India
Illegal mining: Only 6% cases ended up as FIRs in 2022
The data provided for 16 states in the Rajya Sabha indicated that while incidents of illegal mining were substantial, the rate of registration of FIRs was abysmally low
Representation Image
Rather shocking data was presented in Rajya Sabha about illegal mining in the country, which indicated that out of the 60,419 cases of illegal mining in 16 states, only 3,686 FIRs were lodged. The question was raised by Dr Prashanta Nanda (BJD) and Ms Sulata Deo (BJD) to the Ministry of Mines on March 20.
Mining in India is regulated under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act). Penalty for illegal mining was made more stringent by amendment of the MMDR Act in 2015. Penalties for contravention of Section 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Act have been increased from Rs. 25 thousand per hectare to Rs. 5 Lakh per hectare and the term of imprisonment has been increased from 2 years to 5 years.
A total of 22 states have framed rules to curb illegal mining. Illegal mining is when mining is carried without license or outside the licensed area or when more than the permissible amount is extracted.
As per the latest data provided by the Ministry, pertaining to the period between April 1, 2022 to September 30, 2022, a total of 60,419 cases of illegal mining occurred in which only 3,686 FIRs were lodged and even lower 2,931 cases were filed in court. The highest number of cases were from Telangana (17,938) and the lowest from Goa (1). The highest number of FIR’s were from Sikkim (1,245) and zero FIRs filed in Andhra Pradesh (4,296 cases), Goa (1 case), Himachal Pradesh (1,934 cases), Kerala (,3617 cases), Odisha (7 cases), Tamil Nadu (4,495 cases) and Uttar Pradesh (757).
As per earlier data provided by the government and analysed by Down to Earth.org, Maharashtra had the highest number of cases of illegal mining in 2015-16 with 33,621 cases. Looking at this one can say, there has definitely been a dip in such cases, since the highest number of illegal mining cases for April-September 2022 is 17,938 from Telangana. Odisha is said to have made considerable progress in curbing illegal mining as it reduced the number of cases by more than 90 per cent, from 487 in 2009-10 to just 45 in 2016-17 and just 7 cases in 2022.
The complete answer may be read here:
Related:
Armed cops, paramilitary sent to 'protect' top mining group, 'oppose' Odisha tribal rights
Adivasi activist Hidme Markam walks out of jail 22 months after being branded a “terrorist”
NCST firm on its stand, Forest Conservation Rules violate Forest Rights
Odisha: Over 1.5 lakh Individual Forest Rights claims rejected without reason!
Illegal mining: Only 6% cases ended up as FIRs in 2022
The data provided for 16 states in the Rajya Sabha indicated that while incidents of illegal mining were substantial, the rate of registration of FIRs was abysmally low
Representation Image
Rather shocking data was presented in Rajya Sabha about illegal mining in the country, which indicated that out of the 60,419 cases of illegal mining in 16 states, only 3,686 FIRs were lodged. The question was raised by Dr Prashanta Nanda (BJD) and Ms Sulata Deo (BJD) to the Ministry of Mines on March 20.
Mining in India is regulated under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act (MMDR Act). Penalty for illegal mining was made more stringent by amendment of the MMDR Act in 2015. Penalties for contravention of Section 4(1) and 4(1A) of the Act have been increased from Rs. 25 thousand per hectare to Rs. 5 Lakh per hectare and the term of imprisonment has been increased from 2 years to 5 years.
A total of 22 states have framed rules to curb illegal mining. Illegal mining is when mining is carried without license or outside the licensed area or when more than the permissible amount is extracted.
As per the latest data provided by the Ministry, pertaining to the period between April 1, 2022 to September 30, 2022, a total of 60,419 cases of illegal mining occurred in which only 3,686 FIRs were lodged and even lower 2,931 cases were filed in court. The highest number of cases were from Telangana (17,938) and the lowest from Goa (1). The highest number of FIR’s were from Sikkim (1,245) and zero FIRs filed in Andhra Pradesh (4,296 cases), Goa (1 case), Himachal Pradesh (1,934 cases), Kerala (,3617 cases), Odisha (7 cases), Tamil Nadu (4,495 cases) and Uttar Pradesh (757).
As per earlier data provided by the government and analysed by Down to Earth.org, Maharashtra had the highest number of cases of illegal mining in 2015-16 with 33,621 cases. Looking at this one can say, there has definitely been a dip in such cases, since the highest number of illegal mining cases for April-September 2022 is 17,938 from Telangana. Odisha is said to have made considerable progress in curbing illegal mining as it reduced the number of cases by more than 90 per cent, from 487 in 2009-10 to just 45 in 2016-17 and just 7 cases in 2022.
The complete answer may be read here:
Related:
Armed cops, paramilitary sent to 'protect' top mining group, 'oppose' Odisha tribal rights
Adivasi activist Hidme Markam walks out of jail 22 months after being branded a “terrorist”
NCST firm on its stand, Forest Conservation Rules violate Forest Rights
Odisha: Over 1.5 lakh Individual Forest Rights claims rejected without reason!
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
Diversity in the Judiciary: Is due consideration given while appointing judges and judicial officers?
In the ongoing parliament session, data provided shows that minorities and marginalised form a mere 2.63% and 4.5% of the total strength respectively
It was on March 17, 2023, during the ongoing Budget Session of the Parliament, that questions regarding representation of minorities and the marginalised classes within the judiciary was raised in the Lok Sabha. Lok Sabha Members Shri Naba Kumar Sarania (Independent) and Shri Ravikumar D raised two separate questions regarding representation in judiciary. In one query, questions on SC/ST Advocates who have been designated as Senior Advocates and Advocates on Record in the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India were raised. In the other query, representation of SCs, STs and minorities in the judiciary was raised.
High Court judges are appointed under Articles 217 and 224 of the Indian Constitution, which do not provide for the reservation of any caste or class of people. According to information provided by the Ministry of Law and Justice about the category/caste of High Court judges, the breakup of the representation of minorities and the marginalised is as follows:-
According to the data provided above, there are 569 judges present in the various high courts. Only a total of 41 out of the 569 judges are from minority communities or the SC and SC communities. Judges from the Scheduled Caste community are seventeen in number, accounting for only 2.98 percent of the total appointed judges, while 9 judges from the Scheduled Tribe are present, formulating only 1.5 percent of the total judges present as of March 15, 2023. In case of judges belonging to the minority community, a total of 15 judges are present in the High Court, which accounts for 2.63 percent of the total strength.
The full answer can be read here:
In a separate answer, it was further provided by the minister of law and justice that as on March 16, 2023, High Court Collegiums have recommended 124 names for appointment as High Court Judges which are under consideration with the Government and the Supreme Court Collegium. Out of these, 4 recommendees belong to SC category and 3 recommendees belong to ST category.
The Lok Sabha member has further inquired about the number of senior advocates practicing in the court and those who belonged to the SC/ ST community. Responding to the question, the minister provided that as per the information available in the court websites, as on December 11, 2012, there were 436 designated Senior Advocates and 3041 Advocates-on-Record in the Supreme Court of India. The High Courts have approximately 1,306 designated Senior Advocates. However, the minister also provided that no specific detail is maintained by them with regards to the social status as SC/ST of the designated Senior Advocates.
The full answer can be read here:
From the above-mentioned data provided, it can be easily deduced that there is no adequate representation of SC/ST communities or minority communities in the higher judiciary. A deeper analysis of lack of inclusivity in the higher judiciary and the religion, caste, gender-based biases can be read here.
Related:
The question of diversity and inclusivity in the Indian judiciary Independent Views, Gender Orientation must not affect candidacy for judgeship: SC
Equality March to mark Dr Ambedkar’s Mahad Satyagraha
Diversity in the Judiciary: Is due consideration given while appointing judges and judicial officers?
In the ongoing parliament session, data provided shows that minorities and marginalised form a mere 2.63% and 4.5% of the total strength respectively
It was on March 17, 2023, during the ongoing Budget Session of the Parliament, that questions regarding representation of minorities and the marginalised classes within the judiciary was raised in the Lok Sabha. Lok Sabha Members Shri Naba Kumar Sarania (Independent) and Shri Ravikumar D raised two separate questions regarding representation in judiciary. In one query, questions on SC/ST Advocates who have been designated as Senior Advocates and Advocates on Record in the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India were raised. In the other query, representation of SCs, STs and minorities in the judiciary was raised.
High Court judges are appointed under Articles 217 and 224 of the Indian Constitution, which do not provide for the reservation of any caste or class of people. According to information provided by the Ministry of Law and Justice about the category/caste of High Court judges, the breakup of the representation of minorities and the marginalised is as follows:-
According to the data provided above, there are 569 judges present in the various high courts. Only a total of 41 out of the 569 judges are from minority communities or the SC and SC communities. Judges from the Scheduled Caste community are seventeen in number, accounting for only 2.98 percent of the total appointed judges, while 9 judges from the Scheduled Tribe are present, formulating only 1.5 percent of the total judges present as of March 15, 2023. In case of judges belonging to the minority community, a total of 15 judges are present in the High Court, which accounts for 2.63 percent of the total strength.
The full answer can be read here:
In a separate answer, it was further provided by the minister of law and justice that as on March 16, 2023, High Court Collegiums have recommended 124 names for appointment as High Court Judges which are under consideration with the Government and the Supreme Court Collegium. Out of these, 4 recommendees belong to SC category and 3 recommendees belong to ST category.
The Lok Sabha member has further inquired about the number of senior advocates practicing in the court and those who belonged to the SC/ ST community. Responding to the question, the minister provided that as per the information available in the court websites, as on December 11, 2012, there were 436 designated Senior Advocates and 3041 Advocates-on-Record in the Supreme Court of India. The High Courts have approximately 1,306 designated Senior Advocates. However, the minister also provided that no specific detail is maintained by them with regards to the social status as SC/ST of the designated Senior Advocates.
