Democracy is a system of society won after long and intense struggles. The preceding society had mostly Kingdoms. A typical kingdom was an alliance between the Feudal lord-King and clergy. While clergy was representative of the religious power, the king was presented as the son of God whose decisions and actions had the sanction of clergy. Clergy very cleverly cultivated the concept of heaven (Swarga, Jannat) and hell (Narak, Jahannum).

Those obeying to the king-clergy combo were doing Punya, Sawab, virtue and were adding to their positive points for deserving heaven, while the act of disobedience to these twin authorities were getting negative points, paap, sin, gunah. The sum total of negative and positive points determined whether one deserves heaven or hell.

With democracy coming with lots of hiccups, the Kings were replaced by the elected leader, who is bound by the set of laws, mostly outlined in the constitutions.

There is lot of variations in the process of transition from kingdoms to democracy. Democratic process is not static and there are many factors which can reverse the process with the head of state assuming total powers and at places getting legitimacy from the religious authority.

This needs a brief recall as in some of the countries globally, and particularly in South Asia, the hard won democracy is being replaced by authoritarianism laced in the language of religion (Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Pakistan and India). At places the Supreme Leader assumes the twin roles of head of the state and chief priest both, as being seen currently in India in particular.

There are no uniform patterns. We earlier saw Indira Gandhi being hailed as Goddess Durga, when she led the country in the 1971 war against Pakistan, which led to the formation of BanglaDesh. She herself ignored this ‘honor’ being bestowed upon her. Divinity was not on display in her pronouncements or actions.

Narendra Modi, the present Prime Minister, is very different. To begin with he is a Hindu nationlist, a trained Pracharak of RSS which has the goal of Hindu nation. Such sectarian nationalisms have the avidity for dictatorships under the cover of religion or race. The promotion of a great image for the top leaders is part of the religious nationalist project.

Such nationalisms do preferably need a charismatic leader, whose position is made above questioning due to the aura created around them. As Narendra Modi became the Chief Minister of Gujarat, the exercise of creating charisma around him began.

On one hand APCO, an image creating firm, was hired to create his powerful image. On the other hand, his childhood was also glorified to back up his image. A comic book was published, ‘Bal Narendra’. In this the story was elaborated that while as a child, when playing with his friends, he entered the river to retrieve the ball and along with the ball he also brought a baby crocodile.

With his taking over as the Prime Minister, the Cabinet system, Prime Minister is first among equals, was replaced by all powerful Prime Minister, with Ministers’ powers reduced abysmally. No doubt he called himself, Pradhan Sevak (Chief servant of Nation).

His participation in religious functions and places of worship increased. With the media being taken over by his corporate friends, his image as a great ruler was deliberately created.

This trend continued and in the 2019 elections, he was presented as Chowkidar (Security Guard of the Nation) as more and more of national assets were given over to his favorite industrialists. His longings for becoming the head of religion were gradually surfacing as seen in the consecration ceremony of Lord Ram idols. In this he combined the roles of head of the state and the head of religion.

The concentration of power in his hands is more or less too strong by now. On the top of this as he is campaigning for the 2024 Parliament elections he has stated in an interview: “When my mother was alive, I used to believe that I was born biologically. After she passed away, upon reflecting on all my experiences, I was convinced that God has sent me. This energy could not be from my biological body, but was bestowed upon me by God. I believe God has given me abilities, inspiration, and good intentions for a purpose… I am nothing but an instrument. That’s why, whenever I do anything, I believe God is guiding me”.

He also stated that “those who will vote for me will get the punya of what good I do.”

What good has Modi been doing? Subversion of democracy, making policies for the benefits of his cronies, marginalizing Muslims and Christians, glorifying the values of hierarchies of ancient times, among others, are major outcomes of what he has been doing.

This statement is also a delayed response to the godi media anchors who have been asking him: from where do you get so much energy? While those around him have no spine to question him on his policy failures, they also add up in taking his image a few notches up.

Already many of his devotees like Kangana Ranaut are calling him as the reincarnation of God. Now he himself is convinced that he is so and that is the source of his endless energy.

One does know that all other dictators also present themselves as being God or His emissaries but there is one dictator, who believed in his being God. Interestingly he himself enunciated this in a book, ghost written by him. He is none other than Adolf Hitler. His biography, ‘Adolf Hitler: His Life and Speeches’ was published in 1923. It compared him to Jesus Christ. It mentions German aristocrat and war hero Victor Von Koerber as the author. One research scholar has shown that it was Hitler himself who wrote this book to enhance his image.

We have a unique situation now. Chronology of Narendra Modi from crocodile catcher as a child, to behaving like Nero when the Gujarat carnage was going on, Pradhan Sevak in 2014, Chowkidar selling the nation’s assets from 2019 and now ‘sent by God’ — God incarnate with infinite stamina sleeping only three hours and eating only once as day as per his acolytes.

*Political commentator. Youtube, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Pinterest, My Website, My App

Courtesy: CounterView

The post From Pradhan Sevak to God’s emissary: Is Modi ‘following’ a Hitler legacy? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Collected Works sell sans Annihilation of Caste and the Riddles in Hinduism!

