The Supreme Court’s judgment went beyond a mere procedural rebuke by invoking its discretionary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, thereby ensuring the immediate implementation of the stalled bills. These bills included critical legislation on social justice and education reforms. Using the office of the Governor to undermine state governments ruled by the opposition is not only a means to undermine federalism but also a means to coerce state governments into incorporating themselves into the neoliberal project. Consent for this two-pronged offensive is sought to be manufactured through the activation of the third prong involving an attempt to saffronise India. Let’s see how.

Role of Governors in Undermining Federalism

The constitutional office of the Governor, serving at the behest of the Union government (aka “pleasure of the President of India”), was conceived as a means to limit authentic federalism, whereby the Union government sought to indirectly influence the working of state governments.

However, since 2014, this role has been explicitly weaponised to try and subvert opposition-ruled states. The case of Tamil Nadu exemplified this misuse: the Governor withheld assent to many bills for over two years. The Governor of Tamil Nadu has become the ideological fulcrum of Hindutva opposition to the progressive ethos of the state. This progressive ethos is derived from a complex synthesis of the work of Periyar, Ambedkar, and Marx and remains a work in progress.

The Supreme Court’s unprecedented step to invoke Article 142 in the case of Tamil Nadu underscored the severity of the crisis of federalism under the neo-fascist dispensation. By directing the Union government to facilitate presidential assent within 15 days, the Court effectively bypassed the Governor’s office, which it felt had become a “tool of partisan sabotage”. This intervention is reflective of the higher judiciary’s awareness of the structural imbalance in India’s federal framework. Similar patterns of gubernatorial obstruction have emerged in all opposition-ruled states, including deliberately delaying legislative sessions, illegal interference in administrative procedures, and refusing assent to bills passed by the state legislatures. It is arguable that such gubernatorial actions violate the Basic Structure doctrine, which enshrines federalism as a foundational principle of the Constitution of India. These anti-constitutional maneuvers are not isolated procedural violations but part of a deliberate strategy to centralise power by paralysing state legislatures. Thereby, the neo-fascist dispensation undermines the democratic ethos that posits that India’s existence as a constitutional republic derives from unity in diversity and not uniformity.

Attenuation of Federalism along the Neoliberal Trajectory

The practice of federalism was always tenuous, but the explicit transition to a neoliberal trajectory since the 1990s has refortified the anti-federal proclivities of the Union government of India. The proliferation of the neoliberal project under the hegemony of international finance capital has involved ongoing attempts to systematically dismantle the fiscal autonomy of states. Early measures, such as the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) restrictive credit policies, pushed states into debt traps, with interest payments consuming a large fraction of non-developmental expenditures by the 2000s. Subsequent Finance Commissions have institutionalised conditionalities, tying debt relief to neoliberal policies like de facto or de jure privatisation of power, water, and other types of infrastructure. Besides, states were forced to cede jurisdiction over many economic activities, which resulted in their deepening fiscal dependency on the Union government of India.

The Goods and Services Tax (GST), implemented in 2017, epitomises this assault on federalism. GST stripped states of their constitutional authority to levy indirect taxes, a critical revenue source. The GST Council, though nominally representative of states, structurally favors the Union government of India, which holds an effective veto on all decisions. This quasi-unitary fiscal regime has had dire consequences. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, states faced severe liquidity crises due to deliberately delayed GST compensation, crippling their ability to fund healthcare and welfare schemes, resulting in millions of (officially unacknowledged) deaths.

Other unilateral decisions made by the Union government of India, such as Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) and demonetisation, further illustrate this attenuation of federalism. FTAs negotiated without state consultation—like those with ASEAN—have devastated Kerala’s plantation economy through import surges. Likewise, demonetisation in 2016 had disproportionately adverse consequences on cash-dependent states. Co-operative banks, which are vital to the economies of Kerala and Maharashtra, were excluded from currency exchange, resulting in the exacerbation of economic distress by the working people. These policies, which the mainstream media presents as episodic initiatives unrelated to any larger project, in fact reflect a broader attempt to undermine federalism, thereby reducing states to passive implementers of the neoliberal agenda.

Judicial interventions since 1991 have, by and large, been in sync with the dictates of the neoliberal project. Consequently, judicial review tends to focus on overt constitutional violations by this or that functionary but does not interrogate the neo-fascist dispensation that enables these violations.

