A Widening Crisis and the Call to Reject Blame

The statement highlighted the dangerous trajectory of the crisis, noting that the devastating conflict that erupted between the Meitei and Kuki-Zo communities in May 2023 has now escalated to include tensions between the Naga and Kuki communities. Warning that the situation must not devolve into a “war of all against all,” the signatories deliberately avoided assigning blame to any specific group. Instead, they mourned the casualties across all communities, including the Kuki-Zo, Meitei, and Naga populations.

The appeal stressed that competitive victimhood has no place in the current crisis, declaring that no historical grievance, political claim, or religious identity can justify the killing of civilians, hostage-taking, or the targeting of women and places of worship.

Furthermore, the coalition demanded the immediate protection of civilians, safe humanitarian access, the release of detainees, and the dignified return of mortal remains.

A major regional concern raised by the collective is the threat the ongoing violence poses to the broader North East’s fragile peace agreements. The appeal referenced the three decades of political negotiations and ceasefires facilitated by the Government of India, particularly the historic 1997 Indo-Naga peace process with the NSCN-IM, warning that the region could be plunged into deeper insecurity if communities lose faith in negotiated settlements.

However, the signatories also acknowledged recent acts of restraint that offer hope, praising Naga civil society’s successful intervention in securing the release of 14 Kuki detainees despite intense public anger.

The collective highlighted this as a crucial gesture for peace, demonstrating that community institutions can still prioritise responsibility over revenge.

A Diverse Coalition Demanding Accountability

The appeal is backed by a diverse and distinguished group of signatories, including filmmakers Anand Patwardhan and Suhasini Mulay, former civil servants Harsh Mander and V. Venugopal, former Planning Commission member Dr. Syeda Hameed and numerous journalists, economists, and environmentalists.

Notably, women’s rights organisations and feminist scholars constitute a significant portion of the coalition. Emphasizing this, political activist Annie Raja stated that women’s organisations across all communities must be empowered as the primary custodians of peace, as women have historically held communities together during times of crisis.

Dr. Syeda Hameed further underscored the national significance of the crisis, stating that Manipur is a direct test of the Indian republic’s constitutional morality and that the Union Government must act before all faith in peace collapses. Nicholas Chinnappan, President of Friends of the Earth India, added that the violence is deeply intertwined with issues of land, resources, and militarization, asserting that peace must be built on a foundation of justice.

Core Demands for Peace and Justice

In its concluding demands, the appeal called upon both the Union and State governments to protect lives without discrimination, recover illegal weapons, and prevent further armed mobilization.

The signatories demanded an impartial, time-bound peace process involving independent mediators and representatives from all affected communities, including the Kuki-Zo, Meitei, Naga, Pangal, Mising, and Hmar communities.

Additionally, they called for an independent, judicially monitored investigation into all major incidents of violence, sexual assault, arson, and custodial abuse that have occurred since May 2023, with scrutiny of the roles played by armed groups, state forces, and political actors. The statement concluded by asserting that democracy cannot survive if communities are forced to negotiate life and death through armed factions while constitutional institutions fail in their fundamental duties.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Citizens and Civil Society Groups Issue Urgent Appeal to Halt Escalating Violence in Manipur appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Every age discovers its own language for discussing the human condition. The twentieth century increasingly found itself speaking through sport. Seems absurd? Twenty-two players pursue a ball around a rectangular field while millions watch. How does that evoke philosophical reflection? Yet, the deeper one looks at football, the harder it becomes to dismiss it merely as entertainment. Football has become one of the principal ways modern societies imagine themselves.

The great clubs of Europe are repositories of memory. Entire generations remember where they were when Maradona dribbled past England, when Zidane head-butted Materazzi, when Iniesta scored in Johannesburg, or when Messi finally lifted the World Cup in Qatar. Football has become one of the modern world’s great theatres of meaning.

And, thus, some of its greatest practitioners asked questions beyond tactics and trophies. What does it reveal about human beings? How should talent relate to the collective? What is the relationship between freedom and discipline? Can excellence be engineered? Can creativity be organized? These are not football questions; they are civilization questions. Football merely provides the stage on which they are performed.

Five figures stand apart for transforming football into a vehicle for thought: Johan Cruyff, César Luis Menotti, Sócrates, Jorge Valdano, and Pep Guardiola. Each seeks an answer to the same question: What is football for?

Football is about understanding space. ~ Hendrik Johannes Cruyff

Johan Cruyff’s greatest contribution to football was not tactical; it was perceptual. He changed what football looked at. Before Cruyff, football largely revolved around players. Coaches discussed positions, opponents, formations, and individuals. The football field seemed crowded with bodies competing for possession. Cruyff became fascinated by the spaces between players. Sounds simple, but it was revolutionary.

Cruyff watched football by following possibilities. The future interested him more than the present. He arrived at an insight: the game is fundamentally a struggle over space. And, the player who understands space understands football.

The pass itself is not the important event. What matters is the space created before the pass and the possibilities that follow it. The dribble changes geometry. Football becomes a shifting architecture of relationships, distances, and opportunities. Cruyff’s observation that football is played with the brain is often misunderstood. He was not praising intelligence; he was describing a way of seeing. Great footballers notice patterns before others recognize them. They enter the future slightly earlier than everyone else.

Cruyff’s vision resembles the moment when a physicist suddenly perceives an invisible structure beneath apparently chaotic phenomena. What Newton discovered in falling apples and planetary motion, Cruyff sought in football. Beneath the apparent disorder lay hidden patterns. Yet patterns alone cannot explain why football moves us. Geometry can organize a city. It cannot explain why people love it.

Cruyff’s famous dictum, ‘Toeval is logisch’ (coincidence is logical), captures this football philosophy, that football’s apparent chaos often conceals an underlying geometry. What spectators often describe as luck, chance, or coincidence is frequently the visible consequence of invisible preparation. Teams that occupy space intelligently, move collectively, and anticipate possibilities create conditions in which favourable outcomes appear accidental to outsiders. Chance remains real, but an intelligent organization determines the likely beneficiary. Indeed, one could almost place Cruyff beside chemist Louis Pasteur’s famous observation: “Chance favours only the prepared mind.”

Cruyff translated that insight into football.

Football is about freedom and beauty. ~ César Luis Menotti

If Cruyff was football’s architect, Argentina’s Menotti was its philosopher. Few coaches have thought more deeply about the moral dimensions of football. To many observers, Menotti’s preference for attacking football appeared aesthetic. His brand of football was about beauty and elegance, they said. This interpretation missed the depth. For Menotti, beauty was not decorative. Beauty was ethical.

Menotti’s core values were freedom, creativity, beauty, expression, individuality, and cultural identity. He believed football should reflect the best possibilities of human freedom. Victory mattered, but it was not enough. His sentiment can be summarized as, “Winning is important. But the manner of winning reveals who you are.”

The football field became a small republic in which larger human values revealed themselves. A society that celebrates freedom should celebrate freedom on the pitch. A society that values imagination should encourage imagination in its footballers. A society that admires creativity should resist reducing the game to mere efficiency. Menotti’s football was therefore not simply a style of play. It was a vision of human flourishing.

Human beings need beauty and results. Civilization itself oscillates endlessly between these demands. Menotti’s philosophy lies in refusing to surrender beauty entirely to practicality. He insisted that efficiency alone cannot satisfy the human spirit.