Who is afraid of the writings of Babasaheb Ambedkar? Both, the Modi and Phadnavis governments respectively; or so it seems.

For an average social scientist, Ambedkarite, a student of Indian freedom and inequality, when discussing Ambedkar and his most critical works, some names come immediately to mind.

These are, or are they or not, the Annihilation of Caste, or Riddles in Hinduism?  Even State and Minorities , Shudras and the Counter Revolution, Women and the Counter Revolution ?  Not for this regime(s) however. This government(s) – Centre and Maharashtra — would have us believe that the seminal or important works of this man are only his writings on the Roundtable Conference or his works related to Poona Pact, or his debates with Gandhi.

Now imagine a set of books, the official collection, copyright of which is with the Government of Maharashtra, re-branded as the (truncated) Collected Works of Bhimrao Ambedkar (CWBA) but without these seminal texts that cast a sharp and critical look at caste-ridden Hindu society.

This is exactly the farce that is being played out at India’s premier Book Fair currently on in the capital right now. The Delhi Book Fair. The Ambedkar Foundation, a Government of India body under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the sole publisher of Babasaheb’s writings and speeches in Hindi, is selling the Collected Works without 11 books from the set ! Among the missing books in the Collected Works in Hindi are Anhilation of Caste and Riddles in Hinduism.

The official explanation is that the Ambedkar Foundation is in the process of publishing a new set of the Collected Works –and in the intermediate period — this truncated Collected Works is what they have to offer to the readers. But none at the Foundation (whom this writer spoke to), knows exactly when the new set of books will be published. This is the status of the Hindi edition of the CWBA.

For the English originals, the situation is more complicated. As the Foundation has not received the No Objection Certificate or the NOC from the Maharashtra Government, the copyright holder of these works, the Foundation cannot publish the English versions of the CWBA. It’s intriguing that the Maharashtra government that holds the publishing rights for the writings and speeches of Babasaheb is resisting sending this NOC to the central government affiliated Foundation!

In the meanwhile, citizens of the country have no option but to buy a truncated set of the Collected Works.  These acts of the Modi and Phadnavis  governments come at a time when the year is being celebrated, nationwide, for the 125^th Birth Anniversary of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar. Prime Minister Narendra Modi himself has himself taken the lead in these celebrations. The Indian Parliament has held a two days special session to mark this occasion; a special commemorative coin has also been issued.

Is this celebration, then, just a façade for the Modi Government ? On the outside there are clever moves to appropriate Babasaheb; the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) have declared him a ‘thinker’ or a ‘Guru’. But in essence, while this shallow eulogising continues, the radical social scientist and critical thinker in Babasaheb is being white-washed.

Dr. Ambedkar, while delivering his concluding speech before the Constituent Assembly, had forewarned us about the problems with hero worship. This regime, adept at ‘event management’ is simply trying to appropriate an idol. By suppressing Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar’s critical works, the RSS driven regime is trying to rob the revolutionary essence contained in the writings of Babasaheb.  While both the BJP and the RSS want to appropriate Babasaheb, his writings are, in a sense, too hot for them to handle. As a symbol to garner votes, Babasaheb is a welcome appropriation to the Hindutva  pantheon. But their affection for him ends there.

Why are Ambedkar himself and the Ambedkarite movement a Catch 22 for the RSS and the Sangh Parivar ?  Because, it has always faltered in its dealings with the issue of Caste. The centrality of caste in the democratic discourse of Ambedkarite stream of thought is a stumbling block for the avowed objective of the RSS in establishing upper caste Brahamanic hegemony in the country. In the Anhilation of Caste, Ambedkar actually advocates the demolishing of certain Hindu religious texts to enable Hindus to be really free. His writings are therefore extremely problematic for any organisation that seeks to re-affirm or consolidate caste hegemony.

And therein lies the rub. With Ambedkar and his legacy of radical critical thought, a searchlight is shone on aspects of the Indian (read Hindu) social and political structure that reactionary forces like the RSS and the BJP would prefer to conceal. In this year of the 125^th Birth Anniversary of Ambedkar, the choice is clear. Dr BR Ambedkar’s writings and thoughts need to be recognised in their completeness. In toto. By hollowing out his Collected Works of their seminal portions, the regimes in Delhi and Maharashtra seek to sanitise this legacy. A strong vibrant Dalit tradition will not so easily allow this mis-appropriation.

 Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches

(The writer is a senior journalist, former managing editor India Today group and presently researching at the Jawaharlal Nehru Univreristy (JNU) on Media and Caste relations)

The post Who is afraid of the writings of Babasaheb Ambedkar? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh stated that, the Delhi Police stopped people from attending the ‘We20 meeting’ organised by activists inside a building that belongs to the CPI(M). Ramesh has also tweeted that while he managed to enter at 10.30 am, before Delhi Police began its “operations,” but he had difficulty exiting.