Hindutva as Ideological Driver of Anti-Federalism

The neo-fascist dispensation’s project to irredeemably attenuate Indian federalism, thereby hegemonising the neoliberal project in India, involves the deployment of Hindutva. The latter is deployed to manufacture consent for this hegemony. This deployment is based on two pillars: one, cowardice with respect to metropolitan capital, as evidenced most recently by the servile response to Trump’s tariff war; second, a reinvention of history whereby unscientific claims about the ostensibly unitary origins of Indian civilisation and its alleged redemption after centuries of purported alien rule have hegemonised the public space.

For instance, the neo-fascist dispensation has unleashed an unprecedented wave of saffronisation of education with two objectives. First, the drive for saffronisation of education amounts to an acceptance of the permanence of India’s location at the lower and lower-middle reaches of the technological ladder that pertains to global production networks. Second, the saffronisation of education seeks to manufacture consent for its privatisation, commercialisation, and homogenisation. The use of the National Education Policy to redouble the imposition of Hindi, illegitimately trying to take over state universities, and the insistence on the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test for medical admissions (that disadvantage the working people) are illustrative of this drive for saffronisation.

Likewise, the ongoing efforts to engage in delimitation of electoral constituencies disadvantage states that are outside North India and are completely antithetical to the constitutional prerogative of federalism. The neo-fascist dispensation seeks to cement its hegemony by disparaging federal initiatives that directly challenge this homogenising drive of Hindutva, whereby people’s movements in states like Tamil Nadu (that resist the imposition of Hindi), Kerala (that seeks to craft an alternative to the neoliberal project), and Punjab (that seeks to defend the peasantry and workers against corporate encroachment in agriculture) are framed as “anti-national”.

The neo-fascist dispensation’s deployment of fiscal levers and gubernatorial obstruction to suppress such federal movements reveals a strategic maneuver, under the hegemony of international finance capital, to try and make India secure for the neoliberal project by homogenising the country.

Conclusion: Federalism as Democratic Practice

The Supreme Court’s 2025 Tamil Nadu verdict, though significant, is a corrective to a symptom of the deployment of Governors to undermine opposition-led state governments. It does not engage with the underlying phenomenon of the neo-fascist dispensation’s attempt to extinguish federalism in order to secure the neoliberal project in India under the aegis of international finance capital.

The struggle for federalism is inseparable from the fight for India’s democracy as embodied in the Constitution of India and its practice by the democratic movement. Resisting the neo-fascist dispensation’s offensive against federalism is necessary to prevent the eroding of the pluralism that defines the nation.

To reclaim the constitutional republic, parties in the INDIA Bloc and people’s movements that lead the resistance to the neo-fascist dispensation must evolve democratic alternatives to the neoliberal project and eschew vain attempts to operate under the hegemony of international finance capital through the ideological trajectory of cosmopolitan neoliberalism. As argued previously, neo-fascism and cosmopolitan neoliberalism are two different routes of operating under the aegis of international finance capital. Federalism is a central plank of crafting a democratic alternative to the neo-fascist dispensation’s timidity towards international finance capital.

Shirin Akhter is Associate Professor at Zakir Husain Delhi College, University of Delhi. C Saratchand is Professor, Department of Economics, Satyawati College, University of Delhi. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newclick

The post Confronting the Neo-fascist Assault on Federalism appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Indian government’s response to Trump’s tariff war has been, at best, muted. A recent meeting between the U.S. President and the Indian Prime Minister epitomised this submissiveness. Even as the U.S. government was forcibly deporting Indian nationals; shackled, blindfolded, and transported in military aircraft in a manner starkly violative of human dignity. The Indian government chose denial over protest, publicly insisting that the deportees had not been ill-treated. Further, when Ananda Vikatan, a Tamil-language magazine, published a satirical cartoon critiquing the government’s silence on these humiliations, it was summarily censored under India’s draconian information technology legislation.

Such episodes highlight a broader incapacity to mount even a symbolic defence of Indian sovereignty when affronts originate from hegemonic global powers like the United States. This inability to respond meaningfully to external provocations, whether on trade, diplomacy, or the treatment of Indian citizens, raises important questions about the ideological and structural orientation of the Indian state.

Two interrelated factors underlie this posture of passivity. First, India’s ruling classes and their political apparatus remain deeply beholden to international finance capital, which is largely centred in the United States. Second, this dependency is compounded by a fundamental misreading of contemporary global political economy. These material realities are expressed ideologically through two distinct, yet convergent, wings of India’s neoliberal project: the neo-fascists and the cosmopolitan neoliberals. While the former deploy a pseudo-nationalist rhetoric and the latter a pseudo-internationalist one, both ultimately converge in their reluctance to challenge U.S. imperialist hegemony. Their divergence lies only in the rhetorical justifications they offer for this subservience. These arguments merit closer scrutiny.