The full answer can be read here:
From the above-mentioned data provided, it can be easily deduced that there is no adequate representation of SC/ST communities or minority communities in the higher judiciary. A deeper analysis of lack of inclusivity in the higher judiciary and the religion, caste, gender-based biases can be read here.
Related:
The question of diversity and inclusivity in the Indian judiciary Independent Views, Gender Orientation must not affect candidacy for judgeship: SC
Equality March to mark Dr Ambedkar’s Mahad Satyagraha
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
P.V. Satheesh of DDS passes away
Mr P. V. Satheesh (77), founder and Executive Director of Deccan Development Society (DDS) passed away on Sunday morning, March 19. He had been under treatment at a private hospital in Hyderabad for a prolonged illness. Last rites will be performed on Monday at 10.30 am in Pastapur Village of Sangareddy district.
Satheesh became, over years of dedicated work, an icons of community building and civil society activism in India, Mr. Satheesh, through the Zaheerabad-based organisation in rural Telangana, championing issues of agri-biodiversity, food sovereignty, women's empowerment, social justice, local knowledge systems, participatory development, and community media.
The women's sanghams of DDS and their steadfast adherence to millet cultivation and organic agriculture led the way nationally in offering demonstrable alternatives to the dominant agricultural paradigm. The recent efforts to incorporate millets into the public distribution system owes much to the work of DDS under his guidance.
P.V. Satheesh of DDS passes away
Mr P. V. Satheesh (77), founder and Executive Director of Deccan Development Society (DDS) passed away on Sunday morning, March 19. He had been under treatment at a private hospital in Hyderabad for a prolonged illness. Last rites will be performed on Monday at 10.30 am in Pastapur Village of Sangareddy district.
Satheesh became, over years of dedicated work, an icons of community building and civil society activism in India, Mr. Satheesh, through the Zaheerabad-based organisation in rural Telangana, championing issues of agri-biodiversity, food sovereignty, women's empowerment, social justice, local knowledge systems, participatory development, and community media.
The women's sanghams of DDS and their steadfast adherence to millet cultivation and organic agriculture led the way nationally in offering demonstrable alternatives to the dominant agricultural paradigm. The recent efforts to incorporate millets into the public distribution system owes much to the work of DDS under his guidance.
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
Mallika’s changes inspires Kerala Kalamandalam to keep in step with times
“I told the girls that they are free to do anything. We will shed all kinds of discrimination in the name of gender or caste. But, we will go about it slowly,” she said as reported in The Indian Express
Image: EP Sanjeevan
KOCHI: From a danseuse with roots in Kerala and Gujarat, change is sweeping Kerala Kalamandalam. With woman theatre activist and classical dancer Mallika Sarabhai taking over as chancellor of the deemed university for performing arts, the premier institute has initiated steps to break the barriers of of both gender and caste discrimination. The New Indian Express reports thar female students acknowledge the fragrance of the newfound freedom that has spread across the campus.
“As a campus following the guru-shishya tradition, Kalamandalam had some unwritten rules of discipline. The girls were not allowed into the canteen. It was mandatory for them to wear a dupatta while stepping out of the rooms, even if they were wearing jeans and a T-shirt. They were not admitted for certain courses. They were not allowed to move around on campus after 6 pm. We have thrown out all these archaic rules. We have also started self-defence classes to improve their confidence,” Mallika told TNIE.
“We have a 36-acre campus, but most of the female students have not seen the campus as we were not allowed to move around. Now, we can do so, accompanied by the warden. We have now been provided access to the canteen and are allowed to go out along with a teacher once in a while. The dress codes have also changed. Though there was an internal complaints committee (ICC) in place, it was not functioning. Now, the panel has been reconstituted. For the first time, we celebrated Women’s Day this year. We feel liberated,” said P S Seethalakshmi, a postgraduate student of koodiyattam.
“I told the girls that they are free to do anything. We will shed all kinds of discrimination in the name of gender or caste. But, we will go about it slowly,” Mallika said.
Now, all courses will be open to female students’
“It is a very old institution and patriarchy is woven into its tradition. Many restrictions that are not in the rule book are practised, as teachers vouch for them. Girls were earlier not given admission to kathakali and chenda courses. This has been changed. From the next academic year, all courses will be open to female students,” Mallika said.
Caste discrimination was also entwined into the tradition of the institution as kathakali performers were mostly upper caste men, she said.
“We have been implementing some progressive measures and the arrival of Mallika Sarabhai has expedited the change. The steps to ensure gender equality have inspired female students and improved their confidence. Most of the restrictions are not part of the rules but have been followed as a practice. So we can’t issue an order abolishing them,” said registrar P Rajesh Kumar.
Kalamandalam will now start BA and MA courses in bharatanatyam from the next academic year, Mallika said. A memorandum of understanding has been signed with Kalakshetra. The decision has been taken considering the huge demand for the Bharatanatyam courses in Kerala, she added.
Related:
India is seeing a complete destruction of its ideals: Danseuse Mallika Sarabhai
Mallika’s changes inspires Kerala Kalamandalam to keep in step with times
“I told the girls that they are free to do anything. We will shed all kinds of discrimination in the name of gender or caste. But, we will go about it slowly,” she said as reported in The Indian Express
Image: EP Sanjeevan
KOCHI: From a danseuse with roots in Kerala and Gujarat, change is sweeping Kerala Kalamandalam. With woman theatre activist and classical dancer Mallika Sarabhai taking over as chancellor of the deemed university for performing arts, the premier institute has initiated steps to break the barriers of of both gender and caste discrimination. The New Indian Express reports thar female students acknowledge the fragrance of the newfound freedom that has spread across the campus.
“As a campus following the guru-shishya tradition, Kalamandalam had some unwritten rules of discipline. The girls were not allowed into the canteen. It was mandatory for them to wear a dupatta while stepping out of the rooms, even if they were wearing jeans and a T-shirt. They were not admitted for certain courses. They were not allowed to move around on campus after 6 pm. We have thrown out all these archaic rules. We have also started self-defence classes to improve their confidence,” Mallika told TNIE.
“We have a 36-acre campus, but most of the female students have not seen the campus as we were not allowed to move around. Now, we can do so, accompanied by the warden. We have now been provided access to the canteen and are allowed to go out along with a teacher once in a while. The dress codes have also changed. Though there was an internal complaints committee (ICC) in place, it was not functioning. Now, the panel has been reconstituted. For the first time, we celebrated Women’s Day this year. We feel liberated,” said P S Seethalakshmi, a postgraduate student of koodiyattam.
“I told the girls that they are free to do anything. We will shed all kinds of discrimination in the name of gender or caste. But, we will go about it slowly,” Mallika said.
Now, all courses will be open to female students’
“It is a very old institution and patriarchy is woven into its tradition. Many restrictions that are not in the rule book are practised, as teachers vouch for them. Girls were earlier not given admission to kathakali and chenda courses. This has been changed. From the next academic year, all courses will be open to female students,” Mallika said.
Caste discrimination was also entwined into the tradition of the institution as kathakali performers were mostly upper caste men, she said.
“We have been implementing some progressive measures and the arrival of Mallika Sarabhai has expedited the change. The steps to ensure gender equality have inspired female students and improved their confidence. Most of the restrictions are not part of the rules but have been followed as a practice. So we can’t issue an order abolishing them,” said registrar P Rajesh Kumar.
Kalamandalam will now start BA and MA courses in bharatanatyam from the next academic year, Mallika said. A memorandum of understanding has been signed with Kalakshetra. The decision has been taken considering the huge demand for the Bharatanatyam courses in Kerala, she added.
Related:
India is seeing a complete destruction of its ideals: Danseuse Mallika Sarabhai
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
India "repressed" in terms of civic freedoms: Civicus
Civicus, a global civil society alliance, has kept India’s status as ‘repressed’ when it comes to civic freedoms in its new report, People Power Under Attack 2022. India, despite the hype around the leadership of the G-20 stands with seven other countries in this category: Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.
Five years ago, in 2018, India’s civic freedoms had been categorised as ‘obstructed’ – but it was downgraded to ‘repressed’ in 2019 and has stayed in that zone ever since.
The section on India talks about the use of draconian laws like the UAPA and the use of the FCRA to target NGOs who do not toe the government’s line:
“In India, anti-terror laws such as the repressive Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have been systematically used by the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to keep student activists and HRDs – such as people the state alleges to have instigated violence in the village of Bhima Koregaon in 2018 – in detention. Among those detained under the law is Kashmiri HRD Khurram Parvez. The government also used the restrictive Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act to raid and harass critical CSOs such as the Centre for Promotion of Social Concerns and Oxfam India and block CSOs’ access to foreign funding.”
After the category "repressed", there is one worse category, called ‘closed’. In this year’s reports, seven other Asian countries were categorised as ‘closed’ – China, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Myanmar.
This is not the first time that state repression in India has been flagged internationally.
Several international civil society organisations have questioned the status of India’s freedoms and rights in recent years. Most recently, the US State Department-funded USCIRF said that anti-conversion laws being passed in various BJP-ruled states go against international human rights conventions that India is a party to.
Related:
Systematic crackdown on critics in India: CIVICUS Monitor
Berkeley University study of Islamophobia in India highlights plight of Muslims
Modi Government’s Performance ‘Below Average’
Improved ratings? How Gujarat Babus in PMO "worked out" Strategy to Lobby with Washington Institutes: Insider
India "repressed" in terms of civic freedoms: Civicus
Civicus, a global civil society alliance, has kept India’s status as ‘repressed’ when it comes to civic freedoms in its new report, People Power Under Attack 2022. India, despite the hype around the leadership of the G-20 stands with seven other countries in this category: Pakistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.