The tweet can be read here:

It is extraordinary that Delhi Police is stopping people from attending the We20 meeting organised by activists representing We, The People, inside a building that belongs to the CPM. The meeting is perfectly peaceful. There are no street protests. I managed to enter at 10:30 am…

— Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) August 19, 2023

As per a report in The Wire, Political activist Kavita Kabeer, who was part of the organising committee of the event, provided that no prior permission was required as the event is being held in a closed hall. She further added that the police initially urged those attending to leave, but later restricted more people from entering the Surjeet Bhavan. As per a report in the Scroll, over 30 police personnel had arrived at the Surjeet Bhavan. Barricades were also placed around the venue, as per The Wire’s report. 

A public statement has also been released on the attempt to shut down the summit by the Modi administration. The statement provided: “In an unbelievable step, Delhi Police barricaded the gates to Surjeet Bhawan not letting anyone in around 11 am. This when Jairam Ramesh, Aneel Hegde, MP (RS), Medha Patkar (NBA), Vandana Shiva (Navdanya), Anjali Bhardwaj, Nikhil Dey, Thomas Franco, Shaktiman Ghosh and others were analysing how the Modi administration projected to the global leaders of G20 that he is governing India in the best traditions of liberal democracy. Why then was he afraid of a few hundred activists gathering to examine his claims in Delhi that he had to direct the police to disrupt the proceedings!!”

The statement further provides: “What’s happening in Surjeet Bhawan is how the situation is across India. People are not allowed to participate in meaningful democracy to question and hold accountable the Modi administration. Why, even Parliament has been stepped aside and laws that fundamentally protect human rights, environment, biodiversity, privacy, etc. have been rendered meaningless. Anyone who dares to question the government, be it an activist, a trade unionist, academic, even a Minister or Deputy Chief Minister, is targeted with fabricated cases and hauled through the tortuous process of criminal trials, and even locked up under draconian laws. This is how things are in India today.”

The complete statement can be read here:

On Saturday, individuals such Congress General Secretary (Communication) Jairam Ramesh, advocate Vandana Shiva, and Janata Dal (United) MP Aneel Hegde were scheduled to speak. Scheduled talks were on the following issue: ‘Does Modi Administration Really Deliver on Tackling Climate Change, to Protect Environment, Biodiversity & Associated Human Rights, as claimed with G20 & Other Global Fora?’ On the day of inauguration, the inaugural session was attended by a host of political leaders, movement activists, and civil society organisations including Teesta Setalvad, Medha Patkar, Jayati Ghosh, Manoj Jha, Harsh Mander, Arun Kumar, Brinda Karat, Hannan Mollah, Rajeev Gowda among others. Over 500 economists, activists, journalists and politicians from across the country are taking part in it.

A total of nine workshops were planned in the summit to deliberate on key issues pertinent to the G20 agenda such as agriculture and food security, climate crisis and just energy transition, rising inequalities, labour and employment, alternative ideas of development, democracy and dissent and more.

Related:

FIR against student Lois Sophia who shouted anti-BJP slogan on flight quashed: Madras High Court

Attack on freedom of speech: CPI(M) leader receives call from police over meme on Savarkar

IIM faculty members write an open letter to corporate India to ‘De-fund Hate Speech’

Attempts to control academic freedom gives rise to protest by faculty, Ashoka University and IISc an example

FIR against members NSIW fact-finding team, academics & activists

The post Delhi Police attempts to stop meeting critical of the G20 summit, restricts people from entering the venue appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On May 28, 2022, the Narendra Modi government completed eight years in power. This was also eight years of unprecedented social unrest and economic disasters, where the Indian economy plummeted and the dollar billionaires surged to capture the top positions in the Forbes list. It was also a period in which Indian polity and society has made disastrous shift towards a Hindutva fascist order in spite of a democratic, secular Constitution.

In fact, Modi and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chose May 28 as the D-day because it on this day their ideological mentor and the proponent of India as a Hindu Rashtra, VD Savarkar took birth. It was a kind of Gurukanike, a tribute to their mentor.

Still, it was during this period that the average rate of consumption of ordinary citizens of this country fell to the level of colonial period, the unemployment rate rose to a four-decade high. It is duringthis period that India was classified as Electoral Autocracy by V-dem Institute of Sweden for the fourth consecutive year. It is duringthis period that India’s ranking in the press freedom index collapsed to an unprecedented 150th position.

In the last eight years, especially in the previous three years the possibility of a genocide in this country has increased say global watch dogs. Genocide Watch, a human rights group, has increased the caution related to India from Genocide watch to Genocide warning. Despite this, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had the audacity to declare on the May 28, in his home state Gujarat, that his government has not taken any measures in these last eight years which made the Indians to bow their head in shame before the global community.

This article tries to recap only eight out of tens of such occasions where Indians had to bow their head in an utter shame before the global community.

1. Demonetisation Disaster: On the dreaded day of November 8, 2016, Modi gave a shock to the Indian people and also surprised the world bydemonetising 86% of the currency in circulation. This was followed by the pompous and theatrical justification as if it was an unprecedented and heroic attack on the black economy etc. In fact, this decision did not evolve out of serious consultation with experts, cabinet or even the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) which was kept in dark till a few hours before the announcement. The previous RBI governor had expressed complete disagreement with such shock and awe experiments on the already anaemic economy. The result was disastrous. Even though Modi declared that people may hang him in the public square if the hardship caused due to demonetisation is not mitigated within 50 days, the economic anarchy and decline set in by such a misadventure is still borne by the India’s informal economy where 92% of labour force work, and indirectly by the organised economy also. According to conservative estimates, India has lost 3% of its GDP due to this.