One strand of cosmopolitan neoliberal thought argues, somewhat brazenly, that Trump’s tariff war offers India an opportunity to unilaterally reduce its own tariffs. They claim that such a reduction would boost domestic competition and thereby improve economic efficiency. However, this argument is logically inconsistent: if lowering tariffs unconditionally leads to better outcomes, why does the U.S., the world’s most powerful economy, choose to increase them?

Other cosmopolitan neoliberals argue that India is a small open economy while the US is a large open economy, implying that world prices are given as far as the Indian economy is concerned while the US is capable of at least partially influencing world prices. Therefore, it would be unwise for India to engage in retaliation vis-à-vis the the imposition of tariffs by the US. On the face of it, this argument seems somewhat logical and therefore let us examine this further. While it is true that the Indian economy is smaller than the U.S. economy in terms of share of world income, for a number of commodities that India does import and export, the respective share of India’s imports and exports in the total world trade is non-negligible. Therefore, the ability of India to partially determine the pricing of its imports and exports can be an element in its trade policy including tariff retaliation.

Moreover, the very structure of Trump’s tariff war, which involves differential tariffs on different countries, is a tactic designed to try and prevent coordinated opposition to Trump’s trade policy. Therefore, it would be relevant for India to work in multilateral forums such as the BRICS to prepare strong and coordinated responses to Trump’s tariff war. However, whenever there emerges a debate around working in multilateral forums such as BRICS to counter Trump’s tariff force, both cosmopolitan neoliberals as well as the neo-fascists might immediately argue that BRICS is dominated by China and that the interests of China and India diverge. Therefore, joint action against US hegemonic actions such as Trump’s trade war is not possible. However, this is a self-defeating argument and actually amounts to creating non-tariff barriers in the trade between China and India which weakens India’s bargaining power with respect to US imperialist hegemony.

For example, cosmopolitan neoliberals as well as neo-fascists often claim that software semiconductor chips made in China could be hacked by the Chinese government and therefore would be inappropriate for use in the Indian economy.  Let us assume for the sake of argument that this claim is true. Is there any reason to claim, on the contrary, that semiconductor chips that are designed or produced using US technology cannot be or will not be hacked by the US government? After Edward Snowden’s revelations even those working outside governments know the facts about global surveillance by the US government. Under these circumstances, a prudent option available to India would to diversify its chip demand between two or more sources so that no one foreign government can exercise undue leverage in matters of security vis-à-vis India. While this would be the short-run course that would be appropriate in the case of countries like India, over the long run, efforts should be made to develop an indigenous semiconductor industry.

Another common claim by both ideological segments of the Indian neoliberal project is that U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods provide Indian industry with a relative advantage, potentially encouraging multinational corporations to shift production from China to India. However, this argument too is completely disconnected from the concrete situation concerning global production networks. China exercises a leading position in almost all reaches of the technological ladder that pertains to global production networks due to its advantages in infrastructure, skilled labour with respect to wages, domestic demand, the role of the public sector, state support to innovation, and industrial policy (which involves among other things a euthanising of finance capital and the political neutering of enterprise capital). Most of these conditions are incompatible with contemporary Indian political economy and therefore cannot be replicated here without relevant political changes. Therefore, multinational corporations are unlikely to significantly relocate production capacity to India due to Trump’s trade war.

Moreover, any process of industrialisation in any country of the world would require for its continuance some Chinese inputs and/or some access to Chinese markets to be sustainable. Under these circumstances, the question before any country, including India, is not whether to engage or disengage from China, but how best to engage with China. The Economic Survey of 2023-2024 had pointed out that India should explore the option of involving itself in global production networks centered in China. However, progress in this respect has been slow and expectedly subject to counter-pressures from cosmopolitan neoliberals as well as sections of the neo-fascist dispensation in India.

Vietnam offers a valuable lesson in strategic diplomacy. Its ability to maintain productive relationships with multiple great powers, without being beholden to any, demonstrates an autonomous balancing strategy. For India, the path to greater sovereignty lies in rejecting the binary of alignment with either the U.S. or China, and instead adopting a policy framework driven by authentic national interests (which is centred around the working people). In order to understand this proposition, let us examine the actual leverage that foreign countries exercise over India.