Five years ago, in 2018, India’s civic freedoms had been categorised as ‘obstructed’ – but it was downgraded to ‘repressed’ in 2019 and has stayed in that zone ever since.
The section on India talks about the use of draconian laws like the UAPA and the use of the FCRA to target NGOs who do not toe the government’s line:
“In India, anti-terror laws such as the repressive Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have been systematically used by the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi to keep student activists and HRDs – such as people the state alleges to have instigated violence in the village of Bhima Koregaon in 2018 – in detention. Among those detained under the law is Kashmiri HRD Khurram Parvez. The government also used the restrictive Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act to raid and harass critical CSOs such as the Centre for Promotion of Social Concerns and Oxfam India and block CSOs’ access to foreign funding.”
After the category "repressed", there is one worse category, called ‘closed’. In this year’s reports, seven other Asian countries were categorised as ‘closed’ – China, Laos, North Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and Myanmar.
This is not the first time that state repression in India has been flagged internationally.
Several international civil society organisations have questioned the status of India’s freedoms and rights in recent years. Most recently, the US State Department-funded USCIRF said that anti-conversion laws being passed in various BJP-ruled states go against international human rights conventions that India is a party to.
Related:
Systematic crackdown on critics in India: CIVICUS Monitor
Berkeley University study of Islamophobia in India highlights plight of Muslims
Modi Government’s Performance ‘Below Average’
Improved ratings? How Gujarat Babus in PMO "worked out" Strategy to Lobby with Washington Institutes: Insider
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
Man chained to tree and tortured over 2 days over son's marriage dies by suicide: MP
A man was chained to a tree and reportedly tortured for two days after his son eloped with a woman from the same community. Days after he was released, the man from Madhya Pradesh's Chhatarpur district killed himself.
In a tragic incident reported by NDTV and India Today, a man was chained to a tree and tortured for two days in Chhatarpur district of Madhya Pradesh after his son eloped and married a woman from the same community has died by suicide. The deceased has been identified as Udha Ahirwar.
Almost twelve days ago, reportedly on March 2, Udha Ahirwar was brought to Bila village from Panchampur village by Zandu Ahirwar and was chained to a tree for two days. Udha's son had eloped with Zandu's granddaughter. While police are investigating the death of a man in Madhya Pradesh's Chatarpur days after he was chained to a tree and allegedly thrashed because his son married a woman from the same village.
Meanwhile, Udha Ahirwar's wife Savitri has alleged that her daughter-in-law's relatives forcibly entered their home and killed him. Police, however, have said the man was upset over the humiliation of the public assault and died by suicide on March 4. A total of six accused have been charged with abetment to suicide and wrongful restraint, and police are looking for them.
Police said Udha Ahirwar's son Shankar and a woman from the same village work as labourers in Rajasthan. The two reportedly also married there. Both families are from the same caste. But the woman's father was infuriated when he heard of the wedding. It is alleged that he and five others took Udha Ahirwar to another village Panchampur, chained him to a tree there and thrashed him.
A video circulating on social media, purportedly shows Ahirwar sitting near the tree, his hands and feet chained. He was eventually freed and returned home. Two days later, he was found hanging in his room.
His wife has alleged that the assailants barged into their home when Ahirwar was alone, killed him and hanged his body. Police, however, have denied this charge and said the man appears to have died by suicide. Further probe into the horrifying incident is on.
Related:
Plea against Maha GR to monitor inter-faith & inter-caste marriages: Bombay HC
Man chained to tree and tortured over 2 days over son's marriage dies by suicide: MP
A man was chained to a tree and reportedly tortured for two days after his son eloped with a woman from the same community. Days after he was released, the man from Madhya Pradesh's Chhatarpur district killed himself.
In a tragic incident reported by NDTV and India Today, a man was chained to a tree and tortured for two days in Chhatarpur district of Madhya Pradesh after his son eloped and married a woman from the same community has died by suicide. The deceased has been identified as Udha Ahirwar.
Almost twelve days ago, reportedly on March 2, Udha Ahirwar was brought to Bila village from Panchampur village by Zandu Ahirwar and was chained to a tree for two days. Udha's son had eloped with Zandu's granddaughter. While police are investigating the death of a man in Madhya Pradesh's Chatarpur days after he was chained to a tree and allegedly thrashed because his son married a woman from the same village.
Meanwhile, Udha Ahirwar's wife Savitri has alleged that her daughter-in-law's relatives forcibly entered their home and killed him. Police, however, have said the man was upset over the humiliation of the public assault and died by suicide on March 4. A total of six accused have been charged with abetment to suicide and wrongful restraint, and police are looking for them.
Police said Udha Ahirwar's son Shankar and a woman from the same village work as labourers in Rajasthan. The two reportedly also married there. Both families are from the same caste. But the woman's father was infuriated when he heard of the wedding. It is alleged that he and five others took Udha Ahirwar to another village Panchampur, chained him to a tree there and thrashed him.
A video circulating on social media, purportedly shows Ahirwar sitting near the tree, his hands and feet chained. He was eventually freed and returned home. Two days later, he was found hanging in his room.
His wife has alleged that the assailants barged into their home when Ahirwar was alone, killed him and hanged his body. Police, however, have denied this charge and said the man appears to have died by suicide. Further probe into the horrifying incident is on.
Related:
Plea against Maha GR to monitor inter-faith & inter-caste marriages: Bombay HC
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
Second batch of detainees transferred to Matia Detention/Transit Camp includes 22 children
Matia detention camp began its operation in January 2023, previously had 68 detainees
On March 11, 2023, a second batch of 87 detainees were brought to the Asia's biggest Detention/Transit Camp, Matia in Goalpara district of Assam. These detainees have been shifted from the Silchar Centre Jail cum temporary detention camp to the Matia Camp. This camp was new built under the governance of Himanta Biswa Sarma-led BJP government in Assam. This came after the promise made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the year 2014, when he visited for Assam elections and said that he will dismantle detention camps if he comes to power. However, now a permanent detention camp has been constructed in Assam.
It is worth noting that the Government of Assam issued a notification on August 17, 2021, stating that detention camps in the state of Assam would now be known as "Transit Camps" for detention purposes. In today's polity, the name-changing culture has no effect on the fate of the detainees.
The largest Transit Camp began its operations on January 27, 2023. It was previously reported that 68 detainees had been transferred to the Matia permanent detention camp/transit camp from the Goalpara jail. The 68 included 45 men, 21 women, and two children. As was provided by the CJP Team earlier, according to the residents, the detainees had been moved in two buses under strong police security.
And now, 87 more individuals are being kept here. These individuals have been declared 'foreigner' by various Foreigners Tribunal in Assam. This batch also included 22 children. Assam Inspector General of Prisons Barnali Sharma had informed the ANI that this process has been started following the directives of the Gauhati High Court.
Related:
Asia’ biggest permanent “detention camp”, Matia Transit Camp, opens in Assam
Gauhati HC overturns FT’s order declaring a resident of Assam as Foreigner
Rescuing people from statelessness: CJP in Assam, a 2022 overview
CJP helps another hapless Muslim individual in securing bail: Gauhati HC
Floods and landslides cannot deter CJP’s Assam team
Assam man forced to prove Indian citizenship four times!
CJP’s advocacy and legal aid helps “suspected foreigner”prove his citizenship
CJP helping a daughter secure her mother’s release from Assam detention camp
Second batch of detainees transferred to Matia Detention/Transit Camp includes 22 children
Matia detention camp began its operation in January 2023, previously had 68 detainees
On March 11, 2023, a second batch of 87 detainees were brought to the Asia's biggest Detention/Transit Camp, Matia in Goalpara district of Assam. These detainees have been shifted from the Silchar Centre Jail cum temporary detention camp to the Matia Camp. This camp was new built under the governance of Himanta Biswa Sarma-led BJP government in Assam. This came after the promise made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the year 2014, when he visited for Assam elections and said that he will dismantle detention camps if he comes to power. However, now a permanent detention camp has been constructed in Assam.
It is worth noting that the Government of Assam issued a notification on August 17, 2021, stating that detention camps in the state of Assam would now be known as "Transit Camps" for detention purposes. In today's polity, the name-changing culture has no effect on the fate of the detainees.
The largest Transit Camp began its operations on January 27, 2023. It was previously reported that 68 detainees had been transferred to the Matia permanent detention camp/transit camp from the Goalpara jail. The 68 included 45 men, 21 women, and two children. As was provided by the CJP Team earlier, according to the residents, the detainees had been moved in two buses under strong police security.
And now, 87 more individuals are being kept here. These individuals have been declared 'foreigner' by various Foreigners Tribunal in Assam. This batch also included 22 children. Assam Inspector General of Prisons Barnali Sharma had informed the ANI that this process has been started following the directives of the Gauhati High Court.
Related:
Asia’ biggest permanent “detention camp”, Matia Transit Camp, opens in Assam
Gauhati HC overturns FT’s order declaring a resident of Assam as Foreigner
Rescuing people from statelessness: CJP in Assam, a 2022 overview
CJP helps another hapless Muslim individual in securing bail: Gauhati HC
Floods and landslides cannot deter CJP’s Assam team
Assam man forced to prove Indian citizenship four times!
CJP’s advocacy and legal aid helps “suspected foreigner”prove his citizenship
CJP helping a daughter secure her mother’s release from Assam detention camp
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
India 'One of the Worst Autocratisers in the Last 10 Years,' Says 2023 V-Dem Report
Of the 42 countries listed as “autocratising” at the end of 2022, a trend that began in the world in 2020, the new V-Dem reports lists India as one of the worst; India in the bottom 40-50% on its Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) at rank 97, India also ranks 108 on the Electoral Democracy Index (EDI) and 123 on the Egalitarian Component Index (ECI)
One more alarming new report from the V-Dem (Varieties of Democracy) Institute at the University of Gothenberg in Sweden states that by the end of 2022, 72% of the world’s population (5.7 billion people) lived in autocracies, out of which 28% (2.2 billion people) lived in “closed autocracies”.