And what about gains? In the beginning Modi government claimed at least 25%(almost 4 lakh crores out of 16 lakh crore) of the demonetised currency will not return, and hence a solid one-time profit of that much for the economy. But by December itself 99.99% of the demonetisedcurrencies returned to the banks, which only showed instead of preventing black money, demonetisation has been used to launder the black money!

Then the goal post changed declaring demonetisation will promote digital transaction and reduce cash economy. But the recent RBI bulletin says that while at the time of demonetisation in 2016, 18 lakh crore currency were in circulation (C-i-C), now after 6 years of demonetisation instead of decrease in C-i-C, it has increased to 31 lakh crores. The other claims like decrease in terror funding etc. have fallen so flat, that the Modi government has stopped talking about it. India has resorted to demonetisation earlier too, in 1947 and 1977. But back then hardly 1% and 5% of C-i-C were withdrawn from the circulation. But Modi’s demonetisation withdrew 86% of C-i-C which was seen as a big economic disaster and misadventure by the global community. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and many credit rating agencies had not minced their words in criticising this act. Thus, India had to stand in shame before the global community for the sheer audacity and pomp of Mr. Modi and his coterie.

2. GST Debacle: Goods and Services Tax (GST) and Value Added Tax (VAT) are tools of neo-liberal economic order of regressive taxation where people are taxed on their expenditure and not based on their income. The GST elsewhere as such provide minimal tax slabs and maximum technological means to make the compliance easier. Thus, while the GST itself is exploitative tax order, the business prefers it because of the ease of compliance. Hence even the Indian ruling elite had consensus in shifting to GST and were preparing the economy for the same.

But the Modi government implemented the GST even without adequate administrative preparation or required awareness among the stake holders. Apart from this, Modi’s GST made the compliance most complex, since it introduced 8 to 10 tax slabs making it unique and the strangest GST system in the world. In fact, the economy which was already beaten badly by demonetisation, had to face another body-blow in this ill-prepared, regressive GST system hurriedly implemented by the Modi regime.

The main reason behind this urgency and the way parliament session was held in the midnight to pass GST amendment to the Constitution, seems to be Modi’s insatiable hunger for establishing himself as the sole game changer and as if Indian economy was having tryst with the destiny. The economist of all hues and many governments expressed their scepticism about the Modi government’s repeated theatrical acts which was proving detrimental to economy. India was shamed globally by these impetuous theatrics.

3. The (allegedly) False Claims aboutBalakot Air Raid: The dreadful Phulwama terrorist attack on the CRPF convoy on Feb 14, 2019 changed the course of the last general elections in favour of BJP. The attack itself relegated all the socio-economic agendas that were debated in the electoral discourse. The BJP used this situation, and was successful in portraying the need of strong state and a strong leader. Following the same mood and sentiments nurtured in the country there after, Prime Minister Modi ordered an attack on a terrorist training camp across the border in Pakistan. On Feb 24 2019, Modi government declared that the India has successfully conducted air raid on a terrorist camp in Balakot, destroyed it by killing hundreds of militants.

Immediately after this declaration, different cabinet ministers in the Modi government and various BJP leaders were in competition in claiming the number of militants killed ranged from 100 to 600. A Cabinet Minister even went to the extent of claiming that a military officer of Pakistan has accepted that more than 300 militants are killed in the attack. Even though this helped in achieving spectacular electoral victory for Modi’s BJP, the claims of Modi government and BJP party about Balakot was reported to be completely false by the independent and western media.

The media and even the US espionage agencies released satellite images which showed the Indian missiles which fell at least three kilometers away from the terrorist training camps, causing no damage to even to the trees in the vicinity. A Fact-Check site also proved wrong the claims of the cabinet minister regarding the Pakistani official’s acceptance of the loss. Thus, the Modi governments claims were proved untrustworthy before the global community.

Apart from this, the Pulwama incidents itself is wrought with many unanswered questions like:

a) how was the RDX was smuggled into interiors of Kashmir valley

b)how did a car carrying RDX remain unnoticed when such a big CRPF convoy was moving

c) the role of Dy. SP Davinder Singh who was arrested a few months later when he was escorting three Hizb militants helping them to cross the border.

4. The Galvan Misadventure: One of the biggest shames that India had to face under the Modi regime of last eight years is the India’s misadventure and shifting claims in the Galvan stand-off with China. India lost its soldiers in the skirmish between Indian and Chinese soldiers at the Galvan valley. Though there were competing claims about the first transgression between India and China, Modi government has been unsuccessful in providing the global community with sufficient proof of its claims.