The fundamental leverage that U.S. monopoly capital exercises over India is through the hegemony of international finance capital that is centered in the U.S. Since India does not have effective capital controls, this allows U.S. monopoly capital to exercise effective power over Indian policymaking. One exception to this trend was when the Biden administration tried to pressure Indian government to cut relations with Russia. The Indian government could not accede to this US demand because the Chinese-Russian strategic concord that would have emerged may have been directed against India. This strategic concord could not have been counterbalanced by the strategic proximity that may have emerged between India and the USA. But in most other matters, the U.S. monopoly capital has been able to influence, to a very significant extent, the contours of policymaking in India. Consider, for instance the examples of India’s relations with Iran, with Venezuela, on the question of the conflict in Palestine, and so on. The contrast with US attempts to exercise similar leverage over China or Russia is readily evident.

In the absence of effective capital controls, international finance capital, primarily centred in the United States, continues to serve as a conduit through which U.S. monopoly capital exercises considerable influence over Indian economic policymaking. This structural dependence finds its ideological expression in the distinct yet convergent narratives of cosmopolitan neoliberals and the neo-fascist dispensation.

On the one hand, neo-fascists have intensified a differential squeeze on the socially oppressed (such as Indian Muslims) under the guise of cultural nationalism and security. This project is part of a broader attempt to erase what remains of India’s anti-imperialist legacy from the freedom struggle. On the other hand, cosmopolitan neoliberals, while cloaked in liberal internationalism, contribute to the same erasure by sanitising colonial history and glorifying imperialist globalisation. Though their methods differ, both ideological strands ultimately function to sustain the hegemony of metropolitan capital.

At the core of any meaningful anti-imperialist position lies the understanding that broad-based economic progress in the Global South is not possible without directly confronting the hegemony of metropolitan capital. The recent efforts of U.S. monopoly capital and its state apparatus to drive a wedge between China and Russia is a tactic aimed at forestalling the emergence of a multipolar economic order indicating the waning strength of U.S. imperialist dominance. Against this backdrop, restoring policy autonomy for India must begin with the imposition of robust capital controls on international finance. Once this critical step is taken, several policy options become viable to counter the effects of Trump’s tariff war:

One, India must reduce its excessive reliance on the U.S. market for specific commodity exports. While the U.S. may currently offer higher returns for certain export goods, this concentration increases India’s vulnerability to external leverage. A geographically diversified export strategy will enhance India’s bargaining position across all markets. Such a strategic reorientation, especially one that considers long-term national interest is best undertaken through initiatives involving the public sector, which operates with a longer policy horizon than private actors driven by short-term profitability.

Two, India should actively attract greenfield foreign direct investment (FDI), from both the U.S. and China, in carefully selected sectors and regions. These choices must be guided by a coherent industrial policy aimed at enabling India to appropriately ascend the technological ladder of global production networks while not compromising the objective of full employment. Simultaneously, this policy should aim to reduce regional disparities within India by dispersing industrial development beyond existing hubs.

Three, Resist Pressure to Reduce Import Tariffs, Especially in Agriculture and Key Inputs as succumbing to U.S. demands for reducing import tariffs, particularly on agricultural products would further pauperise India’s already vulnerable peasantry and agricultural labour force. A related argument advanced by cosmopolitan neoliberals claims that high-priced inputs supplied by large domestic firms disadvantage micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), and that reducing import tariffs would level the playing field and boost MSME exports. However, such logic is deeply flawed. Lowering tariffs on critical inputs may indeed reduce costs for MSMEs in the short run, but it is likely to trigger an import surge that undermines domestic production, employment, profits, and investment in import-competing sectors.

In the current global environment, where export prospects are weakening this would have contractionary effects across the economy. Furthermore, once domestic competitors are displaced, foreign suppliers may increase input prices, thereby nullifying any temporary advantage gained by MSMEs. The structural disadvantage faced by Indian MSMEs in relation to monopoly capital cannot be addressed by import liberalisation. Instead, it demands active policy intervention that redistributes resources away from monopoly capital towards MSMEs. This may include public sector production of essential inputs at regulated prices to mitigate cost pressures faced by MSMEs.