This report titled Defiance in the Face of Autocratization has also asserted that “advances in global levels of democracy made over the last 35 years have been wiped out” in the past half decade. The conclusions of the report must be a cause of global concern for politicians and policy-makers alike.
Today, there are more closed autocracies than liberal democracies and only 13% of the world’s humans (approximately one billion people) live in liberal democracies, notes the V-Dem report.
The last decade has been the autocriser multiplier seeing the increasing power of autocratic political regimes across the world. When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2020, several countries responded, not with collective decision-making but with the use of emergency measures, centralising powers and even suspending federal and or parliamentary decision-making; the reasoning being “managing the pandemic.” Many such countries actually used the pandemic to pass legislations that impinged on their citizens’ rights and freedoms. The crackdown in India’s capital, Delhi on people’s protests even as political and religious rallies were allowed is one such example.
Some countries including India also used the pandemic as an excuse to allow the executive to assume disproportionate power, vis-à-vis citizens. For instance, in Hungary President Viktor Orbán assumed the power to rule by decree in 2020, then declared a “state of medical crisis” when he was criticised, which allowed his government to keep issuing decrees. In 2022 he declared another state of emergency pursuant to the war in Ukraine.
In the United States, the state of Kentucky outlawed fossil fuel protests and a federal appeals court in Texas upheld a ban on abortions which was to foreshadow the overturning of the Roe v Wade judgment in 2022. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu suspended the Knesset and postponed his own trial by suspending the courts and increasing surveillance.
India a force multiplier in autocrising tendencies
With all talks of India being a civilizational, “mother of democracy,” the non-partisan assessment and evaluation suggests otherwise.
In India, in early months of the pandemic, 2020, the government wasted no time in announcing a new domicile law for Jammu and Kashmir in April 2020 that allowed people who have resided there for 15 years or those who have studied there for seven years and appeared in Class 10 and 12 exams, from acquiring permanent residence. Notably, the trend towards autocratisation in many parts of the world began intensifying in 2020. The V-Dem report lists 42 countries as “autocratising” at the end of 2022. This, it says, is a record number.
India is not an exception to this trend. A sudden lockdown in 2020 displayed how easily the lives of people at the margins of Indian society could be disrupted. The complete panic and paralysis suffered by 6.3 million migrant workers, un-catered to by their governments that declared a hastily declared national lockdown will go down as a moment of cautionary shame for the world’s largest democracy.
In 2021, the V-Dem institute classified India as an “electoral autocracy”, while in the same year, Freedom House listed India as “partly free”. Also in 2021, the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance classified India as a backsliding democracy and a “major decliner” in its Global State of Democracy (GSoD) report.
The data made available by the GSoD report demonstrated that between 1975 and 1995 India’s representative government score moved from .59 to .69. In 2015 it was .72. However, in 2020 it stood at .61, i.e, closer to the score India had in 1975 when it was actually under Indira Gandhi’s Emergency. The GSoD report also listed India alongside Sri Lanka and Indonesia for the lowest score on the religious freedom indicator since 1975.
Is it unsurprising then, that the 2023 V-Dem report refers to India as “one of the worst autocratisers in the last 10 years?” On page 10 of the report, the index table and places India in the bottom 40-50% on its Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) at rank 97. India also ranks 108 on the Electoral Democracy Index (EDI) and 123 on the Egalitarian Component Index (ECI). On LDI where India is at 97/179, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Singapore fare better at 79, 81 and 95 respectively. Below India are our south Asian neighbours Pakistan at 106 and Bangladesh at 147. At the bottom of the heap are Afganistan and North Korea at 177 and 179 respectively. Interestingly, even developed democracies like UK and USA are at 20 and 23 on this count.
However, the report also states (page 24) that the process of autocratisation has “slowed down considerably or stalled” in some countries, including India, after they turned into autocracies.
The report also points out some characteristics of autocratising countries. These include increased media censorship and repression of civil society, a decrease in academic freedom, cultural freedom and freedom of discussion. The report states that media censorship and repression of civil society are “what rulers in autocratising countries engage in most frequently, and to the greatest degree”. It finds also that academic freedom and freedom of cultural expression have declined severely in Indonesia, Russia and Uruguay.
The V-Dem report also extends its analysis to indicators that bolster autocratisation. It says that disinformation, polarisation and autocratisation reinforce each other. It flags those countries that increased their democracy scores (The Dominican Republic, Gambia and the Seychelles) as countries that were able to check disinformation and polarisation. The report aptly targets disinformation as a tool to “steer citizens’ preferences” that is actively used by autocratising regimes to increase political polarisation. It classifies Afghanistan, India, Brazil and Myanmar as autocratising countries that have seen the “most dramatic” increases in political polarisation.
The report tries to end on an uplifting note by suggesting that all is not lost as some countries are moving towards more democracy – Bolivia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Moldova, Dominican Republic, Gambia and Malawi.
To a lesser degree, it counts the Maldives, North Macedonia, South Korea and Slovenia as countries that are making a positive democratic U-turn. It is a little puzzling to see the Maldives listed here as reports from 2022 demonstrate that President Ibrahim Solih (the 2019 election of whom the V-Dem report sees as an indicator of democratisation) did outlaw the anti-India protests that had taken root in some parts of the archipelagic nation. Maldivian civil society actors questioned whether a president had the power to criminalise dissent.
Even so, the V-Dem report states that democracies can bounce back from autocratisation when a certain set of criteria are satisfied. These include mass mobilisation against an incumbent, a unified opposition working with civil society, the judiciary reversing an executive takeover, critical elections, and international democracy support.
Finally, the V-Dem report thinks that there is a shift in the global balance of economic power. It finds that inter-democracy world trade has declined to 47% in 2022 from 74% in 1998. 46% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product now comes from autocracies and democracies’ dependence on autocratic countries has doubled in the last three decades. It sees this dependence of democratic countries on autocratic countries for trade as an emergent security issue for democracies.
How does V-Dem work?
Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) produces the largest global dataset on democracy with
over 31 million data points for 202 countries from 1789 to 2022. Involving almost 4,000
scholars and other country experts, V-Dem measures hundreds of different attributes of
democracy. V-Dem enables new ways to study the nature, causes, and consequences of
democracy embracing its multiple meanings.
What are the indicators used?
Amongst the various population-weighted indicators that the report uses to make its determinations on the health of democracy in various countries, it pays particular attention to freedom of expression (declining in as many as 35 countries), increased government censorship of the media (declining in 47 countries), the worsening state repression of civil society actors (going downhill in 37 countries) and a decline in the quality of elections in 30 countries. It also lists Armenia, Greece and Mauritius as “democracies in steep decline”.
There are several indices/critereon that V-Dem uses and applies. The V-Dem Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) captures both liberal and electoral aspects of democracy based on the 71 indicators
included in the Liberal Component Index (LCI) and the Electoral Democracy Index (EDI). The EDI reflects a hitherto ambitious idea of electoral democracy where a number of institutional features
guarantee free and fair elections such as freedom of association and freedom of expression. The LCI goes even further and captures the limits placed on governments in terms of two key aspects: The protection of individual liberties, and the checks and balances between institutions.
There is also then the Liberal Component Index (LCI), Egalitarian Component Index (ECI), Participative Component Index (PCI) and Deliberative Component Index (DCI). Of these, the LCI factors in Equality before the law and individual liberty, judicial constraints on the executive, and Legislative constraints on the executive. The Electoral Democracy Index factors within Suffrage,
Elected officials, Clean elections, Freedom of association and Freedom of expression and
alternative sources of information.
Why Population-Weighted Measures?
Since democracy is rule by the people, it matters how many people are enjoying democratic rights and freedoms around the world. The population-weighted metric is therefore more indicative of
the levels of democracy experienced by people worldwide than straight averages across countries. Country-averages give the same weight to advances in a small country like the Seychelles
(one of the top performers) as to declines in a huge country like India (one of the worst autocratizers in the last 10 years). When speaking of ‘how much’ of the world lives in a democracy, and how much of it is undergoing a democratic decline, the V-Dem report states that, “we do not think that advances in a small country compensate for declines in a large one. That is why we focus more on population-weighted metrics while also reporting the averages that give equal weight to all nations.”
Hope is not lost
According to the V-Dem report, there have also been trends towards Democratisation. Eight of the top 10 democratizing countries over the last 10 years are now democracies, four of the top 10 democratizers in the short-term 3-year perspective have transitioned from autocracy to democracy and –possibly this has a lesson for India --democracies are ‘bouncing back’, making rare U-turns restoring democracy after a period of autocratization.
What enables these democracies to bounce back? Five elements unite most of the 8 cases:
-
Large-scale popular mobilization against incumbent.
-
Judiciary reversing executive take-over.
-
Unified opposition coalescing with civil society.
-
Critical elections and key events bringing alternation in power.
-
International democracy support and protection
Warning signals
The V-Dem report cautions us all. The level of democracy for the average global citizen by 2022 is back to 1986 levels. • Democracy has deteriorated in many regions and of this ours, the Asia-Pacific is now down to levels of 1978. Today, the world has more closed autocracies than liberal
democracies – for the first time in more than two decades, 72% of the world’s population – 5.7 billion people live in autocracies by 2022. Within this fairly bleak scenario, freedom of expression is deteriorating in 35 countries in 2022; ten years ago it was only seven countries where the count was low; Government censorship of the media is worsening in 47 countries over last ten years and Government repression of civil society organizations is worsening in 37 countries.