While the Modi government claimed that the skirmish itself was to stop Chinese inroads into Indian territories, in the final outcome, India was compelled to change its original guard posts and bring them further into the interior, thereby surrendering the post originally held. Of late, there are also reports that Chinese are building second bridge on Pangong lake and a permanent village and highway near Arunachal border. Though Modi government made lot of noise about Chinese incursion and even banned few Chinese gadgets, China remains to be the one of top two trading partner with India and Indian imports from China exceeds Indian exports by four times. Thus, India under Modi failed in establishing its stake as a morally rightful contender in the geo-politics of Asia and provided China another opportunity to prove its domination.

5. The Bhima-Koregaon and Pegasus spyware: The Bhima-Koregaon arrests, instead of providing the conspiracy of the accused has been proving the conspiracy of the Modi government against political dissenters. The institutional murder of Fr. Stan swamy, one of the elderly people accused, by refusing to even provide a straw to an 83-year-old man suffering from Parkinson, and accusing him of conspiracy to kill the prime minister has brought India a great shame before the world. Even the UNHRC, Amnesty International and many democratic governments have condemned the way Modi government is dealing with BK-16. All these went to new height when the media houses like The Wire, Forbidden Stories, institutions like Amnesty brought out their report based on their one-year long investigation about the unconstitutional use of military grade Israeli espionage software, Pegasus, against its own dissenting citizens, press, and the activists from BK 16.

The reluctance and virtual refusal of Modi government to give answer to a simple question asked by the Supreme Court, as to whether Indian Government purchased Pegasus and used it, has completely exposed the culpability of the Modi government before the world and has brought India a great shame.

6. CAA,abrogation of Art 370, and hardline Hindutva: The ‘second coming’ of Narendra Modi government in 2019 was on an exclusive agenda of a strong and security state and a strong leader ostensibly to protect India, that is Hindu India. Thus, the state under Modi has become a pro-active Hindutva state and has unleashed legislative, executive and also extra-constitutional arms to exclude, marginalise and exterminate Muslims as citizens, and destroy their political and cultural existence and identity. Unfortunately, judiciary is colluding in this anti-constitutional project either by its silence or by Judicial endorsement.

Thus, equal citizenship, the founding principle of Indian Republic was undone by passing Citizenship Amendment Act and NRC. Muslims were targeted. The State, at all levels, behaved completely biased against Muslims during the protest against the same. Article 370, the bridge and not the wall, that was connecting Kashmiris with India was unceremoniously abrogated, Kashmir was brought under President rule, the political leadership was put behind bars and the internet was virtually banned for more than an year.

All these draconian and blatantly fascistic measures were condemned by even the US and Canadian governments and even European parliament. India under Modi was downgraded to an Electoral autocracy from an electoral democracy for the first time after India resolved to constitute itself as a secular democratic republic!

7. Tool kit fiasco, Covid mismanagement and Covid Death denials: During the Modi regime, India also had a great pride of historical farmers movement which is one of the most significant success stories of a wonderful people’s movement. It braved all the chicanery of Modi government, its draconian police repression, its attempts breed in feuds from within, its attempt to demonise the movement through its paid media etc.

In fact, it obtained thundering response from the global community including many western governments and civil society. International singers like Rihana, activists like Grata Thunberg and many more campaigned for the farmers. In one such attempts, Thunberg and her Indian associates created a tool kit of explanations about the reasons and goals of the farmers. Modi government tried to demonise these attempts as if the tool kit is anti-national, dreadful intended to violent overthrow of Indian government etc. Disha Ravi one of the activists associated with these efforts was arrested under sedition charges. All these draconian and autocratic measures of the Modi government made a greater damage to Indian image as democratic and responsible country.

The Covid mismanagement and the irrational and autocratic lockdowns and complete denials of the impact of the same by the Modi government also has spoiled Indian reputation. While Covid pandemic was unforeseen and the initial disorder, deaths and pains were inevitable, the countries which had strong and longstanding public health system and a responsive democratic governance could cope up in a short time and arrest further impact on their societies.

India which lacked both, had to further receive a beating by the irrational and autocratic lockdowns strictly implemented by the Modi government. Still Modi had the audacity to claim in WEF meeting in 2021, that India has emerged victorious in its battle against Covid and thereby saved not only India but also the whole world. But just two months after this pompous statement, the second wave of Covid engulfed the country. The impudent, myopic and the unscientific approach in dealing with the second wave of Covid, cost India more than 50 lakh lives. But the Modi government instead of mending their approach, is in a perpetual denial mode and is in verbal battle against the WHO and Lancet accusing them of exaggerating Covid deaths in India. This has once again brought India a great shame.

8. Ab Ki Bar Trump Sarkar: Probably the biggest disrespect Modi has shown to Indian sovereign Republic is when he campaigned in US for the Trump, giving slogans like “Ab ki bar TrumpSarkar”. By this Modi acted as a governor of one of the 50 provinces of USA and not as a head of an independent sovereign State. No prime minister from India or from any democratic sovereign country had overtly shown their state support to a political party in a country which is in the midst of electing its leader. This was widely condemned within the US and also all over the world and brought India the biggest ever embarrassment.