Reviving the Anti-Imperialist Legacy

The ideological currents that dominate Indian policy discourse, be they cosmopolitan neoliberals or neo-fascists, seek to suppress the anti-imperialist ethos that once animated India’s freedom movement. The former sanitise colonial history; the latter attack marginalised communities within the country. Both ultimately serve the interests of metropolitan capital. Genuine anti-imperialism today must recognise that sustainable development in the Global South requires breaking free from the grip of metropolitan capital. The growing strategic anxieties of U.S. monopoly capital, exemplified by attempts to isolate China and Russia signal a waning imperialist order. For India, this moment demands bold and thoughtful policy shifts aimed at recovering national sovereignty, economic justice, and strategic autonomy.

Shirin Akhter is Associate Professor at Zakir Husain Delhi College, University of Delhi. C Saratchand is Professor, Department of Economics, Satyawati College, University of Delhi. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Rethinking the Indian Response to Trump’s Tariff War appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This cycle of labour exploitation and deportation is not an accident, it is a deliberate system designed to suppress wages and prevent labour rights from strengthening. By keeping immigrant labour precarious, either through restrictive visa policies, lack of legal protections, or the constant threat of deportation, wages are kept low, and workers unable to demand better conditions.

Employers benefit from this insecurity, extracting maximum productivity while avoiding obligations, such as fair wages, healthcare, or job security. The state enforces this system by criminalising migrants when they attempt to establish stability, ensuring they remain trapped in a cycle of dependence and vulnerability.

The US deportation system is far from being a neutral enforcement mechanism, it is an entrenched economic and political strategy that serves the interests of the ruling elite while devastating working-class migrants. The label of “illegal immigrant” is a carefully constructed political tool, designed not only to stoke nationalist anxieties but also to distract from structural economic failures and opportunistic governance. Behind the rhetoric of border security lies a ruthless machinery of exploitation, profit-making, and systemic dehumanisation.

Deportations as Political Distraction

When the US experiences economic downturns or political crises, immigrants become easy scapegoats. Deportations increase, and the government frames the issue as one of national security rather than economic dependency. This allows policymakers to deflect attention from failing economic policies, corporate tax breaks, and widening income inequality.

The current US administration has proposed invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify mass deportations without due process. The idea of “border security” is thus weaponised not to protect national interests but to reinforce racial and economic hierarchies. The true beneficiaries of these policies are not the working-class American citizens they claim to protect, but the corporate elite who profit from the precarious conditions of undocumented labour.

Mass deportations have become a multi-billion-dollar industry. Private detention centres, such as those run by CoreCivic and GEO Group, receive lucrative government contracts to house migrants before deportation. The longer a person is detained, the more profit these companies make. These facilities are notorious for inhumane conditions, overcrowding, lack of medical care, and reports of abuse are rampant.

The expansion of the deportation-industrial complex ensures that detention is prolonged unnecessarily, turning migrant suffering into a business model. The involvement of private corporations in immigration enforcement means that deportation policies are increasingly dictated by profit motives rather than human rights or legal due process.

Violations of International Human Rights Law

The recent use of military aircraft to deport migrants, such as the C-17 military plane carrying Ecuadorians, signals a dangerous shift toward the full militarisation of immigration enforcement. Deportations are no longer an administrative procedure but are now part of a security-state apparatus.

By treating migrants as enemy combatants rather than civilians, this policy erodes the distinction between civil governance and military operations. The use of military aircraft to deport vulnerable people sends a clear message to immigrant communities: their presence is not just unwanted, it is treated as a national threat.

Theatrical deportations, including mass removals carried out in highly publicised raids, serve as propaganda to appeal to Far-Right nationalist voters. Ramping up deportations through cruel and theatrical means helps convert civil deportations into a political spectacle, reinforcing the perception that immigrants are responsible for social and economic woes.

The deportation process has become increasingly violent and degrading, with migrants being handcuffed, shackled, and treated like criminals. Reports detail the harrowing experiences of deportees, 104 Indian migrants deported on a US military flight to Amritsar were chained for the entire 40-hour journey.

These actions violate multiple international agreements:

• The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) prohibits cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment (Article 5).

• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits arbitrary detention and inhumane treatment.

• The UN Convention against Torture (CAT) condemns acts of state-sanctioned cruelty.

Despite being a signatory to these agreements, the US blatantly disregards its commitments in its deportation policies. The fact that migrants are shackled, denied medical care, and subjected to prolonged detention before deportation makes it clear that these are not administrative procedures but calculated acts of oppression.

India’s Silence

One of the most disturbing aspects of the current deportation crisis is the silence of the Indian government despite blatant human rights violations against its own people. Despite Indian migrants being subjected to inhumane treatment, chained, and shackled during deportations, the Indian state has failed to issue a strong response.