Related:
India has chosen a path of exclusion and persecution for religious minorities: CMRI report
BJP has strayed away from Nehruvian vales of secularism: IAMC report
Religious Minorities Worry More About Media Freedom Than Hindus: CSDS Survey
India 'One of the Worst Autocratisers in the Last 10 Years,' Says 2023 V-Dem Report
Of the 42 countries listed as “autocratising” at the end of 2022, a trend that began in the world in 2020, the new V-Dem reports lists India as one of the worst; India in the bottom 40-50% on its Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) at rank 97, India also ranks 108 on the Electoral Democracy Index (EDI) and 123 on the Egalitarian Component Index (ECI)
One more alarming new report from the V-Dem (Varieties of Democracy) Institute at the University of Gothenberg in Sweden states that by the end of 2022, 72% of the world’s population (5.7 billion people) lived in autocracies, out of which 28% (2.2 billion people) lived in “closed autocracies”.
This report titled Defiance in the Face of Autocratization has also asserted that “advances in global levels of democracy made over the last 35 years have been wiped out” in the past half decade. The conclusions of the report must be a cause of global concern for politicians and policy-makers alike.
Today, there are more closed autocracies than liberal democracies and only 13% of the world’s humans (approximately one billion people) live in liberal democracies, notes the V-Dem report.
The last decade has been the autocriser multiplier seeing the increasing power of autocratic political regimes across the world. When the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2020, several countries responded, not with collective decision-making but with the use of emergency measures, centralising powers and even suspending federal and or parliamentary decision-making; the reasoning being “managing the pandemic.” Many such countries actually used the pandemic to pass legislations that impinged on their citizens’ rights and freedoms. The crackdown in India’s capital, Delhi on people’s protests even as political and religious rallies were allowed is one such example.
Some countries including India also used the pandemic as an excuse to allow the executive to assume disproportionate power, vis-à-vis citizens. For instance, in Hungary President Viktor Orbán assumed the power to rule by decree in 2020, then declared a “state of medical crisis” when he was criticised, which allowed his government to keep issuing decrees. In 2022 he declared another state of emergency pursuant to the war in Ukraine.
In the United States, the state of Kentucky outlawed fossil fuel protests and a federal appeals court in Texas upheld a ban on abortions which was to foreshadow the overturning of the Roe v Wade judgment in 2022. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu suspended the Knesset and postponed his own trial by suspending the courts and increasing surveillance.
India a force multiplier in autocrising tendencies
With all talks of India being a civilizational, “mother of democracy,” the non-partisan assessment and evaluation suggests otherwise.
In India, in early months of the pandemic, 2020, the government wasted no time in announcing a new domicile law for Jammu and Kashmir in April 2020 that allowed people who have resided there for 15 years or those who have studied there for seven years and appeared in Class 10 and 12 exams, from acquiring permanent residence. Notably, the trend towards autocratisation in many parts of the world began intensifying in 2020. The V-Dem report lists 42 countries as “autocratising” at the end of 2022. This, it says, is a record number.
India is not an exception to this trend. A sudden lockdown in 2020 displayed how easily the lives of people at the margins of Indian society could be disrupted. The complete panic and paralysis suffered by 6.3 million migrant workers, un-catered to by their governments that declared a hastily declared national lockdown will go down as a moment of cautionary shame for the world’s largest democracy.
In 2021, the V-Dem institute classified India as an “electoral autocracy”, while in the same year, Freedom House listed India as “partly free”. Also in 2021, the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance classified India as a backsliding democracy and a “major decliner” in its Global State of Democracy (GSoD) report.
The data made available by the GSoD report demonstrated that between 1975 and 1995 India’s representative government score moved from .59 to .69. In 2015 it was .72. However, in 2020 it stood at .61, i.e, closer to the score India had in 1975 when it was actually under Indira Gandhi’s Emergency. The GSoD report also listed India alongside Sri Lanka and Indonesia for the lowest score on the religious freedom indicator since 1975.
Is it unsurprising then, that the 2023 V-Dem report refers to India as “one of the worst autocratisers in the last 10 years?” On page 10 of the report, the index table and places India in the bottom 40-50% on its Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) at rank 97. India also ranks 108 on the Electoral Democracy Index (EDI) and 123 on the Egalitarian Component Index (ECI). On LDI where India is at 97/179, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and Singapore fare better at 79, 81 and 95 respectively. Below India are our south Asian neighbours Pakistan at 106 and Bangladesh at 147. At the bottom of the heap are Afganistan and North Korea at 177 and 179 respectively. Interestingly, even developed democracies like UK and USA are at 20 and 23 on this count.
However, the report also states (page 24) that the process of autocratisation has “slowed down considerably or stalled” in some countries, including India, after they turned into autocracies.
The report also points out some characteristics of autocratising countries. These include increased media censorship and repression of civil society, a decrease in academic freedom, cultural freedom and freedom of discussion. The report states that media censorship and repression of civil society are “what rulers in autocratising countries engage in most frequently, and to the greatest degree”. It finds also that academic freedom and freedom of cultural expression have declined severely in Indonesia, Russia and Uruguay.
The V-Dem report also extends its analysis to indicators that bolster autocratisation. It says that disinformation, polarisation and autocratisation reinforce each other. It flags those countries that increased their democracy scores (The Dominican Republic, Gambia and the Seychelles) as countries that were able to check disinformation and polarisation. The report aptly targets disinformation as a tool to “steer citizens’ preferences” that is actively used by autocratising regimes to increase political polarisation. It classifies Afghanistan, India, Brazil and Myanmar as autocratising countries that have seen the “most dramatic” increases in political polarisation.
The report tries to end on an uplifting note by suggesting that all is not lost as some countries are moving towards more democracy – Bolivia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Moldova, Dominican Republic, Gambia and Malawi.
To a lesser degree, it counts the Maldives, North Macedonia, South Korea and Slovenia as countries that are making a positive democratic U-turn. It is a little puzzling to see the Maldives listed here as reports from 2022 demonstrate that President Ibrahim Solih (the 2019 election of whom the V-Dem report sees as an indicator of democratisation) did outlaw the anti-India protests that had taken root in some parts of the archipelagic nation. Maldivian civil society actors questioned whether a president had the power to criminalise dissent.
Even so, the V-Dem report states that democracies can bounce back from autocratisation when a certain set of criteria are satisfied. These include mass mobilisation against an incumbent, a unified opposition working with civil society, the judiciary reversing an executive takeover, critical elections, and international democracy support.
Finally, the V-Dem report thinks that there is a shift in the global balance of economic power. It finds that inter-democracy world trade has declined to 47% in 2022 from 74% in 1998. 46% of the world’s Gross Domestic Product now comes from autocracies and democracies’ dependence on autocratic countries has doubled in the last three decades. It sees this dependence of democratic countries on autocratic countries for trade as an emergent security issue for democracies.
How does V-Dem work?
Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) produces the largest global dataset on democracy with
over 31 million data points for 202 countries from 1789 to 2022. Involving almost 4,000
scholars and other country experts, V-Dem measures hundreds of different attributes of
democracy. V-Dem enables new ways to study the nature, causes, and consequences of
democracy embracing its multiple meanings.
What are the indicators used?
Amongst the various population-weighted indicators that the report uses to make its determinations on the health of democracy in various countries, it pays particular attention to freedom of expression (declining in as many as 35 countries), increased government censorship of the media (declining in 47 countries), the worsening state repression of civil society actors (going downhill in 37 countries) and a decline in the quality of elections in 30 countries. It also lists Armenia, Greece and Mauritius as “democracies in steep decline”.
There are several indices/critereon that V-Dem uses and applies. The V-Dem Liberal Democracy Index (LDI) captures both liberal and electoral aspects of democracy based on the 71 indicators
included in the Liberal Component Index (LCI) and the Electoral Democracy Index (EDI). The EDI reflects a hitherto ambitious idea of electoral democracy where a number of institutional features
guarantee free and fair elections such as freedom of association and freedom of expression. The LCI goes even further and captures the limits placed on governments in terms of two key aspects: The protection of individual liberties, and the checks and balances between institutions.
There is also then the Liberal Component Index (LCI), Egalitarian Component Index (ECI), Participative Component Index (PCI) and Deliberative Component Index (DCI). Of these, the LCI factors in Equality before the law and individual liberty, judicial constraints on the executive, and Legislative constraints on the executive. The Electoral Democracy Index factors within Suffrage,
Elected officials, Clean elections, Freedom of association and Freedom of expression and
alternative sources of information.
Why Population-Weighted Measures?
Since democracy is rule by the people, it matters how many people are enjoying democratic rights and freedoms around the world. The population-weighted metric is therefore more indicative of
the levels of democracy experienced by people worldwide than straight averages across countries. Country-averages give the same weight to advances in a small country like the Seychelles
(one of the top performers) as to declines in a huge country like India (one of the worst autocratizers in the last 10 years). When speaking of ‘how much’ of the world lives in a democracy, and how much of it is undergoing a democratic decline, the V-Dem report states that, “we do not think that advances in a small country compensate for declines in a large one. That is why we focus more on population-weighted metrics while also reporting the averages that give equal weight to all nations.”
Hope is not lost
According to the V-Dem report, there have also been trends towards Democratisation. Eight of the top 10 democratizing countries over the last 10 years are now democracies, four of the top 10 democratizers in the short-term 3-year perspective have transitioned from autocracy to democracy and –possibly this has a lesson for India --democracies are ‘bouncing back’, making rare U-turns restoring democracy after a period of autocratization.
What enables these democracies to bounce back? Five elements unite most of the 8 cases:
-
Large-scale popular mobilization against incumbent.
-
Judiciary reversing executive take-over.
-
Unified opposition coalescing with civil society.