These are only eight examples of hundreds of episodes of international shame and disgrace the Modi government has brought to India in his brief eight years of misgovernance and pompous autocracy.

*Views expressed are the author’s own.The author is an activist and freelance journalist who was also a columnist for Gauri Lankesh’s publication.

Other pieces by Shiva Sundar:

How a state suffocated by Saffron got a new breath from Blue
Never Ever Forget

The post Modi’s eight years: Eight acts of shameful disgrace appeared first on SabrangIndia.

“The rich get richer and the poor get poorer” is an aphorism due to Percy Bysshe Shelley. “The rich have become richer, and the poor have become poorer; and the vessel of the State is driven between the Scylla and Charybdis of anarchy and despotism.” According to Zanny Minton Beddoes, Economics editor for the Economist magazine, “Growing inequality is one of the biggest social, political, and economic challenges we face. However, it is not inevitable.”

Inequality has been on the rise across the globe for several decades. Some countries have reduced the numbers of people living in extreme poverty. But economic gaps have continued to grow as the very richest amass unprecedented levels of wealth. The phenomenon of the rich becoming richer and the poor becoming poorer is not just evident in India; it is prevalent in every country. Globalisation has resulted in the widening of the gap between haves and have nots. The educated catches up with technological advancements while the uneducated are unable to keep pace with the rapid pace in science and technology. This has resulted in the educated getting better jobs in the city, while the poor are left behind in the society.

Poor people end up being trapped in the vicious cycle of poverty. To gain a higher standing in the society, it is important to get quality education. However, with the cost of education increasing at an exponential rate, lower income families are unable to send their children to good schools, forcing them to work at a young age for a living. The cost of living in urban areas in India has increased over the past few years, forcing many children to quit schools and join the workforce. Between 2013 and 2017, 71 per cent wealth in the country was appropriated by 21 per cent of the population, leaving 71 per cent of the population with just 29 per cent of the wealth. On one hand, development has increased, but on the other, so has conflict and disparities between the haves and have nots. This has resulted in the widening of the gap between haves and have nots.

Although the gap between the rich and the poor is increasing, a new group has emerged in between these classes, the great Indian middle-class changing the dynamics of the labor market. So, it is in our hands to reduce the gap between haves and have nots by ensuring the poor acquire good education, have access to health facilities, jobs, skills that are in demand in the market. Another major factor that further the rich poor divide in India in the recent times is demonitisation which had sent the entire country in a whirlpool of confusion & chaos. It mandated the creation of immediate interruption in daily lives. It shocked all as it was declared without any prior intimation. The chaos was created in every stratum of the society whether upper, middle or lower. Banking system was caught unawares as their ATMs were not calibrated for the new denomination notes. The introduction of the 2000-rupee denomination currency note has simplified the task of hoarding cash. Due to demonetisation, gross domestic product of India declined. 

A cursory review of the microeconomic effects has somewhat proved to be beneficial: first, the uncollected revenue at various corporations increased and second it was also a political move as it was a surgical strike on terror financing, forged notes circulation & black money. However, on the macroeconomic level large number of populations is considering this move as unfair due to the problems faced by them. Where some welcomed the move as it was seen for curbing black money, many suffered by this movement. But the supreme sufferers of this move were the informal sector of Indian economy, where cashless transactions are minimal. Informal sectors of Indian Economy include 106 activities like agriculture, workers in construction, local transport, community services and small workshops like shoe makes and garment makers, rural population and the urban poor and middle class. In a report by Azim Premji University, around 50 lakh people lost their jobs post demonetization.

The Goods Service Tax (GST)- reform, touted as a “game changer” and the “reform of the century”, was deemed worthy of a launch on the midnight of June 30, 2017 in the Central Hall of the Parliament. The enormous publicity that it received and the great gains spoken about the ‘one nation, one market, one tax’ by both the government and the captains of industry had raised high expectations. The over-optimism on its favourable consequences-built expectations which could not be fulfilled & has led to the second attack on the already fragile economy. It must be noted that petroleum products are excluded-they contribute over 35-40% of revenue from indirect taxes. It would be useful to simultaneously include petroleum products within the ambit of the GST, for the expanded base could offset the revenue loss due to the prevailing high rates on petroleum products. With multiple rates, it is not a simple tax and robbed much of the benefits from lower administrative, compliance and distortion costs. Having multiple rates was a sure recipe for disaster. Many small & medium businesses had to hire CA to file the GST returns. Many cottage industries went bankrupt. This also puts additional burden on administration, increases the compliance cost and the load-bearing capacity of technology needed for providing input tax credit with multiple rates by matching every invoice. Requiring the regular GST dealers to file 37 returns in a year raises anxiety on an unchartered territory. 