While Mexico, Ecuador, and other nations have protested the treatment of their deported citizens, India remains passive. The deportation of 104 Indian migrants under brutal conditions was met with no official protest, no diplomatic pressure, and no attempt to hold the US accountable.

India’s silence on the brutal deportation practices of the US stems from a combination of geopolitical, economic, and political factors. The Narendra Modi government has strategically aligned itself with US interests, particularly in countering China, and is unwilling to risk this alliance by challenging Washington on human rights violations against Indian migrants. This diplomatic calculus prioritises strategic partnerships over the welfare of its own citizens abroad.

Additionally, the Indian government exhibits selective outrage, raising concerns over issues affecting students and high-skilled professionals in Western countries while ignoring the plight of working-class migrants, whose contributions are often undervalued. This reflects a deeper diaspora hypocrisy, where India celebrates its global diaspora when it benefits economic and political interests such as remittances and soft power but abandons vulnerable migrants when they face mistreatment.

By refusing to challenge the US on its inhumane deportation policies, India tacitly endorses the dehumanisation of its own people. This silence sends a clear message: Indian migrants are valuable when they send money back home, but disposable when they need protection.

A Human Rights Crisis

The weaponisation of deportation is not just a US issue, it is part of a global system of inequality. The same neoliberal policies that force people to migrate in search of work are the ones that criminalise them once they arrive. If deportations continue under such conditions, they will set a dangerous precedent. Other nations may adopt similar policies, making the mass expulsion of marginalised communities a norm rather than an exception.

The current US deportation policy is a brutal manifestation of racial capitalism, where migrants are exploited when needed and discarded when convenient. These policies are not about enforcing the law; these are about control, profit, and political power. If these deportations go unchallenged, they will only become more extreme. The fight against them is not just about immigration, it is about defending the very principles of human dignity and justice in an increasingly hostile world.

The international community must take a stand. Governments of affected nations must refuse to remain passive. Human rights organisations must challenge these violations on the global stage. Most importantly, movements for migrant justice must continue to resist.

Shirin Akhter is Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Zakir Husain Delhi College, University of Delhi. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post How US Uses, Exploits and Discards Migrant Labour! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Take Fatima Sheikh, India’s first Muslim woman teacher. Her life and work alongside Savitribai and Jyotirao Phule embody the very essence of solidarity and resistance. Together, they challenged Brahmanical patriarchy and caste exclusion, striving for an inclusive education system that empowered the most marginalised. Yet there is an ongoing attempt to erase Fatima Sheikh from mainstream history, her legacy buried under layers of casteist and communal erasure. Her erasure is not a mere oversight but a calculated act, one that seeks to deny the very existence of intersectional struggles against oppression.

This politics of erasure is not isolated; it is part of a broader project to sanitise history, neutralise dissent, and normalise inequalities. By excluding figures like Fatima Sheikh, Dalits, Muslims, Adivasis, women, and persons with disabilities are systematically pushed to the margins of public memory and denied their rightful place in the nation’s narrative.

Historical Revisionism: Sanitising the Past for Oppression

The deliberate erasure of figures like Fatima Sheikh reveals a pattern of historical revisionism designed to sustain existing hierarchies. History is manipulated to present reform movements as caste-neutral, male-driven, and Hindu-led, obscuring the intersectional struggles that shaped them. By erasing Fatima Sheikh, the radical solidarity between Dalits, Muslims, and women is invisibilised, and the convenient, dominant narrative of typical prototype reformers as saviours is reinforced.

B.R. Ambedkar, for instance, is sanitised into a token figure, hailed as the architect of the Constitution but stripped of his scathing critique of caste and his revolutionary vision for an egalitarian society. His advocacy for reservations, a lifeline for educational equity, is sidelined even as these policies are viciously attacked today. Ambedkar’s fiery critique of Hinduism’s role in upholding caste oppression is deliberately erased from school curricula and public discourse, making it easier to appropriate him while gutting his radical ideas.

Similarly, the contributions of Muslim freedom fighters like Ashfaqulla Khan and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan are systematically downplayed to sustain communal stereotypes. Women like Jhalkaribai, the Dalit warrior who fought alongside Rani Lakshmibai, and Begum Rokeya, a Muslim reformer who championed women’s education, are excluded to uphold patriarchal and casteist narratives. Even Adivasi leaders like Birsa Munda, who fought against colonial exploitation and for Adivasi rights, are reduced to hollow symbols, their histories carefully erased to sustain their marginalisation.