-
Critical elections and key events bringing alternation in power.
-
International democracy support and protection
Warning signals
The V-Dem report cautions us all. The level of democracy for the average global citizen by 2022 is back to 1986 levels. • Democracy has deteriorated in many regions and of this ours, the Asia-Pacific is now down to levels of 1978. Today, the world has more closed autocracies than liberal
democracies – for the first time in more than two decades, 72% of the world’s population – 5.7 billion people live in autocracies by 2022. Within this fairly bleak scenario, freedom of expression is deteriorating in 35 countries in 2022; ten years ago it was only seven countries where the count was low; Government censorship of the media is worsening in 47 countries over last ten years and Government repression of civil society organizations is worsening in 37 countries.
Related:
India has chosen a path of exclusion and persecution for religious minorities: CMRI report
BJP has strayed away from Nehruvian vales of secularism: IAMC report
Religious Minorities Worry More About Media Freedom Than Hindus: CSDS Survey
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
How Independent is India’s Election Commission?
A five member Constitution Bench reserved its judgement in the petitions that have sought a non-arbitrary and transparent process for appointing members of the Election Commission, to safeguard its independence
First published on: 29 Nov 2022
Image: https://bit.ly/3iuqlT1
The election commission and the recently appointed Election Commissioner Arun Goel have been in the news due to the hearings before a five judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court. The apex court is hearing the petitions seeking established, transparent procedure for appointing members to the ECI. In the course of deliberations, with the Centre arguing that there “was no trigger point” warranting such judicial scrutiny, the Court questioned the undue haste in the appointment of Arun Goel as the Election Commissioner [EC] while the matter was being adjudicated. The post had been lying vacant since May 2022.
The matter had been referred to the Constitutional Bench after a Division Bench of the Apex Court had held that 'a close look and interpretation of the provisions of Article 324 of the Constitution of India', which states superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in the Election Commission, may be required, reported LiveLaw.
Given these developments, it is important to understand the significance of the Election Commission, and its independent role in the conduct of free and fair elections.
The process of appointment of Election Commissioner(s) post-Independence, has its own tale to tell. The election commission had always been a one member body until 1989. In 1989, the Rajiv Gandhi government appointed election commissioners, as provided in Article 324(1). This was again changed and the EC was made a body with just the CEC by the VP Singh government. However, the PV Narasimha Rao government brought in an ordinance establishing the multi member nature of the commission, which was later converted into an act. A case too was filed in the Supreme Court over these developments.
In this article, the first part deals with the functions and powers of the Election Commission which have been enumerated within the Constitution and other statutes. The second part deals with different cases (jurisprudence) that hold importance in the context of the role and constitution of Election Commission. The third part examines the level and extent of independence the election commission has. To put things in perspective, the appointment of members of ECI is governed by the Constitution (amendment as mentioned above, in 1991). The Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners And Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 prescribes the salary, term and pension matters. A plain reading of Article 324 makes it clear that the process of appointment of the EC members has been left to the law to be made by the Parliament; a lacuna that still persists in the absence of such a law. Even the present constitutional bench pointed out that it’s been 72 years and no law has been put in place.
Election Commission in the Indian Constitution
Articles 324 to 329 of the Constitution deal with the Elections. While Article 324 deals with the commission, its functions and its powers, Article 329 bars the interference of courts in election matters except when brought to them in the form of election petitions.
Article 324 (1) - Establishes the authority of the Election Commission over superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls, and the conduct of all elections to parliament and the state legislatures, and to the posts of the President and Vice-President.
Article 324 (2) - States that there shall be a Chief Election Commissioner, appointed by the president subject to the law made by the Parliament. It also includes the provision for appointment of Election Commissioners, if the president deems fit, subject to the law made by the parliament.
Article 324 (3) - In case of appointment of Election Commissioner, states that the Chief Election Commissioner shall act as chairman of the commission.
Article 324 (4) - Empowers the president to appoint regional election commissioners.
Article 324 (5) - Subject to the laws of the parliament, the president may make rules for service and tenure of the regional election commissioners and Election Commissioners. For the Chief Election Commissioner, however, the process of removal is the same as the process of impeachment of the judge. The process to impeach a judge starts with either 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members giving a notice of motion to the speaker and if the speaker accepts such motion, an inquiry committee has to be constituted with a Supreme Court Judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court and a distinguished jurist who will frame charges and investigate. The report is presented to Parliament and only if each house passes the motion to impeach the judge with majority and 2/3rd of the majority of the members present and voting, the motion will be passed. After both the houses pass such motions, the president will have to pass an order removing the judge. Apart from this special status to the Chief Election Commissioner, Article 324 (5) also states that the Election commissioners and the Regional Election Commissioners, shall not be removed without the recommendations of the Chief Election Commissioners.
Article 324 (6) - states that the president or the governor of a state, shall provide the election commission with necessary staff, when requested, to discharge the functions as enshrined in Article 324 (1).
Statutes
The Chief Election Commissioner And Other Election Commissioners (Conditions Of Service) Act, 1991
Section 4 of the Act states that the tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner or the election commissioner is 6 years or until he reaches the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.
The Process
In the recent hearings over the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner, the Attorney General submitted to the Supreme Court that the CEC is appointed from the lists of ECs on the basis of seniority. A name is picked by the Prime Minister and it is sent to the President along with a note of recommendation, he submitted to the court.
Judicial Pronouncements on the EC
1. SS Dhannoa vs. Union of India.
The Rajiv Gandhi government, via a notification, fixed the number of election commissioners 2, in the year 1989. By another notification, SS Dhannoa and another person were appointed as Election Commissioners. However, the V.P. Singh government issued notifications rescinding the earlier two notifications by the Rajiv Gandhi government. Consequently, the two posts of Election Commissioners were abolished and the appointment of SS Dhannoa and the other Election Commissioner came to an end.
SS Dhannoa challenged the notifications by the VP Singh government on the grounds that the Election Commission being an independent body, the abolition of the posts of Election Commissioners and their consequent removal tampered with the independence of the Election Commission directly or indirectly; in view of the service rules made by the President the Election Commissioners were entitled to continue in office for full tenure of five years or until they attained the age of 65 years whichever was earlier; the notification abolishing the two posts and removing the petitioner and the other Election Commissioner were issued mala fide under the advice of the Chief Election Commissioner; his removal affected him materially.
The court however stated that the post of election commissioner can be created and abolished as the president may deem fit. The court noted the difference in treatment of both the Election Commissioner on the one side and the Chief Election Commissioner on the other side, as provided in the constitution. The court stated that while the conditions of service and tenure of office of all are to be such as the President may, by rule determine, a protection is given to the Chief Election Commissioner in that his conditions of service shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment, and he shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. These protections are not available either to the Election Commissioners or to the Regional Commissioners. The court stated that the conditions of Election Commissioner and the Regional Conditions can be varied to their disadvantage.
2. T.N.Seshan vs. Union of India
A five-judge constitution bench in this case, heard the petitions challenging the validity of the The Chief Election Commissioner And Other Election Commissioners (Conditions Of Service) Act, 1991 on the grounds that it equates the status of CEC and EC by introducing the concept in which whenever a conflict arises as to a decision, the majority will prevail rather than CEC’s decision. The judgement stated that just because the CEC’s conditions of service are different from that of Election Commissioners, it cannot be concluded that CEC is of a higher status than the other Election Commissioners.
The TN Seshan case, therefore confirmed the basics of the power structures with the Election Commission
Independence of the Election Commission
Before the issue of independence itself is examined, it is important to understand and affirm the need for an independent election commission. This does not need complex and layered explanations. Elections are one of the many strong pillars on which democracies stand. If there is any discrepancy in the conduct or result of the elections, there will be cracks in a democracy which will hamper rule of law and public order. This means, the conduct of elections shall be free and fair and for that, the institution which conducts the elections should be free from any influence from the political parties.
Now, how can an institution be truly independent? There are different facets to an institution. Financial, Administrative and others. As far as money is concerned, the Union budget provides for the money required to run the Election commission i.e. EVMs, salaries for the staff, allowances etc. Since the union budget is presented in the parliament, it can be understood that no interference of the executive is present there.
Now, to the facet of administration. The powers of the Election Commission are written in the constitution but the Constitution does not detail out the process in which the persons’ appointment to the posts of CEC or EC. Therefore, the government follows the process of seniority + appointments. That is the Centre will appoint Election Commissioners and the senior most of them usually becomes the Chief Election Commissioner. The Centre, here, means the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Even prima facie, this process has tenets of executive influence in the appointment of the Election Commissioner and the Chief Election Commissioner. Effectively, if the executive wanted, it can control the Election Commission by placing ‘yes’ men in the commission who will dance to its tunes. The process of appointments to the EC and CEC of the commission is where the independence of the Election Commission falls flat.
What are the other ways in which an Election Commissioner can be appointed?
The issue with the current system is the control of the executive and the lack of concurrence or consultation with other political parties. The current petition in the Supreme Court prayed for a collegium-like system that can appoint the Election Commissioner. This could be a way. Or, say like in Australia, some jurisdictions necessitate consultation with other political parties before appointing an electoral officer, and in some jurisdictions, a consultation with a parliamentary committee is necessary.
In South Korea, after election discrepancies in 1960, a National Election Commission was constituted in which the members were to be appointed by the National Assembly, the President and the Judiciary and the chairman of the commission was to be elected from such members.
Any of these ways or a new ways in which there is ample independence to the appointment may or should be adopted in India.
Conclusion
The idea of independence is not a straight arrow. Independence manifests itself in various forms-behavioural and structural. However, to have the starting step of appointments influenced by the executive brings down the independence of the Election Commission to the ground. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will pass any guidelines or recommendations as such for appointments to the Election Commission.