The coronavirus pandemic has dealt a huge blow to India’s middle and low-income groups. This is likely to further widen the wealth gap between India’s rich and poor. Taken together, these factors make it all but certain that if overall consumption has stagnated over the past five years, it must have declined in the lower-income reaches. This is of course the story of greater inequality, widely debated amidst the turbulence of the previous last five years post demonetization. The economic recovery is K-shaped, i.e., the better off are getting even better off, while the poor have got destitute. A Pew survey’s findings, reported that the numbers in India’s middle class have shrunk by as much as a third, with 3.2 crore slipping into the lower-income category while 3.5 crore have slipped from that category to join the ranks of the poor, whose numbers have therefore swelled. The economic recovery since, if it has not been accompanied by a recovery in employment and consumption, is almost certain therefore to be K-shaped. Hence the distribution of income and therefore the pattern of economic growth have become a matter of even greater than usual concern, and not just because of obvious humanitarian concern about those being left behind.

n 2014, for instance, the wealth possessed by the top 0.1% of India’s earning population grew at a faster pace compared to that held by 50% of the remaining population, according to the World Inequality Report 2018. “This rising inequality trend is in contrast to the 30 years that followed the country’s independence in 1947, when income inequality was widely reduced and the incomes of the bottom 50% grew at a faster rate than the national average,” the report said. However, led by privatisation, liberalisation, and disinvestment of the public sector over the years, the situation has changed dramatically, said the report based on a study by the economists Facundo Alvaredo, Thomas Piketty, Lucas Chancel, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman. In fact, inequality in India may be at its highest since 1922, when the country introduced the income tax. The report noted that the structural changes to the economy, with changes in tax regulation, appeared to have had significant impact on income inequality in India since the 1980s. This income divide continued through the 2000s, with the richest 10% of the adult population in the country controlling most of the national income by 2014. The bottom 50%, meanwhile, had control over only 16% of the country’s income. The rise and rise of a small pool of India’s uber rich population has worsened this divide. The ultra-wealthy alone, comprising 1% of the country’s population, controlled about 23% of India’s total wealth in 2014. That’s almost four times the 6% of the riches they controlled in 1982-83. Income inequality has been on the rise across the world, but the situation is particularly startling in regions such as the Middle East and in countries such as Brazil and India. India’s per capital gross domestic product increased five times between the years 2000 to 2019. This does not mean the income of the entire population has increased. The income has been concentrated with a few individuals only. The top one percent in India earned 21 per cent of the total country’s income in 2019.  The top 10 per cent earned 56 per cent of the country’s total income in 2019 & the bottom 10 percent earned only 3.5 per cent in India.  

Unemployment, poverty & debts in the Indian scenario

The pandemic-led economic crisis has exacerbated the rising indebtedness among India’s poor households, and could push more families into a debt trap. Even before the pandemic, debts had soared by 84% in rural & 42% in urban India. The latest All India Debt & Investment Survey (AIDIS) reported that household indebtedness and vulnerabilities have since increased substantially due to the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic. Household debt’s share of GDP has risen from 32.5% in 2019-20 to 37.3% in 2020-21. A further rise is being predicted for 2021-22 because of depleting bank deposits as families struggle with the burden of health expenses incurred during the second Covid-19 wave. The pandemic-led economic crisis has increased indebtedness among small entrepreneurs, farmers, domestic workers and marginalised communities. Between 2012 and 2018, the incidence of indebtedness increased by four percentage points in rural areas while the average outstanding debt grew significantly in both rural and urban areas by 84% and 42%, respectively. Rampant unemployment with many poor left with no means of earning.

What is stunning is that for the first time in India’s history of estimating poverty, there is a rise in the incidence of poverty since 2011-12. Since the majority of India’s population (certainly over 65%) is rural, poverty in India is also predominantly rural. Remarkably, by 2019-20, poverty had increased significantly in both the rural and urban areas, but much more so in rural areas (from 25% to 30%). Poverty has increased in the last eight years with the nation seeing the largest increase in the number of poor. The monumental blunder of demonetisation followed by a poorly planned and hurriedly introduced Goods and Services Tax, both delivered body blows to the unorganised sector and Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises. The economic slowdown followed. Consumption stagnated and household savings rates fell. Joblessness increased to a 45-year high by 2017-18 (by the usual status), and youth (15-29 years of age) saw unemployment triple from 6% to 18% between 2012 and 2018. Real wages did not increase for casual or regular workers over the same period, hardly surprising when job seekers were increasing but jobs were not at anywhere close to that rate. Hence, consumer expenditure fell, and poverty increased. There is widespread economic distress. There is crippling inflation in the country coupled with the historic high of all essential commodities. The common citizen & the poor find it difficult to get two meals a day. India’s share of the world’s extreme poor is higher than its share of the world population.

The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) scheme, the flagship programme of the previous UPA regime did help during the pandemic crisis. As many as 21 States/UTs have utilized by end of October over 100% of their allocated funds for the current financial year is not a surprise. The utility of MGNREGA as a scheme that alleviates distress has never been in question. It is an extremely important scheme specially to ensure economic stability of rural India. It has been acting as a life saver in aiding poor farm households, helping to provide wages during agrarian crises, to being an avenue for employment during the economic crisis induced by the pandemic.