But the silence is uneasy most of all when it comes to disabled individuals. Their absence from historical narratives is not just glaring but insidious. It reflects the deeply entrenched ableism in Indian society, which sees disability not as a social issue but as a private affliction to be ignored. This erasure denies disabled people even the most token representation, ensuring they remain outside the frameworks of education, policy, and society itself.

The Violent Silence of Ableism

The absence of discourse on disability in historical narratives is perhaps the most violent form of erasure. It is not just a denial of disabled lives but a refusal to even acknowledge their struggles and contributions. Ableist attitudes perpetuate the idea that disabled people are incapable of agency or participation in society, reinforcing their marginalisation.

Statements like “the deaf and blind do not go to school with others” go unchallenged, as though their exclusion is natural. This systematic exclusion reinforces invisibility of disabled, creating a narrative of othering and leaving a place only at the bottom of the social hierarchy, with no place in history and no claim to justice.

Ableism is a tool of domination, one that intersects with caste, gender, and religion to maintain systems of oppression. By refusing to document the lives and struggles of disabled people, society ensures an easy othering where disabled are invisible, unaccounted for, and unrepresented. This silence is not benign, it is violent.

Education: A Weapon of Exclusion

The erasure of marginalised voices from history is deeply tied to the politics of education. Education is not merely a tool for liberation; it has also been weaponised to exclude. By controlling whose stories are taught, dominant groups perpetuate the myth that Dalits, Muslims, Adivasis, women, and disabled people are undeserving of knowledge, power, or leadership.

This exclusion is evident in the privatisation of education, which transforms a fundamental right into an elitist privilege. Marginalised communities, already struggling under systemic oppression, are locked out of educational spaces, ensuring a continued cycle of poverty and exclusion. Reservation policies, which aim to provide equitable access, are constantly undermined. Their necessity is questioned as the struggles that birthed them are erased from public memory.

For disabled people, the exclusion is even starker. Accessible education systems and infrastructure are virtually non-existent, leaving them reliant on charity rather than rights-based systems. The very idea of education for the disabled is treated as an afterthought, ensuring they remain on the margins, locked out of opportunities for participation in society.

Reclaiming Radical Histories

To resist the politics of erasure, we must reclaim the radical histories of marginalised communities. Fatima Sheikh’s story must be restored not simply as a tribute to her legacy but as a weapon against the narratives that erase the struggles of Dalits, Muslims, Adivasis, women, and disabled people. The histories of Ambedkar, Jhalkaribai, Ashfaqulla Khan, Birsa Munda, and countless others must be told in their entirety, with their radical critiques and intersectional struggles at the forefront.

The absence of disability discourse must also be addressed. Disabled people’s lives and struggles must be documented, acknowledged, and integrated into mainstream narratives. This requires dismantling ableist attitudes and creating systems that recognise disability as a social and political issue, and not a personal battle.

The Politics of Memory and Justice

The politics of historical erasure is not just about the past, it is about controlling the present and foreclosing the future. By denying Fatima Sheikh and others like her their rightful place in history, the ruling elite seeks to sustain a system of exclusion that privileges dominant castes, religions, and abilities.

Fatima Sheikh’s legacy reminds us that education is not a privilege for the few but a right for all. Her work challenges the casteist, communal, patriarchal, and ableist narratives that underpin Indian society, offering a vision of education as a tool for liberation and solidarity. To honour her is to fight against the forces that erase her.

The fight against historical erasure is, ultimately, a fight for justice. It is a fight to ensure that history reflects the struggles and contributions of all communities, and that education becomes a tool to dismantle hierarchies rather than perpetuate them. This fight demands that we challenge the dominant narratives, expose their silences, and reclaim the radical potential of memory to inspire resistance and solidarity. Let us carry forward this fight, with the legacy of all those erased from history as our guide; while it remains important to ask ‘who benefits from these erasures?’

Shirin Akhter is Associate Professor, Department of Economics, Zakir Husain Delhi College, University of Delhi. Sharamisthaa Atreja is Assistant Professor at the Department of Philosophy, University of Delhi. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Fatima Sheikh: Politics of Historical Erasure, Exclusion appeared first on SabrangIndia.

So, while basking in pride, it is crucial for India to identify who gained and lost from the G20 events. India must be especially careful, lest we take from the poor whatever little they have and give it to the rich.