Football is about meaning and leadership. ~ Jorge Valdano

Jorge Valdano inherited his compatriot Menotti’s humanism but transformed it into something more intimate. Where Menotti spoke about freedom and style, Valdano became fascinated by leadership, fear, confidence, and meaning. He spent much of his post-playing career trying to understand why some groups achieve extraordinary things while others fail despite possessing equal talent. He repeatedly returned to a remarkably simple conclusion: Every team is a state of mind.

Modern organizations are obsessed with structures. They study incentives, processes, systems, and metrics. Valdano does not reject these, but he points out that every structure ultimately operates through human beings. The most sophisticated plan in the world passes through minds occupied by doubt, hope, courage, insecurity, and belief. Thus, football is a study of collective psychology. The great leader does not merely organize. He creates meaning. He transforms anxiety into confidence. He aligns ambitions. He creates trust. He converts a collection of individuals into a community.

Valdano was fascinated by the emotional realities hidden behind the movement of the ball. Why do some teams become stronger after adversity while others collapse? Why does belief spread through a dressing room? Why does confidence sometimes seem contagious? These questions place football in direct conversation with military history, political leadership, and organizational theory. Valdano’s football is ultimately about the human condition.

Football is about citizenship and human dignity. ~ Sócrates Brasiliero

Medical doctor. Captain. Political activist. Public intellectual. No footballer has travelled further beyond football than Sócrates. During Brazil’s military dictatorship, he helped create one of the most remarkable experiments in sporting history: Democracia Corinthiana. This was not simply a football innovation; it was an attempt to rethink authority. Players voted on decisions. Hierarchies were questioned. Participation replaced command. The football club became a laboratory for citizenship.

Sócrates asked a question almost nobody else had dared to: Can football teach people how to govern themselves?

This is a profoundly political question, but not a partisan one. It concerns the nature of freedom. Modern institutions often assume that efficiency requires hierarchy and that excellence demands control. Sócrates suspected otherwise. He wondered whether responsibility might flourish under participation and whether freedom itself could become a source of strength. In this sense, he resembles the great civic thinkers of antiquity more than a conventional footballer. The field became a classroom; the dressing room, a civic institution; and football, a rehearsal for democracy.

Football is about reconciling freedom and structure. ~ Pep Guardiola

Cruyff’s understanding of space, Menotti’s defense of creativity, Valdano’s concern with human beings, Sacchi’s organizational discipline, and modern analytics’ obsession with measurement all illuminate part of the same reality. Guardiola refuses to choose between them.

Guardiola attempts something more ambitious: he seeks reconciliation.

The great debates of football increasingly appear false from his perspective. Freedom versus structure. Creativity versus discipline. Art versus science. Humanity versus analytics. These oppositions dissolve. The purpose of structure is not to eliminate freedom; it is to create freedom. The purpose of positional play is not to constrain imagination; it is to generate possibilities for imagination. The purpose of analysis is not to replace intuition; it is to improve intuition.

Guardiola’s football represents a kind of synthesis. The highest forms of excellence emerge not when one principle defeats another but when seemingly contradictory principles learn to coexist.

At this point, football begins to reveal its power as a metaphor for human life. These five thinkers address questions faced by every civilization. Football condenses them into ninety minutes.

This may explain why the game continues to fascinate billions despite its apparent simplicity. Beneath the goals and trophies lies something deeper. Football has become one of the few remaining arenas where modern societies continue to debate the relationship between freedom and order, individual brilliance and collective purpose, science and art, efficiency and meaning. The observations and investigations over the years merge into a philosophy of human flourishing. And perhaps that is why football remains larger than any statistic, any trophy, or any result. For beneath the game lies a question that every generation must answer anew: Not how football should be played. But how human beings should live.

Check in tomorrow for our next article in the series leading to the FIFA World Cup 2026.

This series is a concise version of a long-format Substack series on the World Cup by JP Santhanam. The Substack post can be read here.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post The Five Philosophers of Football appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Read the letters in full here.

An Open Letter to K.C.V

Your Place Is in New Delhi

Dear Shri K.C. Venugopal Ji,

I understand that you have staked your claim to the post of Chief Minister of Kerala. As the right-hand man of Rahul Gandhi, you may well have influenced the distribution of tickets to some of your followers, but that alone does not legitimise your claim.

You are the General Secretary of the Indian National Congress. If you claim credit for the party’s success in Kerala, you must also accept responsibility for its rout in West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Assam and Puducherry. One also recalls your disappointing performance in Bihar, where your strategy arguably helped the Bharatiya Janata Party more than it did your own party.

If you believe that the people voted for you or even for the Congress, you are mistaken. They voted against the style and substance of governance associated with Pinarayi Vijayan. In fact, there is reason to believe that even sections of the Left electorate tactically supported the UDF in certain constituencies to send a message. You are, at best, a beneficiary of anti-incumbency.

When you won from Alappuzha in 2024, you had to resign from the Rajya Sabha. The vacancy that arose in Rajasthan was filled unopposed by a BJP candidate, costing the Congress a seat in the Upper House. These are not small matters in a closely contested national political landscape.

If you become Chief Minister, there will inevitably be two by-elections—one for the Alappuzha Lok Sabha seat and another for the Assembly, for which a Congress MLA will have to make way. And if, by chance, you are defeated, the UDF could find itself in disarray.

Malayalees, as you well know, are not easily overawed by power. Few communities in India are as quick to puncture political pretensions. A reading of Kunchan Nambiar is enough to remind one of that tradition.

My earnest appeal to you is to return to New Delhi and focus on rebuilding the Congress at the national level. Should the party regain its footing, you could well play a role akin to that of Amit Shah to Rahul Gandhi. Let the elected MLAs in Kerala choose their leader from among themselves, as is proper in a parliamentary democracy.

In the end, leadership is not merely about ambition but about judgment—the wisdom to recognise where one’s presence is most needed, and where restraint serves both the party and the public interest. History, after all, is kinder to those who strengthen institutions than to those who strain them for personal advancement.

Yours sincerely,

A.J. Philip

Open letter to TN Governor

Let Vijay prove his majority in the Assembly

Dear Shri Rajendra Vishwanath Arlekar Ji,

Your insistence that Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam chief Chandrasekhar Joseph Vijay produce letters of support from 118 MLAs before being invited to form the government raises serious constitutional concerns. This is not merely a procedural matter; it goes to the very heart of the conventions governing parliamentary democracy in India.

Please remember that no Governor is expected to conduct a private headcount in Lok Bhavan.

I am sure you would have heard of the Sarkaria Commission, which laid down clear guidelines in 1988 regarding the role of Governors in a hung Assembly. These recommendations were not casual observations. They emerged from India’s repeated constitutional crises and from widespread concerns about the partisan misuse of gubernatorial authority.

The Commission clearly established an order of preference. If no single party commands a majority, the Governor should first invite a pre-poll alliance commanding support. Failing that, the next preference is the single largest party staking a claim with the support of others. The emphasis was always on enabling government formation and testing majority support on the floor of the House.

The crucial point is this: the Commission expressly warned Governors against trying to determine majority support outside the Assembly through subjective methods. The appropriate constitutional arena for proving a majority is the floor of the House, not the drawing room of Raj Bhavan.

