were by and large beyond the purview of assault of Indira Gandhi barring a few exceptions. For example, the vocal parliamentarian of the CPI-M elected from the Diamond Harbour constituency, Jyotirmoy Bose, was put behind bars.

Some Professors joined Satyen Sen, then Vice-Chancellor of Calcutta University, to garland Sanjay Gandhi when he visited the University. But at that time he was not holding any government position. Later, some Professors, who garlanded him, became the most trusted aides of Anil Biswas, the head of the West Bengal unit of the CPI-M. The nexus between the top Left leaders and the Congress party led by the Nehru-Gandhi family was always very cordial. In the event of the marriage of Indira and Feroze, the Left leaders were known to be the witnesses. Though Jyotirmoy Bose was jailed at the instance of Indira Gandhi in 1975, he was not a prominent leader in the party echelon. Moreover, there is a widespread belief, Indira got the approval of some senior leaders of the CPI-M to arrest him as some of his startling accusations against her put the Prime Minister on the wrong foot. Bose, a former Major of the Indian Army, used to have a personal Research Team to expose Indira's misdeeds and severe corruption. As a consequence, utterly revengeful in character, Indira stated publicly that Bose should not be in Parliament in future. However, the historic victory of the CPI-M-supported Janata Party led to her own removal from the Lok Sabha until she could make her re- entry through her victory from the Chikmagalur constituency in Karnataka.

Like the infamous torture and brutality on the Opposition in the Emergency period, the treatment meted out to the CPI-M members and supporters at the grassroots in West Bengal, Kerala and the newly formed Tripura was very harsh. The emergence of the party, primarily in these States was largely possible due to the consolidation of marginal groups comprising small peasants, plantation workers, industrial workers, refugees, school teachers till then very lowly paid, students, youth and poor and low middle class men and women. The call of socialism in search of a better future cemented the marginal groups to launch a strong anti-Congress movement towards the formation of the new alternative. Therefore, most of the political parties formed at the Central or State levels could germinate due to the incessant anti-Congress movement especially against the authoritarian Indira and inept Manmohan regime. The beginning of the long movement had the kick-start on June 26, 1975, 41 years from now.

Narendra Modi called this day the Dark Day in the annals of the history of our country. During the days of the Emergency, Arun Jaitley was a firebrand student leader studying in the Commerce stream in Delhi University. He and hundreds of students were beaten up by the goons of Sanjay Gandhi and police of the Indira Government. When the Janata Government was founded in March 1977, Arun Jaitley and other student leaders showed the cruel marks on their body due to brutal torture in the victory celebration rally held at Boat Club in New Delhi. More than 11,000 local leaders and supporters of the CPI-M were rendered homeless by the goons and police of Siddhartha Sankar Ray. The birth of the entire West Bengal CPI-M happened due to staunch anti-Congressism. It is not an easy task now to melt the great divide. The day of June 26 is indeed a Dark Day in our memory lane. But it also gave the glorious opportunity in the ushering in of many major political parties and leaders who emerged from the famous Sarvodaya Movement headed by Jayaprakash Narayan from Champaran in Bihar until it spread like a prairie fire across the country leading to the installation of the first non-Congress Government led by Morarji Desai and Jagjivan Ram as his Deputy. Every dark tunnel is succeeded by endless light. No wonder the Dark Day bloosomed into a Sunny Day.

The author is a former Sociology Faculty in the Presidency University, Kolkata.