(The author is a legal researcher currently giving his post graduate examinations)
Related:
Appointment of Election Commissioner under SC scrutiny: The story so far
How Independent is India’s Election Commission?
A five member Constitution Bench reserved its judgement in the petitions that have sought a non-arbitrary and transparent process for appointing members of the Election Commission, to safeguard its independence
First published on: 29 Nov 2022
Image: https://bit.ly/3iuqlT1
The election commission and the recently appointed Election Commissioner Arun Goel have been in the news due to the hearings before a five judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court. The apex court is hearing the petitions seeking established, transparent procedure for appointing members to the ECI. In the course of deliberations, with the Centre arguing that there “was no trigger point” warranting such judicial scrutiny, the Court questioned the undue haste in the appointment of Arun Goel as the Election Commissioner [EC] while the matter was being adjudicated. The post had been lying vacant since May 2022.
The matter had been referred to the Constitutional Bench after a Division Bench of the Apex Court had held that 'a close look and interpretation of the provisions of Article 324 of the Constitution of India', which states superintendence, direction and control of elections to be vested in the Election Commission, may be required, reported LiveLaw.
Given these developments, it is important to understand the significance of the Election Commission, and its independent role in the conduct of free and fair elections.
The process of appointment of Election Commissioner(s) post-Independence, has its own tale to tell. The election commission had always been a one member body until 1989. In 1989, the Rajiv Gandhi government appointed election commissioners, as provided in Article 324(1). This was again changed and the EC was made a body with just the CEC by the VP Singh government. However, the PV Narasimha Rao government brought in an ordinance establishing the multi member nature of the commission, which was later converted into an act. A case too was filed in the Supreme Court over these developments.
In this article, the first part deals with the functions and powers of the Election Commission which have been enumerated within the Constitution and other statutes. The second part deals with different cases (jurisprudence) that hold importance in the context of the role and constitution of Election Commission. The third part examines the level and extent of independence the election commission has. To put things in perspective, the appointment of members of ECI is governed by the Constitution (amendment as mentioned above, in 1991). The Election Commission (Conditions of Service of Election Commissioners And Transaction of Business) Act, 1991 prescribes the salary, term and pension matters. A plain reading of Article 324 makes it clear that the process of appointment of the EC members has been left to the law to be made by the Parliament; a lacuna that still persists in the absence of such a law. Even the present constitutional bench pointed out that it’s been 72 years and no law has been put in place.
Election Commission in the Indian Constitution
Articles 324 to 329 of the Constitution deal with the Elections. While Article 324 deals with the commission, its functions and its powers, Article 329 bars the interference of courts in election matters except when brought to them in the form of election petitions.
Article 324 (1) - Establishes the authority of the Election Commission over superintendence, direction and control of the preparation of the electoral rolls, and the conduct of all elections to parliament and the state legislatures, and to the posts of the President and Vice-President.
Article 324 (2) - States that there shall be a Chief Election Commissioner, appointed by the president subject to the law made by the Parliament. It also includes the provision for appointment of Election Commissioners, if the president deems fit, subject to the law made by the parliament.
Article 324 (3) - In case of appointment of Election Commissioner, states that the Chief Election Commissioner shall act as chairman of the commission.
Article 324 (4) - Empowers the president to appoint regional election commissioners.
Article 324 (5) - Subject to the laws of the parliament, the president may make rules for service and tenure of the regional election commissioners and Election Commissioners. For the Chief Election Commissioner, however, the process of removal is the same as the process of impeachment of the judge. The process to impeach a judge starts with either 100 Lok Sabha or 50 Rajya Sabha members giving a notice of motion to the speaker and if the speaker accepts such motion, an inquiry committee has to be constituted with a Supreme Court Judge, a Chief Justice of a High Court and a distinguished jurist who will frame charges and investigate. The report is presented to Parliament and only if each house passes the motion to impeach the judge with majority and 2/3rd of the majority of the members present and voting, the motion will be passed. After both the houses pass such motions, the president will have to pass an order removing the judge. Apart from this special status to the Chief Election Commissioner, Article 324 (5) also states that the Election commissioners and the Regional Election Commissioners, shall not be removed without the recommendations of the Chief Election Commissioners.
Article 324 (6) - states that the president or the governor of a state, shall provide the election commission with necessary staff, when requested, to discharge the functions as enshrined in Article 324 (1).
Statutes
The Chief Election Commissioner And Other Election Commissioners (Conditions Of Service) Act, 1991
Section 4 of the Act states that the tenure of the Chief Election Commissioner or the election commissioner is 6 years or until he reaches the age of 65 years, whichever is earlier.
The Process
In the recent hearings over the appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner, the Attorney General submitted to the Supreme Court that the CEC is appointed from the lists of ECs on the basis of seniority. A name is picked by the Prime Minister and it is sent to the President along with a note of recommendation, he submitted to the court.
Judicial Pronouncements on the EC
1. SS Dhannoa vs. Union of India.
The Rajiv Gandhi government, via a notification, fixed the number of election commissioners 2, in the year 1989. By another notification, SS Dhannoa and another person were appointed as Election Commissioners. However, the V.P. Singh government issued notifications rescinding the earlier two notifications by the Rajiv Gandhi government. Consequently, the two posts of Election Commissioners were abolished and the appointment of SS Dhannoa and the other Election Commissioner came to an end.
SS Dhannoa challenged the notifications by the VP Singh government on the grounds that the Election Commission being an independent body, the abolition of the posts of Election Commissioners and their consequent removal tampered with the independence of the Election Commission directly or indirectly; in view of the service rules made by the President the Election Commissioners were entitled to continue in office for full tenure of five years or until they attained the age of 65 years whichever was earlier; the notification abolishing the two posts and removing the petitioner and the other Election Commissioner were issued mala fide under the advice of the Chief Election Commissioner; his removal affected him materially.
The court however stated that the post of election commissioner can be created and abolished as the president may deem fit. The court noted the difference in treatment of both the Election Commissioner on the one side and the Chief Election Commissioner on the other side, as provided in the constitution. The court stated that while the conditions of service and tenure of office of all are to be such as the President may, by rule determine, a protection is given to the Chief Election Commissioner in that his conditions of service shall not be varied to his disadvantage after his appointment, and he shall not be removed from his office except in like manner and on the like grounds as a judge of the Supreme Court. These protections are not available either to the Election Commissioners or to the Regional Commissioners. The court stated that the conditions of Election Commissioner and the Regional Conditions can be varied to their disadvantage.
2. T.N.Seshan vs. Union of India
A five-judge constitution bench in this case, heard the petitions challenging the validity of the The Chief Election Commissioner And Other Election Commissioners (Conditions Of Service) Act, 1991 on the grounds that it equates the status of CEC and EC by introducing the concept in which whenever a conflict arises as to a decision, the majority will prevail rather than CEC’s decision. The judgement stated that just because the CEC’s conditions of service are different from that of Election Commissioners, it cannot be concluded that CEC is of a higher status than the other Election Commissioners.
The TN Seshan case, therefore confirmed the basics of the power structures with the Election Commission
Independence of the Election Commission
Before the issue of independence itself is examined, it is important to understand and affirm the need for an independent election commission. This does not need complex and layered explanations. Elections are one of the many strong pillars on which democracies stand. If there is any discrepancy in the conduct or result of the elections, there will be cracks in a democracy which will hamper rule of law and public order. This means, the conduct of elections shall be free and fair and for that, the institution which conducts the elections should be free from any influence from the political parties.
Now, how can an institution be truly independent? There are different facets to an institution. Financial, Administrative and others. As far as money is concerned, the Union budget provides for the money required to run the Election commission i.e. EVMs, salaries for the staff, allowances etc. Since the union budget is presented in the parliament, it can be understood that no interference of the executive is present there.
Now, to the facet of administration. The powers of the Election Commission are written in the constitution but the Constitution does not detail out the process in which the persons’ appointment to the posts of CEC or EC. Therefore, the government follows the process of seniority + appointments. That is the Centre will appoint Election Commissioners and the senior most of them usually becomes the Chief Election Commissioner. The Centre, here, means the President on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Even prima facie, this process has tenets of executive influence in the appointment of the Election Commissioner and the Chief Election Commissioner. Effectively, if the executive wanted, it can control the Election Commission by placing ‘yes’ men in the commission who will dance to its tunes. The process of appointments to the EC and CEC of the commission is where the independence of the Election Commission falls flat.
What are the other ways in which an Election Commissioner can be appointed?
The issue with the current system is the control of the executive and the lack of concurrence or consultation with other political parties. The current petition in the Supreme Court prayed for a collegium-like system that can appoint the Election Commissioner. This could be a way. Or, say like in Australia, some jurisdictions necessitate consultation with other political parties before appointing an electoral officer, and in some jurisdictions, a consultation with a parliamentary committee is necessary.
In South Korea, after election discrepancies in 1960, a National Election Commission was constituted in which the members were to be appointed by the National Assembly, the President and the Judiciary and the chairman of the commission was to be elected from such members.
Any of these ways or a new ways in which there is ample independence to the appointment may or should be adopted in India.
Conclusion
The idea of independence is not a straight arrow. Independence manifests itself in various forms-behavioural and structural. However, to have the starting step of appointments influenced by the executive brings down the independence of the Election Commission to the ground. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will pass any guidelines or recommendations as such for appointments to the Election Commission.
(The author is a legal researcher currently giving his post graduate examinations)
Related:
Appointment of Election Commissioner under SC scrutiny: The story so far
Related Articles
Theme
Campaigns
Videos
Archives
Archives
Podcasts
Why the Tripura election is so important for India
The result of the Tripura election set to have a big impact on national politics
Image Courtesy: indianexpress.com
Tripura is a small state in Northeast India. Voters are a little over 28 lakhs. Voters in West Bengal are about 7.5 crore and in India about 100 crore. Despite this, there has been a lot of interest in the Tripura elections across India, including various states in East India. A few such politically significant events have taken place in Tripura before the elections.The results of Tripura elections can have an impact on national politics due to various reasons.