The Governor’s role is not that of an election returning officer verifying signatures, nor that of a political auditor demanding documentary proof before even allowing the constitutional process to begin. Once a claimant appears reasonably capable of securing confidence, the proper course is to invite them to form the government and direct them to prove their majority within a stipulated time — preferably within 30 days, as suggested by the Commission.

This principle was later reinforced judicially. The Supreme Court recognised the Sarkaria recommendations as sound constitutional conventions. Again and again, the Court has stressed that the test of majority should be on the Assembly floor.

One must also remember the larger spirit behind these conventions. Governors are constitutional heads, not political gatekeepers. The Sarkaria Commission specifically noted that the Governor’s task is to ensure that a government is formed, not to engineer one according to personal preference or political comfort.

India has already witnessed the consequences of Governors exceeding constitutional restraint. From Andhra Pradesh in the 1980s to Karnataka, Maharashtra, Goa, and several northeastern states in recent years, controversies surrounding Lok Bhavans have repeatedly damaged public trust in constitutional neutrality.

Tamil Nadu has a particularly sensitive political history when it comes to Centre-State relations. Every action of the Governor is, therefore, scrutinised not merely legally, but politically and emotionally as well. Any perception that Lok Bhavan is imposing additional hurdles upon one claimant while favouring another can only deepen mistrust.

If Vijay’s claim is untenable, despite winning 108 seats on his own, the Assembly will reject him. That is how parliamentary democracy works. Legislatures decide majorities, not Governors through prior certification exercises. Please recall how A.B. Vajpayee was voted out on his 13th day as Prime Minister!

A Governor must act with constitutional humility. The office derives dignity not from discretionary assertiveness but from visible impartiality.

The people of Tamil Nadu have voted. The Assembly must now speak. If you have any doubt about the Governor’s role, please read the report of the Justice Kurian Joseph Commission, which your government had set up and whose report was submitted this year.

Yours sincerely,

A.J. Philip

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Constitutional Propriety, Political Morality and the Democratic Line: Senior Journalist A.J. Philip’s Open Letters to TN Governor and KC Venugopal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Video of the General Strike

From the paddy fields of Punjab to industrial belts in Tamil Nadu, from tea gardens in West Bengal to transport hubs in Uttar Pradesh, and across the National Capital Region in New Delhi, workers and peasants converged in a rare display of coordinated dissent. Coal miners downed tools. Electricity employees joined demonstrations. Banking and insurance services reported disruptions. In ports, transport depots and manufacturing clusters, protest meetings and road blockades signaled a shared disquiet.

The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) described the strike as “one of the largest ever General Strikes in the history of Independent India,” arguing that it cemented worker-peasant unity as the backbone of resistance to what it termed corporate-driven policies. Congratulating the Joint Platform of Central Trade Unions, the SKM said the action had instilled confidence among working people to resist “exploitative, corporate-oriented measures” and warned that if the Union government persisted with its trajectory, “more intensified, continuous, united pan-India struggles” would follow.

At the heart of the mobilisation was opposition to the four labour codes. But the anger spilled far beyond them. The SKM pointed to resentment against Free Trade Agreements, the proposed Electricity Bill, and the Seed Bill. Rural participation, it noted, was not symbolic but structural. “There was much more effective and widespread coordination than ever before,” the statement said, highlighting the large-scale involvement of women and rural workers. The issue of scheme workers — denied worker status and statutory minimum wages — figured prominently in protest speeches across states.

For the All India Kisan Sabha (AIKS), the strike was a “historic success,” with demonstrations reported at more than 2,000 locations nationwide. The organisation characterised the mobilisation as a warning to the ruling dispensation: withdraw what it called anti-people laws or face prolonged resistance. Participation, it emphasised, cut across organised and unorganised sectors, underlining the breadth of social discontent.

AIKS leader Vijoo Krishnan framed the moment as one of political clarity rather than episodic protest. “This unity of workers and peasants is not accidental,” he said. “It reflects deep anger against policies that privatise profits and socialise losses. The government must withdraw the anti-worker labour codes and anti-farmer measures. If it fails to listen, today’s strike will only be the beginning of a longer and stronger struggle.”

Significantly, the mobilisation was not confined to physical spaces. Social media became an extension of the protest ground. Hashtags trended across platforms, live videos from picket lines travelled instantly between states, and infographics explaining the labour codes and farm-related legislations were widely circulated in multiple languages. Leaders used digital tools not merely for publicity but for political education — simplifying complex policy questions into accessible, shareable content.

Farmers gather at Freedom Park in Bangalore on February 10 to launch an indefinite strike. Photo: Vijoo Krishnan/FB

Vijoo Krishnan and other SKM leaders conducted regular live briefings  in real time and amplified ground reports from district-level actions. Short video messages from protest sites in Punjab, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal created a sense of simultaneity — of a nation rising together rather than isolated pockets of unrest. In an era where narratives are shaped as much online as on the streets, the strike demonstrated that digital platforms can be harnessed to deepen organisational coordination and expand the moral reach of collective action.

Video of strike from Tamil Nadu

In Haryana’s Kurukshetra, where the SKM is scheduled to hold its National Council meeting on February 24, the emphasis is already shifting from assessment to escalation. The coming phase, leaders indicate, will be shaped both independently and in coordination with trade unions and agricultural workers’ platforms.

If the Modi led BJP – NDA government reads February 12 as a routine disruption, it may be misreading the mood. What unfolded across India was less a stoppage of work than a consolidation of resistance — an assertion that the grammar of economic reform cannot be written without the consent of those who labour in fields, factories and public services.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post February 12: Workers and Farmers Forge a Historic Axis of Resistance Across India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On December 19, rural India spoke in many accents—but with a shared unease. From drought-hit districts to tribal belts and agrarian heartlands, agricultural labourers and rural workers across the country held coordinated protests against the Viksit Bharat–Guarantee for Rozgar and Ajeevika Mission (Gramin) Bill, which replaces the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA). Organisers framed the mobilisations not as episodic dissent but as part of a longer struggle to defend rights-based welfare against increasing executive discretion.

Called by the NREGA Sangharsh Morcha, farm worker unions, and peasant organisations, the nationwide protests reflected widespread concern that a legally enforceable right to work was being replaced by a discretionary, mission-mode programme.

Maharashtra: “Without the Guarantee, Drought Becomes Death”

In several districts of Marathwada, groups of farm workers gathered outside tehsil offices, holding up job cards as symbols of survival.

“Here, farming depends on the monsoon and fate,” groups of agricultural labourers from drought-prone Marathwada districts said. “MGNREGA meant at least food when crops failed. Without the guarantee, drought becomes death.”

Workers said that while wage delays had become routine, the legal right to demand work still provided leverage.

“Earlier, we could demand work or unemployment allowance,” workers from Beed and Osmanabad districts said. “Now everything will depend on the mood of officials.”

Jharkhand: “From Right to Request”

In Ranchi, protests drew participation from Adivasi workers from Khunti, Gumla, and Simdega districts.

“MGNREGA allowed us to stay in our villages instead of migrating,” Adivasi workers from central Jharkhand said. “If the guarantee goes, migration will return.”

Activists accompanying the workers said the shift from a right to a scheme would have lasting consequences.

“This bill turns a constitutional promise into a programme,” said Adivasi rights activist Dayamani Barla. “A programme can be stopped. A right cannot.”