The range of distress caused to the poor by the preparations for the G20 summit has been widely reported all year. Since January, over 3 lakh of the capital’s poor have been displaced, while other cities that hosted G20 events reported more evictions and displacements. The lives of India’s poor are jeopardised in the process of urban ‘beautification’ projects meant to please visiting foreign dignitaries and other attendees.

Eighty per cent of Delhi’s workforce is employed in the informal sector, and 15% of its population lives below the poverty line. The city and central administrations, which prepare the capital for summits, have repeatedly behaved with contempt towards its poorest residents. Walls were constructed to hide the city’s poverty and poor residents during the Commonwealth Games in 2020. And in 2023, slums and shelters for the homeless were razed to make way for dazzling optics for the G20 Summit.

The city allocated a expense budget—Rs 1,000 crore—to prepare for this Summit and related events, choosing to chase away the poor rather than work towards poverty reduction. Slum settlements and shelters for the homeless were pulled apart or concealed and demolished with no alternative arrangements made for residents. In effect, more people have been left homeless and unemployed than before India decided to host this event. Homes were declared encroachments and bulldozed, roadside vendors were evicted, and lakhs whose voices are never heard were further destabilised. The brilliant lights of the newly-decorated city darkened lives—and the coming effective ‘shutdown’ of a large and prominent section of the city will worsen the situation.

When a city as large and economically diverse as Delhi is brought to a halt, people are likely to face challenges, significantly more so its weaker and disadvantaged sections. Of the ways in which the poor are affected, the easiest to identify is the loss of daily wages, for instance of the hawkers in parts of the city that are being subjected to near-total lockdown during the forthcoming summit.

While the lockdown may officially apply to sections of the city, roads passing through this crucial area will out of bounds during the days of the G20 programmes. It is bound to affect thoroughfare, having a ripple effect across the city.

Most of Delhi’s poor residents—over 49 lakh people, according to a 2022 estimate—work in the informal sector. They rely on daily wages to support themselves and their families. Any disruption in normal economic activities results in a substantial loss of income, making it difficult for families to meet basic needs. Many poor might find it impossible to stock up on essential food items to provide them with two meals a day when they are forced not to work. This is what leads to food insecurity and hunger for those who live from day to day.

Further, road and office closures can disrupt access to essential services such as healthcare, education, and social support. Vulnerable populations may find it challenging to access medical care or emergency services during this period. Even a short shutdown can have lasting economic consequences for poor individuals and the local economy. Job losses and income reductions during a shutdown can create financial struggles that persist after normal economic activities resume. It’s a fact that today’s food is tomorrow’s work energy: a poor worker who goes hungry today will not have the energy to work tomorrow, perpetuating poverty beyond the days when work was unavailable, and pushing families deeper into poverty.

It is crucial that governments host international events while ensuring that the urban poor are not disproportionately affected by disruptions. Proactive and inclusive policies are needed, which the government can put in place for the welfare of all citizens even as it showcases a city on the global stage.

It is essential for local authorities, NGOs, and community organisations to implement support measures, including targeted financial assistance, food distribution, access to health care services, and housing support for vulnerable populations, especially if a ‘shutdown’ like in Delhi is being imposed.

Any disturbance to normal economic activity is sure to hurt people, and people living on the margins will be disproportionately affected. Since the burden of disturbances is not equal for all, is important to design them very carefully. If a glittering capital is a must during the G20 presidency, it is equally important to hear voices of distress echoing from behind the glamour. The welfare of people is the single-most important domestic policy and it cannot be subservient to any other outcome, howsoever important it might appear.

To sum up, the well-being of the urban poor during the coming ‘shutdown’—call it by whatever name—is of the utmost importance. Here are some strategies to consider:

1. Provide ample notice to the affected sections about the event and its impacts on their lives, in terms of gains and losses. Engaging in community consultations to understand and address needs and concerns is a must.
2. Targeted financial assistance programs to compensate for lost income during the shutdown is a must. This could include cash transfers or subsidies to help families cover basic expenses.
3. Temporary food distribution centres in affected areas must ensure that vulnerable households have access to nutritious meals, so that they can rejoin the workforce immediately on resumption of normal economic activity.
4. Healthcare services, especially emergency services, must remain operational during the event. Mobile medical clinics should be considered for the affected neighbourhoods.
5. Preventing evictions should be the priority and housing support must be provided for people whose homes and shelters have been razed.

The authors are associate professors at Zakir Husain Delhi College, University of Delhi. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post India’s Poor Paid for G20 With Homes and Livelihoods Halted appeared first on SabrangIndia.