For example, Tripura is the only state in India at this time, where there is a stark rivalry between two ideologies—the Left and the Right. Although the Left Front is in power in southern India's Kerala, its main opponent there is the Congress-led alliance, not the BJP. If the Left Front wins in Tripura, it will be the first time that the Left will defeat the Right in a state.It is expected to boost the morale of the entire secular coalition in India, including the Left-Socialist-Centre.
Second, after the BJP came to power in 2014, the Congress-Left alliance did not gain anything substantial. The alliance failed in West Bengal in 2016. Those who have allied with the Congress are in danger in most cases. But according to the congress party, even though they were almost wiped out in various states, the Congress could win a large number of seats in alliance with non-Congress parties. At a state level, they still consider themselves a powerful party. In Tripura, the Congress contested in as many seats (13 out of 60) as the Left Front, its alliance partner, gave them.
There can only be one explanation for this. If the Left-Congress alliance wins in Tripura, it will be an overall positive development for opposition politics. It is important to remember that in 2023 elections will be held in nine states in India and possibly in Jammu and Kashmir. Lok Sabha elections will be held after a year. Congressional flexibility is important at this point.
After this, if the Left Front and Congress does win in Tripura, it will be a massive change in the political environment within the state. But before that the Left-Congress alliance has to win the elections in Tripura. That task is not easy. In fact, in a word, practically impossible. After the organisational strength the BJP has shown in the elections and the amount of money it has spent, it is almost impossible for an anti-BJP alliance to win in Tripura.
Thirdly, CPI(M) state secretary Jitendra Chowdhury has emerged as the face of the opposition alliance in Tripura. He is a tribal leader. If he and his party win with votes from non-tribals, especially Bengalis and tribal communities in some seats, he will emerge as an important face in Northeast Indian politics. Political leader of 'Upper' Assam and Chief Minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sharma of BJP has emerged as the main political representative of Northeast India. But he does not belong to the two major societies of North-East India. These two societies are the Christian community and the tribal societies. Vishwasharma is a Hindu Brahmin. Right now, no one is discussing this as it is sensitive, but with the victory of Jitendra Chowdhury, it may emerge as the new 'narrative'.
A fourth important point is the incredible rise of the Tipra Motha, a tribal group in Tripura. In just two years, the party has grown so much in the hill country of Tripura that many newspapers are now writing that Rajbari's son Pradyot Devabarman is the future Chief Minister of Tripura. That possibility is slim because of the 60 seats in Tripura, twenty (one-third) seats are reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The remaining seats are dominated by non-tribals. It can be assumed that they will not vote for tribal parties. Nevertheless, the rise of tribal parties is expected to encourage other tribal and tribal alliances in Northeast India.
Fifth, the Tipra Motha uprising has made it clear that India's 2019 Citizenship Act has not been accepted by tribal people. All parties in Tripura acknowledge that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has increased the fear of tribal communities losing their land. The Tribals and tribal communities fear that if CAA is implemented, non-tribal people will come and settle on their land. This fear has led to the uprising of the Tipra Motha.
One more thing is important in this context. With the rise of Tipra Motha, the two main organisations, the BJP and the Left Front, have written that they will give more power to the tribals of the state in various fields if they come to power. BJP has written in its election promise, 'TTAADC (Tripura Autonomous Tribal Council) will be given greater autonomy within the framework of the proposed 125th Constitutional Amendment Bill. The council will be reconstituted to provide additional legislative, executive, administrative and financial powers.' That is, the BJP has practically accepted Tipra Motha's demand for 'greater' powers. But Radhacharan Debvarma, a tribal candidate of the Left Front, has said that the powers given to the Autonomous Tribal Council have become obsolete. If the necessary constitutional reforms are not given more power to the tribals, the problems in Tripura will increase in the future.
In this context, the Left Front writes, "In accordance with the 125th Constitutional Amendment Bill, there will be a vigorous struggle for the tribals' land, language, economic-socio-cultural and public life of the tribals with the highest powers."
If the Left-Congress alliance can pull off the impossible to win the elections in Tripura, it will be considered the most politically significant event in India before the election season begins. Because of these reasons, the Tripura assembly election is extremely important.
This story is turned around from Bangla, first published by Prothom Alo. Reporter: Suvojit Bagchi
Related:
Tripura: CAA and the rise of Tipra Motha
Why did it take an order from the Tripura HC to ensure proper enrollment of Bru voters?
Tripura: Hundreds Join SFI, TSF Jatha Against NEP, ‘Save India, Save Constitution’
Why the Tripura election is so important for India
The result of the Tripura election set to have a big impact on national politics
Image Courtesy: indianexpress.com
Tripura is a small state in Northeast India. Voters are a little over 28 lakhs. Voters in West Bengal are about 7.5 crore and in India about 100 crore. Despite this, there has been a lot of interest in the Tripura elections across India, including various states in East India. A few such politically significant events have taken place in Tripura before the elections.The results of Tripura elections can have an impact on national politics due to various reasons.
For example, Tripura is the only state in India at this time, where there is a stark rivalry between two ideologies—the Left and the Right. Although the Left Front is in power in southern India's Kerala, its main opponent there is the Congress-led alliance, not the BJP. If the Left Front wins in Tripura, it will be the first time that the Left will defeat the Right in a state.It is expected to boost the morale of the entire secular coalition in India, including the Left-Socialist-Centre.
Second, after the BJP came to power in 2014, the Congress-Left alliance did not gain anything substantial. The alliance failed in West Bengal in 2016. Those who have allied with the Congress are in danger in most cases. But according to the congress party, even though they were almost wiped out in various states, the Congress could win a large number of seats in alliance with non-Congress parties. At a state level, they still consider themselves a powerful party. In Tripura, the Congress contested in as many seats (13 out of 60) as the Left Front, its alliance partner, gave them.
There can only be one explanation for this. If the Left-Congress alliance wins in Tripura, it will be an overall positive development for opposition politics. It is important to remember that in 2023 elections will be held in nine states in India and possibly in Jammu and Kashmir. Lok Sabha elections will be held after a year. Congressional flexibility is important at this point.
After this, if the Left Front and Congress does win in Tripura, it will be a massive change in the political environment within the state. But before that the Left-Congress alliance has to win the elections in Tripura. That task is not easy. In fact, in a word, practically impossible. After the organisational strength the BJP has shown in the elections and the amount of money it has spent, it is almost impossible for an anti-BJP alliance to win in Tripura.
Thirdly, CPI(M) state secretary Jitendra Chowdhury has emerged as the face of the opposition alliance in Tripura. He is a tribal leader. If he and his party win with votes from non-tribals, especially Bengalis and tribal communities in some seats, he will emerge as an important face in Northeast Indian politics. Political leader of 'Upper' Assam and Chief Minister of Assam, Himanta Biswa Sharma of BJP has emerged as the main political representative of Northeast India. But he does not belong to the two major societies of North-East India. These two societies are the Christian community and the tribal societies. Vishwasharma is a Hindu Brahmin. Right now, no one is discussing this as it is sensitive, but with the victory of Jitendra Chowdhury, it may emerge as the new 'narrative'.
A fourth important point is the incredible rise of the Tipra Motha, a tribal group in Tripura. In just two years, the party has grown so much in the hill country of Tripura that many newspapers are now writing that Rajbari's son Pradyot Devabarman is the future Chief Minister of Tripura. That possibility is slim because of the 60 seats in Tripura, twenty (one-third) seats are reserved for Scheduled Tribes. The remaining seats are dominated by non-tribals. It can be assumed that they will not vote for tribal parties. Nevertheless, the rise of tribal parties is expected to encourage other tribal and tribal alliances in Northeast India.
Fifth, the Tipra Motha uprising has made it clear that India's 2019 Citizenship Act has not been accepted by tribal people. All parties in Tripura acknowledge that the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) has increased the fear of tribal communities losing their land. The Tribals and tribal communities fear that if CAA is implemented, non-tribal people will come and settle on their land. This fear has led to the uprising of the Tipra Motha.
One more thing is important in this context. With the rise of Tipra Motha, the two main organisations, the BJP and the Left Front, have written that they will give more power to the tribals of the state in various fields if they come to power. BJP has written in its election promise, 'TTAADC (Tripura Autonomous Tribal Council) will be given greater autonomy within the framework of the proposed 125th Constitutional Amendment Bill. The council will be reconstituted to provide additional legislative, executive, administrative and financial powers.' That is, the BJP has practically accepted Tipra Motha's demand for 'greater' powers. But Radhacharan Debvarma, a tribal candidate of the Left Front, has said that the powers given to the Autonomous Tribal Council have become obsolete. If the necessary constitutional reforms are not given more power to the tribals, the problems in Tripura will increase in the future.
In this context, the Left Front writes, "In accordance with the 125th Constitutional Amendment Bill, there will be a vigorous struggle for the tribals' land, language, economic-socio-cultural and public life of the tribals with the highest powers."
If the Left-Congress alliance can pull off the impossible to win the elections in Tripura, it will be considered the most politically significant event in India before the election season begins. Because of these reasons, the Tripura assembly election is extremely important.
This story is turned around from Bangla, first published by Prothom Alo. Reporter: Suvojit Bagchi
Related:
Tripura: CAA and the rise of Tipra Motha
Why did it take an order from the Tripura HC to ensure proper enrollment of Bru voters?
Tripura: Hundreds Join SFI, TSF Jatha Against NEP, ‘Save India, Save Constitution’