Bihar: “Migration Will Increase Again”

In Patna, groups of construction and agricultural labourers linked the new law directly to distress migration.

“Every train to Delhi is full of workers from Bihar,” groups of rural labourers from north and central Bihar said. “MGNREGA reduced migration slightly. Removing the guarantee will push people out again.”

Women workers highlighted how the programme enabled local employment.

“MGNREGA allowed us to work near home and care for our families,” women workers from Gopalganj and Muzaffarpur districts said. “Without it, we will be forced to leave.”

Kerala: “Women Will Pay the Price”

In Kerala, where women form a significant proportion of MGNREGA workers, protests were led largely by women’s collectives.

“MGNREGA gave us dignity, not charity,” groups of women workers from Alappuzha and Palakkad districts said. “If wages become uncertain, women will be the first to lose work.”

Trade union leaders warned that replacing a rights-based programme with a centralised mission would undermine decentralised planning.

“This is a retreat from democratic governance,” said CPI(M) leader and former MP Elamaram Kareem. “Kerala’s experience shows that employment guarantees work when people can demand them.”

Tamil Nadu: “This Is About Control, Not Development”

Protests in Madurai, Tiruchirapalli, and Dindigul focused on the erosion of local decision-making.

“MGNREGA worked because panchayats had a role,” groups of rural workers from southern Tamil Nadu said. “This bill takes control away from local bodies.

Workers also pointed to rising costs of living.

“Food prices are rising every month,” women workers from Dindigul and Theni districts said. “If work becomes uncertain, survival becomes uncertain.”

Punjab: Farmers and Labourers Together

In Punjab, farmer unions joined rural labourers, framing the issue as part of a wider agrarian crisis.

“When labourers lose income security, agriculture weakens,” said Sanyukt Kisan Morcha leader Balbir Singh Rajewal. “This reflects the same mindset that pushed the farm laws.”

Protesting labour groups echoed the concern.

“Rural employment schemes support the entire village economy,” groups of landless labourers from Punjab’s Doaba and Malwa regions said.

Northeast: “One Law Cannot Fit All”

In Nagaland, protests organised by the Congress and civil society groups highlighted the region’s dependence on public employment.

“Our villages have few alternatives,” groups of rural workers from Nagaland said. “A uniform law ignores regional realities.”

Senior Congress leader K. Therie said the bill failed to recognise economic disparities between states.

Political Opposition: “Anti-Village”

Opposition leaders across parties amplified the protests.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi described the bill as “anti-village and anti-state,” arguing that development cannot be built by withdrawing guarantees from the poorest citizens.

“You cannot weaken the foundation and expect the structure to stand,” he said.

CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat said the legislation reflected a systematic dilution of labour protections.

“From labour laws to rural employment, guarantees are being steadily eroded,” she said.

Parliament vs the Streets

The protests coincided with dramatic scenes in Parliament, where Opposition MPs staged walkouts and overnight sit-ins following the bill’s passage. “ They rushed the law because they feared scrutiny,” said CPI general secretary D. Raja. “What Parliament avoided debating, the people debated on the streets.” Economists and labour researchers warned that replacing rights with schemes shifts power away from citizens. “ A scheme depends on budgetary discretion,” said social activist and economist Jean Drèze. “A right depends on law.”

What December 19 Revealed

As protests dispersed peacefully across states, organisers announced plans for sustained mobilisation.

“They can change the name and the structure,” groups of rural workers from Chhattisgarh and Odisha said while leaving protest sites. “But hunger does not change.”

December 19 did not reverse the VB-G RAM G Bill. But it revealed something harder to legislate away: rural India’s collective memory of what a guarantee meant—and its refusal to let that memory be erased quietly.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post “They Changed the Law, Aggravating Our Misery and Hunger” appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Ghazala Wahab on the Glorious Days of the Hindi Heartland appeared first on SabrangIndia.

We are gathered on the first anniversary of Comrade Sitaram’s passing away. Knowing that he was General Secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and that Marxism is the basic ideology which the communist movement follows, I thought I should take the subject of the applicability and indeed the application of Marxist concepts and methods to India.

It is true that Indian criticism and opposition to British rule precedes the communist critique of British rule in India. Because already from the 1880s, Dadabhai Naoroji and his colleagues were sharply criticizing the way India was being exploited by British imperialism. And while today one is devoting oneself to the Marxist critique of British imperialism in India, it is also proper to pay respectful tributes to our own national figures, pre-eminently by Naoroji and R.C. Dutt, but particularly Dadabhai Naoroji, who described in detail how British colonialism was exploiting India. And while they used polite words, their critiques stand valid today as they were at that time.

So when we pay tributes to the earlier scholars, the earlier nationalists, and earlier scholars abroad like Karl Marx himself and Frederick Engels, we also pay tribute to Dadabhai Naoroji and R.C. Dutt in particular for bringing out how Britain was exploiting India.

I am today specially concerned with Karl Marx and the Marxist approach to colonialism in India and its consequences. Karl Marx’s criticism of colonialism was of course included in Capital, Volume One, and also in the subsequent two volumes, and also in his articles contributed to the newspapers in America, which have been published several times, both earlier from Moscow and now also from other places, with one addition coming from New York in 1991.

The communist approach to colonial India precedes the communist movement in India because this approach was first initiated by Karl Marx in his articles from the 1840s onwards, and also by Frederick Engels, in which they pointed out how British imperialism was exploiting India. But from the 1880s onwards, Indian economists, particularly Dadabhai Naoroji and R.C. Dutt, developed that critique, and although they often used courteous words, their content was singularly effective against British justifications of their rule in India. Therefore, as we celebrate what Karl Marx said against colonialism in India, we should also celebrate what Dadabhai Naoroji and R.C. Dutt in the late 19th century all said in criticism and denunciation of British rule and economic exploitation of India.

I have a feeling, I think, that the tribute owed to them is not effectively or adequately recognized in our universities and educational institutions. And I think therefore it is time that we should look at what they found to be wrong and evil in the British exploitation of India. Their publications, both by Dadabhai and Dutt, begin from the 1880s, and they pointed out how India was losing annually a large amount of its income and wealth to Britain—the so-called tribute, the drain of wealth from India. They were therefore the predecessors of communist critics, of Marxist critics, of British rule in India.

Our own communist movement began really in this century. And in the 1920s, various communist groups appeared, particularly influenced by the Soviet revolution of 1917, and created communist groups. Here it is not my intention, nor do I have the time, to go into the various stages in which the formation of the communist movement took place, particularly after 1917 and the Soviet revolution. But it is best to remember that by the 1930s, the Communist Party of India, a single communist party of India, had practically been formed. It had already resisted British repression, the so-called Meerut Conspiracy Case of the 1920s and others.

I’m sorry if I make a diversion because of a kind of piece of information which has not been seen in print, because it came from one of the judges. My father, Mohammad Habib, told me that in the 1930s he went to see one of the judges, Mr. Justice Sulaiman. Sulaiman complained that he was not able to sleep, and my father asked him why. He was Vice-Chancellor, or Chancellor (I forget which) of the Aligarh Muslim University and a judge of the High Court, later on promoted to what was then called the Federal Court at Delhi. He told him that it was because of “these blessed communists.” When the trial took place, he found that they were innocent and he told the British lawyer that what he was saying was absurd—that what he was claiming the communists did was not physically possible.

Justice Sulaiman said he was then called by the British Chief Justice, who said, “Do you know, Sulaiman, your name is being set for the Federal Court,” to which he was appointed later, “and if you mess up this communist case, you know what would happen.” And therefore, Sulaiman said that although he modified the punishments, he upheld the punishments where he intended to say that the law does not justify this kind of case. And therefore, he said, the communists went to prison for a few years more. This was what he told my father, and my father generally communicated this to me when he was reminiscing about previous cases. I found that this was indeed the case: that Justice Sulaiman had modified on appeal the punishments to the communists, but he did not dispense with the punishments; he only reduced them. And soon after, he was appointed a federal judge at Delhi and also won the vice-chancellorship of the Aligarh Muslim University.

So all these things that take place in life have to be considered, and justice certainly was in harm’s way when the cases of communists, particularly the so-called Meerut Conspiracy Case, came before judges. They might reduce the penalty, but they did not expose the fraud. And today, I think whenever we observe or think about the past of the communist movement, let us also think of our predecessors who suffered for us during the ’20s and ’30s and ’40s. That is why I am bringing your attention particularly to the so-called Meerut trials which took place in the 1920s of communist leaders.

As far as the communists were concerned, along with some leaders of the Congress like Jawaharlal Nehru and others, they were not tolerated by the Congress leadership. Again and again within the Congress, there were conflicts between socialists—among whom at that time communists were also counted (the differences with the so-called socialists came later). Sometimes it happened that whenever Jawaharlal Nehru and his supporters shifted, the left even obtained a majority among the Congress delegates, to the consternation of Mahatma Gandhi himself. Well, these are things which relate to some other aspect of history into which I am not going.

But we should remember that by the 1930s, the communists were a fairly important component of the Indian National Congress and often in alliance with the socialists. After the 1930s, however, there was a singular problem posed by the communal division. I think the time has come when even that particular period, roughly from the 1930s to 1947-48, should be freely discussed within the communist movement.

Our difficulty, of course, was that the Congress and Muslim League were pulling in different directions: the Congress for immediate freedom (which communists shared naturally) and the Muslim League for communal division, which fitted ill with communist ideology. How can communists be divided according to whether they were Hindus and Muslims? But there our leaders took a decision which had consequences, and frankly, I think that we are now at a reasonable distance from the 1930s and ’40s. It is time to take a position on that particular problem.

Those of you, and I think there would be many, who have read R. Palme Dutt’s India Today—there’s a whole chapter on India in India Today because this was written in 1945 or so—in which R. Palme Dutt, the major communist spokesman of the time both in England and India, laid out why India should not be divided on communal lines. It’s one of the most effective chapters of his book on India. Either our readers did not read R. Palme Dutt carefully enough, or there were other reasons why the Communist Party at that time decided to treat the Congress and the Muslim League in the same way.

Of course, with the Congress we had difficulties and differences on the question of the war, where after the German invasion of Russia, our position was that the war effort should be supported, whereas the Congress had still a large amount of hesitation on that point. This is not the place to go into a discussion of that. But it is important to realize that after 1941-42, our position with regard to the war was very different from that of the Indian National Congress, and that was one reason for the division.

The decisions that we took under that division, in which we equated the Congress with the Muslim League, is, I think, one which all fair historians should now freely discuss. They were not the same. The Muslim League was a communal organization; the Congress was not. The Muslim League cooperated with the British; the Congress opposed the British. On what ground could we then say that they were the same? That Muslim communists should go into the Muslim League and the others to the Congress? It is time now, I think, to look into our own shortcomings of the ’40s. I believe that this was a wrong decision, that this indeed divided the communist movement on communal grounds.

I’m afraid my memory is very bad; I forget names. But in the 1960s, a very important politician of Pakistan came to our house. He had been my father’s student, and my father had been a supporter of the Congress and the Communist Party—a peculiar position which he held with aplomb because both the Congress and communists were at some time in the ’40s, in particular, at each other’s throats, but by making donations to them both, he kept them satisfied.

Anyway, this chap came in about, I think, the 1960s (I forget his name). He was secretary of the Muslim League, and he began to blame the Communist Party for his discomfort. He said, “I was all right. I was like any communist leader you have here. I did not go to mosques for prayers and all that, and yet the Communist Party sent me to the Muslim League. And because as a communist I had learned to administer and work well, they elected me secretary of the Muslim League in UP. And when the partition came, I didn’t want to go to Pakistan, but the party said that you must organize the party in Pakistan. So I went there, and there’s no party in the name of West Pakistan,” he was talking of, “and I’m totally lost.” And for some reason, he blamed the present communists, including me (and my father was not a communist but a donor to the Communist Party). And he said that “because you did not fight against the Muslim League properly, I have been lost to the communist movement, and I have been lost actually to any serious cause because in Pakistan I have no interest left.”

In any case, the communal problem was a particularly difficult one for the Communist Party. But its decision that Muslim communists should go to the Muslim League and Hindu communists to the Congress, I think, was a very bad decision, and I think we should freely discuss these matters of the past because they have always shadowed the present. We should recognize that to put Congress and Muslim League at one level was not only a mistake but a grievous one. There was a communal party and a national party. The Congress at least had a socialist program at that time; they called it socialist. We might not call it socialist, but it was for public welfare. The Muslim League had no such program. How could you then ask Muslim communists to go to the Muslim League?

And therefore, as I was saying, a student of my father’s, whose name I’ve unfortunately forgotten because now I’ve become very old, came to our house in the 1960s complaining that the Communist Party was responsible for his discomfort. He said, “I did not want to go to the Muslim League, but P.C. Joshi called me and said, ‘Since you are a Muslim and we have very few Muslims, and we want to have a voice in the Muslim League, you should go there.’ And because the Communist Party had trained me well, I soon became secretary of the UP Muslim League, and then [went to] Pakistan and became a High Court, a Supreme Court judge in Pakistan.” And he blamed all this for his departure from Marxism. He blamed all this on Comrade P.C. Joshi and his policy of appeasement of the Muslim League.

I think it is time, of course, when we are discussing the history of the Communist Party, to freely consider whether this decision of the ’30s and ’40s of equating Congress with the Muslim League, and in effect treating Congress as a Hindu organization—because once you say that Muslim communists go to the Muslim League, then you are treating Congress as a Hindu organization—this was an enormous error. I think there should be free consideration of how these things occurred in the history of our party.

I think, however, that there are also difficulties for the communist movement which we should recognize, particularly because when Germany attacked Russia, what should have been our attitude? The only socialist country in the world attacked by the leading fascist party of the world, the leading power of the world. Should we then continue to say that the war is an imperialist war, or should we say that the character of the war has changed from a war between two imperialist powers, Germany and England? It has become a war between the fascist powers—Germany and Japan—and the leading workers’ republic, the Soviet Union, and our neighbor, people’s China.

There may be many who might think that the decision our party took was a mistake. But we decided that the war had changed from an inter-imperialist war; it had become a people’s war once Russia was attacked and Japan intensified its invasion of China. There are many who think that this was a wrong decision, that it therefore put us outside the Indian national movement because, remember, this was the time of the Quit India resolution of 1942—a resolution which even today looks very awkward when you think that Japan was on the Indian frontier. Was it right at that time to say that the British should quit India? That there should be immediate movement and agitation for it?

If you look at Jawaharlal Nehru’s own papers, far from trying to oppose the British government at that time, he was thinking of how the Japanese invasion would be tackled by Indians, how they would fight Japanese soldiers. Japan was the enemy in his mind. But for some reason, when the actual Congress passed the resolution, Nehru also concurred. And I think it is proper for our part today to question the wisdom of the “Quit India” resolution of the Congress of 1942, which actually initiated the so-called Quit India movement at a time when the Japanese were on our borders.

And you know what was the Indian people’s response? The police terror was there. There were demonstrations, but nothing like the demonstrations when earlier Congress movements had taken place—nothing like those. So although the socialists, in particular, then began to use bombs and so on—even in the Aligarh railway station, two people were killed by a socialist bomb, night policemen, nothing but ordinary people on the platform—and these things occurred because of the Quit India resolution.

I think it is right to say that the Quit India resolution was mistimed, that it should not have been raised at that time, that the enemy—Japanese and German fascism—should have been identified as the main enemy, with the British to be tackled later. I think this is what we should say today. And this is what the Communist Party then said, and I think we should stand by what the Communist Party’s position remained: that the initial task, once Hitler had invaded the Soviet Union, was to defeat the fascist powers, and then later on to tackle British imperialism. I think one further matter which needs our attention is that the Indian freedom movement should not be regarded as purely Indian; that we had friends in Britain. The British Labor Party had said even during the war that if it came to power after the war, it would free India. There had been, as you know, British communists who went to prison in India in the 1920s and early 1930s.

My wife and I were present at the funeral of one such British MP whose daughter, to our surprise, didn’t know that her father had been in an Indian jail for supporting the Congress movement. When we told her this, she was greatly surprised because, you know, it is one of the customs of the British that they don’t boast. So the father had never boasted about his imprisonment in India to his own daughter. When we told her about it, she was very gratified, but by that time, her father had been buried. Unfortunately, I’ve forgotten the name of the Labour MP. We still remember there was such a time. At his funeral—because he had gone to prison in the Meerut Conspiracy Case—the British High Commission, because of Mrs. Pandit, I think, sent a very large wreath to his funeral, and the wreath said, “Gratitude of India.”

Now clearly, the Indian national movement had its friends abroad, and today also we should honour them. As I’ve said, three British MPs went to prison in India for their support of the Indian National Movement. Today we are observing the memory of our past, deceased communist comrade. I think that while it is of course proper that all of us have assembled to celebrate and observe his memory, it is also important that we should also further support the cause for which he had stood: the cause of socialism and people’s democracy in India.

Before closing, I would say that both socialism and democracy are priceless values. One can’t be of value without the other. To think that socialism can be imposed by a dictatorship is, I think, a fallacy. And therefore, in India today, we should not only propagate socialism, but we should also propagate full democracy—that India should have a socialism which its people want, for which we have convinced its people. And today, as we observe the demise of a very precious comrade of ours, a major leader of our party, let us also consider within ourselves (I would not say take a pledge) but consider within ourselves how we can promote the further improvement of the cause of reason and socialism in this country, and how we can bring about a socialism which is, as far as possible, accepted by the vast majority of our fellow citizens.

Well, I think I have said what I wish to lay before you. Nothing is novel there; nothing innovative. But I think a reminder of these particular points should also have a place here. And therefore, while ending, I request you to consider, if you have not already considered, the points that I have raised.

Thank you.

Read the Malayalam translation of the speech here

Video link of the speech:

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Protection of Democracy and Socialism Is The Way to Remember Yechury appeared first on SabrangIndia.

He is joined by his daughter Ananya Kasaravalli and moderator Anand Haridas. This conversation is published by The AIDEM in two parts.

Courtesy: The AIDEM

The post Girish The Master Filmaker and His Art | KaIFF | The AIDEM | Part 01 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

One commonly heard statement is that – ‘when the Constitution was first formulated, when Indian democracy started, for the first 10-15 years there was one nation, there was one election’. However, the events of 1956 paint a different picture. Nehru’s dismissal of the Kerala government led to a by-election, marking a significant shift in the political landscape. While history shows that simultaneous elections were once the norm, the dissolution of governments in Kerala sparked midterm elections. In 1971, Indira Gandhi further separated Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections, setting a precedent for separate elections to be held since then. This historical context sheds light on the evolution of India’s electoral process over the years.

Now, when they say work comes to a standstill, as I said, model code doesn’t stop any work except new policy, new schemes. As elections are taking place in Delhi, tell me is your life here in Thrissur getting affected? Do you even know that an election is taking place? You would not know, even if the election was to take place in your neighboring constituency. It may be said, ‘look, elections are happening all the time’. It may be happening all the time, somewhere or the other, because India is a big country, but it is important to recognize that firstly, the impact of elections is localized to specific constituencies for a limited period of time and secondly, we have been doing multiphase elections (seven phases).

Previously, I defended the multiphase election system, but now I say that it is high time we revert to single phase elections for these reasons. The rationale behind conducting multiphase elections may not be widely understood, as Kerala has consistently held single-phase elections. However, Maharashtra, which previously conducted elections in a single phase, recently divided it into four phases, with only one phase held last month. This raises questions of consistency and integrity in the electoral process. Is this approach not contradictory and lacking in transparency?

If you wanted a simultaneous election, but where it used to be simultaneous you staggered them into four because it suited you. So, this proposal lacks sincerity. Now the only reason why we do multiphase elections is because we do an analysis of the booths (we have 1 million booths). There are some normal booths, some sensitive booths, some hyper sensitive booths. Hyper sensitive booths require more advanced security, sensitive ones require normal security, and normal booths can manage with policemen.

Now, paramilitary forces were introduced by Mr. T.N Seshan in the ’90s. Their availability used to be limited, we used to see whether the available forces could take care of all the sensitive booths, they could not. So, we had to recycle them. We used to circulate them from one booth to the second, to the third, to the fourth, with the same force so that it was used up to 5-7 times. Now, the experience has changed. These forces take four to five days to pack up and move and reach the new place and deploy, but the ‘gundas’ who used to capture booths travel in their swanky SUVs in 4 hours.

So, having multiple phases is proving to be counterproductive and more so specifically, in the age of social media, where in 3 minutes the country can be set on fire on the basis of a rumor and with the rise of artificial intelligence they can even create fake videos, fake rumors. Therefore, it is in our interest as well as in the interest of good elections, to compress the election and come out very quickly instead of prolonging it indefinitely, almost two and a half months, three months. We can do it in 32 days. I’ve mentioned in several articles, we can do it. Law requires 26 days, we can give 3-4 days extra for political parties to decide the candidates. But they don’t talk about it, they don’t even look at these proposals because it does not serve to fulfill their vested interests.

Now what is the Election Commission’s stand? For the Election Commission it is a brilliant idea. Why? Because the voter is the same wherever you go, whether it is Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha or Panchayat, voters are the same. Where you go to vote, the booths are the same, the people who set up those booths, the District Administration, are the same. Security operators, they are the same. Therefore, conveniently, we create a safe booth for you and instead of pressing one machine, you press three machines. So, we conduct elections once in 5 years and play golf for 5 years, but our convenience and our comfort cannot be the concern. Our job is to conduct elections wherever it is happening; if it is happening all the time, somewhere or the other, that’s our job. So, whose time are you trying to save we don’t understand.

When the proposal was referred to the Parliamentary committee they also could not come to a conclusion, it went to Niti Ayog,who also suggested a two-phase election spanning two and a half years. Now, what is the big deal if you are not able to achieve one election in five years and you wanted two and a half years? What is the benefit? What is all this fuss about? Now, one thing which they have been saying is that in simultaneous elections, an argument is given, that the causes, the issues get mixed up. When you are voting for your Lok Sabha MP, you have some other issues in mind, like the Ukraine policy and what should be our policy in Gaza, and what should be our policy towards the Middle East and America. But when you’re voting for your Sarpanch, what is the issue before you? The drain in front of your house which is stinking and so when you are voting for your Sarpanch, would you be looking at Ukraine policy? You would only consider local issues, but, if you merge the elections, the local issues will get subsumed by the national issues, which is wrong. Because the issues cannot be allowed to be subsumed but they say– ‘…no no people are very intelligent, voters are very intelligent, look at Odisha, in the same election for Lok Sabha they voted one party and for Vidhan Sabha they voted another party’. Although, it was not the case this time as they voted for the same party. This is what they have argued.

There is a study which is stunning, done by an organization called IDFC Institute and they analyzed voting behavior over 16 years on 2,600 assembly constituencies over 16 elections and what did they find? That if there is a simultaneous election, the voters have a 77% chance of voting for the same party. But when it is staggered it comes down to 61% and additionally, if it is staggered by longer duration it changes the result totally– an example of which is Delhi. The Aam Aadmi Party got 67 out of 70 seats in the Vidhan Sabha election, 6 months later, in Lok Sabha, all seven seats went to the BJP. This has happened twice.So, to say, staggered elections are better because the local issues and the national issues do not get mixed up and to say that the voter is intelligent, he or she votes consciously for different levels, is wrong and this study proves the point.

The final aspect to consider is the committee led by former President Kovind. When the government faced challenges in reaching a consensus, they established a high-level committee with former President Kovind at the helm. It is important to note that involving a former President in political activities is ethically questionable. The President serves as the head of the country and should remain apolitical. By appointing him to lead a government committee, we risk compromising the integrity of the office.

It is naive to assume that simply because a former President is heading a committee, the public will unquestioningly support their recommendations. On the contrary, it is likely that there will be criticism.

What this committee did well and very quickly was talk to all political parties, they invited suggestions from the people, and they received 21,000 representations. This committee said that 80% of people supported simultaneous elections but the critics point out that this result is skewed because the proforma which was sent to the people was only in Hindi and English. If sent in Malayalam, the result would have been different. If sent in Tamil, Telugu, and Kannada, the result would have been different. Seeing it was sent only in English, the responses came only from the Hindi speaking people. Therefore, this is also not a great figure to talk about. Then, of the 47 political parties who responded, 32 supported simultaneous elections but were all from NDA. They supported it and all 15 parties opposed it because they belonged to the opposition. Our sources indicate that while the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) may publicly support certain actions, privately they may view them as an attack on federalism. For example, if the Kerala government and Chief Minister were to consider dissolving the assembly, this decision would ultimately be subject to approval by the Lok Sabha. If the Lok Sabha were to be dissolved, all other state assemblies would follow suit.Why should this happen? Consider the scenario of holding simultaneous elections – many of you may recall the Vajpayee government falling in just 13 days. If it happened once, it could happen again. If the Lok Sabha were to dissolve, would we then be required to hold elections for all 28 states simultaneously? Why should the well-being of individuals across the country be impacted by political events in Delhi, caused by a party’s betrayal or any other unforeseen circumstances?

As the saying goes– ‘Don’t try to repair something which is not broken’. Similarly, the system is working and if you tinker with it, chances are that you’ll probably create problems. You’ll break the system.

The bill currently under consideration includes references to five Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, I will be discussing Article 182A, which is a key addition to the legislation. This article states, “Notwithstanding anything contained in articles 83 and 172.” Article 83 pertains to the duration of the Lok Sabha, while Article 172 addresses the duration of a legislative assembly, both of which specify a term of five years. However, Article 182A introduces a new provision that states when the Lok Sabha is dissolved, all members will also be dissolved. This raises questions about the necessity and implications of such a provision.

Furthermore, despite being a high-level committee, what was the stance taken by this committee? The committee stated that when referring to simultaneous elections, they are specifically addressing the Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha elections, excluding Panchayats. This raises the question – what is the rationale behind this exclusion? If Panchayat elections are conducted separately, it no longer aligns with the concept of simultaneous elections. This deviation undermines the objective of streamlining the electoral process.

The second point raised is regarding the simultaneous holding of Parliament elections and Vidhan Sabha elections, while Panchayat elections are to be held separately after a period of 100 days. It is important to note that any election held after this 100-day period is considered a new and distinct election, necessitating a completely different set of arrangements.

Consider the sheer number of individuals involved in the electoral process – approximately 15 million government employees, school teachers, and junior staff members. Requiring them to participate in multiple elections within a short timeframe can lead to fatigue and inefficiency.

Have you ever served as a presiding officer or polling officer during an election? If so, would you be willing to undertake such duties again within a span of 300 days? The idea of simultaneous elections loses its appeal when elections are separated by such a significant time gap.

The committee tasked with examining this proposal was not given the opportunity to thoroughly evaluate its advantages and disadvantages. Instead, they were simply instructed to find a way to implement it. The recommended Constitutional Amendments and legal changes fail to address the concerns raised by critics, including the high costs and potential policy paralysis associated with the proposal.Numerous individuals, including writers, politicians, lawyers, and constitutional experts, have expressed reservations about the necessity of altering the current electoral system. The proposal, in its diluted form, lacks the moral authority needed to justify such sweeping changes.

But this kind of stubbornness is disturbing the Constitutional scheme of things, this is surely an attack on federalism of the country.The determination of your political future should be left in the hands of your state’s people, rather than being dictated by the central government. This principle forms the foundation of our democratic system. As this issue is brought before the Supreme Court, we remain hopeful that they will recognize any flaws in the proposed legislation. In 1973, the Supreme Court established the concept of the basic structure of the Constitution. This principle asserts that while the Constitution can be amended, certain fundamental elements cannot be altered. The basic structure is parliamentary system of election, not presidential election. The basic structure is federalism. The basic structure is secularism. These pillars of our democracy are essential and must be upheld, even in the face of parliamentary acts or constitutional amendments.

This article was first published on The AIDEM

The post The History and Politics of the “One Nation, One Election” Idea (Part 2) appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The origins of the ‘One Nation, One Election’ had begun with discussions about simultaneous election. This had gone on fir many years and even before Mr. Modi became the Prime Minister. He talked about the idea of holding simultaneous elections in a 2013 (BJP) party meeting, while addressing party workers.

But he was not the first to talk about this idea; in 2010 Mr. L.K. Advani had written about it and even earlier, a Law Commission Report had talked about it. And long long back, Mr. Vasant Sathe of the Congress party had talked about it. So, Mr. Modi actually only flagged the issue and significantly, he asked for a national debate on the subject and for arriving at a consensus.

Debate happened for 10 years, but consensus did not happen. The logical conclusion should have been if there is no consensus you should drop the idea. Then the government decided that even if there is no consensus we are going to push it down the throat of the nation and they brought this bill. They introduced the bill in Parliament which is going to be discussed soon. Which is what makes the subject very topical, although discussion on it has been going on for 11 years.

Now, originally when the Prime Minister talked about it, what are the things he had said? He said the cost of elections is so high and we have repeated elections and it becomes a very costly thing. The cost referred to here means two things– cost to the Election Commission or the government for managing the election, which is just about Rs 4,500 crore. This is nothing for a democracy of our size. We are the fifth largest economy in the world. The other is the cost of politicians with their campaign; in fact that is where the problem lies. There is a law prescribing a ceiling on election expenditure. You can’t spend more than the ceiling, which is revised from time to time.

For Vidhan Sabha it must be about 40 lakhs, but we know for fact that people are spending crores on every election. Whether Panchayat elections or Vidhan Sabha or Lok Sabha, they are spending crores in violation of the law. It has become so that only the rich people can contest. Poor people cannot contest elections anymore now.

One anomaly here is that while the law prescribes a ceiling on individual expenditure, there is no ceiling on expenditure by the political party. If I am a candidate and as a candidate I can’t spend more than 40 lakhs but my party can spend 40 crores on me, so what is the purpose of the ceiling? It gets defeated. So, I have been suggesting that if you are so conscious of the cost why don’t you put a ceiling on political party expenditure? The cost will come down drastically and instead of this long route of ‘One Nation, One Election’, we’ll have an easy solution. But that is not their intention.

Now, as I said initially they used to talk of simultaneous elections but later on they introduced the word ‘Nation’– ‘One Nation’. The moment you talk of nation, our patriotism gets aroused. So, for that purpose One Nation One Election. Now, India is a unique nation. It’s the most diverse country in the world, it’s a mini Commonwealth with 22 official languages. Here (at Thrissur) I was hearing Malayalam, yesterday in Chennai I was hearing Tamil, that is not what we hear in Delhi, we hear Hindi.

So, India is a mosaic of cultures, a mosaic of languages of all varieties and that is the beauty of India. America is a big country also, although it is one fourth of India in size, but from East coast to West Coast, it has the same language. Russia is huge, has 11 time zones, but the same language throughout. But here we have 22 official languages and hundreds of other recognized languages. Every major religion of the world we have in India.

The plurality of India is our asset, it is our unique aspect which we should be proud of and not disturb. But the attempt being made now with One Nation One Election is to carry out this very disturbance.. In fact, in one of my articles, I said that the next slogan will be ‘One Nation, One Political Party’, ‘One Nation, One Leader’. And why have elections every five years? Appoint leader for life. What is this– in the name of One Nation? One nation and many people, one nation and many languages, one nation many cultures– that was our national slogan all through and that is being played around with now and that’s very wrong.

The second reason given for one nation one election or simultaneous election proposal was that it leads to work paralysis, as the work (of the nation) comes to a standstill because of the Model Code. That is a lie. I will request all of you and as many of you who can, please download the Model Code of Conduct. It is 10-12 pages of small reading when you look at the overall functioning of the Election Commission. It does not stop anything, except two things– you cannot announce a new policy and you cannot make transfers after elections have been announced.

Now, you are talking only about a new policy, why is it that they say– because of this Model Code we cannot do public good? We cannot announce policies? Who stopped you from announcing new policies for 4 years and 11 months? Why is it that all the bright ideas for new policies come to your mind 2 weeks before elections? It’s totally illogical. So, nothing really stops.

In fact, when I was in the election commission we have repeatedly called ministers, along with the Cabinet Secretary Mr. Chandrashekhar, who was originally from Kerala. He used to say to please tell the ministries not to stop anything, because the model code doesn’t expect to stop anything, other than new schemes and official transfers. If you have to transfer, you can do it before but not after the elections have been announced.

The other thing or argument is about the party workers’ time. What is party workers’ time for? For electioneering. So, because of the election their work stops. What stops? Maybe the hate speech, maybe the polarization, all the kind of activities which they were doing and are not able to do. But elections are a great opportunity for them to polarize the country, they’re doing it regularly. The important thing is, the Prime Minister mentioned very clearly that when we’re talking of simultaneous elections, we’re talking of all three levels– Lok Sabha, Vidhan Sabha, and the Panchayat. But you would notice if you have been reading the newspapers and watching the media, the debate forgot about Panchayat and they were only talking of Lok Sabha and Vidhan Sabha.

How can you ignore Panchayats? Lok Sabha has 543 MPs, Vidhan Sabha all together have 4,120 MLAs, but Panchayats have 30 lakh members of Panchayat. That is the major part of democracy, how can you brush it aside? Constitutionally they are as important as Lok Sabha elections, but from the debate it disappeared.

Now, after the suggestion was made, a parliamentary committee went into it and they also talked of massive expenditure on Election, and about stoppage of the delivery of essential services. But there are some political leaders here, who would agree that our experience is that during elections, services improve. When an election is being held in the constituency they will make sure you get electricity nonstop. They may cut electricity in the neighboring District and transfer it to you. Everything will improve and to say that because of the election the service delivery gets affected is wrong; it improves and because of so many announcements and the freebies that come along with.

But along with this we should also note that when elections are staggered, it leads to more corruption because money is used in the elections. Unaccounted money, black money, distribution of liquor, etc. Casteism is also promoted; 70 years ago we hardly knew about caste, many people did not even know their caste, and now because of the election they know their sub caste and sub caste within sub caste. Everything they know because that is how the vote banks are created.Communalism also increases; you would have noticed, that close to election communalism increases to polarise the community.

There is a book which I have written– ‘Population Myth’, ‘Islam, Family Planning, and Politics in India’, and here is a small observation which I had made– ‘Are Muslims overtaking the Hindus?’; that is the slogan they are mouthing constantly – ‘you know the Muslims are going to overtake 80% of the people’, the Hindus are being made scared of 14% people. This is unique in the country, 80% of people are scared of 14%, a small segment of people. Every day they say, ‘these guys, they will kill you’, and it is leading to polarisation. Polarisation has become a winning electoral strategy.

Now, the arguments against– I was attending one meeting where Biju Janata Dal MP, Mahtab, made a very interesting statement. Now he is in the BJP; he said– ‘…have we asked the people? What do people want?’. He said, people love frequent elections. Why? Because for most poor people, this is the only power they have. At least because of the election the leaders come with folded hands to their door, otherwise we have seen how many times the MLAs and MPs go missing for 5 years, they don’t come back. People have to put posters in the streets– “missing, finder will get 50,000 Rupees”, because they never come back. But, at least on account of frequent elections of all kinds, they come back to your door. Therefore, free staggered elections actually is not a bad idea.

Now, the estimate of the 2019 election by the Center for Media Studies was Rupees 60,000 crores were spent by the political parties. Personally, I feel that this expenditure is not a bad idea, this is recycling of the politician’s money which goes to the poor, to the labourers, to the auto drivers, to the people who make posters. At least the money is being circulated instead of lying in trunks and suitcases of the politicians. And what is 60,000 crores? No big deal. In any case, I’ve told you that if you really want to reduce spending, that is to device ways and means to cut political party expenditure.

End of part 01. Part 02 to be published on 4 February 2025 

Full Speech is available on The AIDEM YouTube Channel

The Article was first published on The AIDEM

The post The History and Politics of the “One Nation One Election” Idea (Part 01) appeared first on SabrangIndia.