Conclusion

The thrust of the development policy initiatives must focus on how to handle the inequality of opportunity. There are many indicators of inequality & our track record in each of them is a cause for concern. Given the glaring gulf of wealth inequality, higher rate of income tax & wealth taxes such as inheritance tax, gift tax, net wealth taxation for the billionaires can fund the welfare schemes for the poor & the needy. This will allow revenue generation to be invested in health, education, infrastructure which could create equality of opportunity. The disinvestment of Central Public Sector Undertakings (CPSUs), public sector banks, railways, cannot be a permanent solution in an economy where there is a sharp spike in inequality. Policy makers need to track the poverty pockets of India. Periodic studies may help them think seriously about the issue & they can come up with out of box ideas to reduce inequalities.

*Views expressed are the author’s own.

Related:

World Inequality Report paints stark picture of lives of “haves” and “have-nots” in India

India ranks 71 on Global Food Security Index

GOI rejects Global Health Index after India’s worst ranking ever

The post Kuch ka saath aur Cronies ka Vikas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Close to two years ago, 15 months after the Modi government was sworn to power, an unholy controversy had arisen over the Modi regime’s open moves to influence India’s Supreme Court. Then attorney general, Mukul Rohatgi had made a series of aggressive, even controversial arguments in the Indian Supreme Court arguing for a supremacy of Parliament over the Supreme Court.

((A version of this article was published in the Indian Express on July 18, 2015. It makes for crucial reading today.))

It is barely eight days since the 40th anniversary of the Emergency was commemorated. A dark period in independent India’s history, the formal declaration of Emergency was preceded by a period when the government of the day, bit by bit, in a sinister manner, eroded the independence of India’s Judiciary. The separation of powers on which the basic structure of the Indian Constitution squarely rests, is firm in the fundamental formation of both Judicial Autonomy and Independence. It is this judicial integrity, autonomy and independence that are under direct assault and severe threat today.

The tone and tenor employed by the current Attorney General, when he made his arguments in support of the National Judicial Appointment Commission (NJAC) are not only unbefitting of the post, but reflect the downgrading of the position of Attorney General that has been reduced, by successive governments, from a Constitutional Authority qualified to advise the Court on the fundamentals of the Indian Constitution and law (even if this, at time, militates against the act of a particular Government), to the reductionist role of a defence counsel, defending the policies and individuals within the government in power at the relevant time.

So, among other things, Rohatgi said, pushing for the NJAC as it stands today, that the Parliament is supreme in our system and even the Supreme Court needs to bow before it.

How inherently wrong this interpretation is. The appointment of Judges, their elevation to the highest position, as chief justices of high Courts and the ultimate one of the Chief Justice of India, their transfer among high courts of the land, all these moves manifest the inherent powers which must be both autonomous and independent. Appointments and transfers cannot be at the behest of any government though in a democracy, the government and the opposition must play a significant role. That the present system requires course correction is true, that the appointments of judges needs to open itself to scrutiny and tests of representation is also valid, but the new path charted must answer to tests of transparency and accountability, not further obfuscate them.

Once before, between 1973 and the actual declaration of Emergency on June 25, 1975, we experienced the brute overreach of executive power, manifest not in just the taking of political prisoners –which included the unholy mix of Communists and Jan Sanghis – but in the actual move to manipulate the Supreme Court, and through it India’s higher judiciary. India saw then the erosion of institutional autonomy that was resorted to, brazenly, by the government of the day.

On 25 April of that year, the government had, in a shocking move, superseded in appointment to the position of the chief justice of India, three senior-most judges, Justices Shelat, Hegde and Grover and appointed Justice Ray. The reaction from the Bar was swift and instantaneous. Bar Associations across the length and breadth of the country, Bombay, Kolkatta, Madras, Chandigarh, Bihar, Allahabad, the outrage was unanimous and expression of it courageous. The chairman of the then Bar Council of India, Ram Jethmalani in an official statement declared it as “the most shocking display of executive arrogance” and six of the country’s eminent jurists, MC Setalvad, MC Chagla, JC Shah, KT Desai, VM Tarkunde and NA Palkhivala issued a strong statement the very next day condemning the Government’s move as “a manifest attempt to undermine the Court’s independence.”  Through this one act, the prime minister made her intentions of having a ‘committed’ judiciary clear, committed not to law and the Constitution but to the whims of the Government.

Over the last two months or so, the country has been witness to the brash and brazen face off between the present regime in power in Delhi and India’s Supreme Court of India. Within the next few weeks, will come a decision from the Supreme Court that will, whichever way it goes, have a lasting impact. There has been little substance and even less grace in the attorney general’s arguments that have bordered on the rude and arrogant. “Parliament is supreme” he has bellowed and the Court must bow to its supremacy, is one such. That the Supreme Court of India, and many of our High Courts face a serious issue of credibility, a reality based on both perception and reality, gives this face off an even more sinister turn. The regime is riding high on this perception, never mind the fact that it, itself represents a worldview that has in past and present conduct shown scant respect for the protection of our fundamental rights or the Constitution.

Given this complex scenario, it becomes necessary to look close and hard at the present attempt (even more crass than in the 1970s) by the executive to browbeat our judiciary. We need to step back in real memory to the May of 1973, when a historic protest meeting was held in Bombay. Among the galaxy of speakers that addressed the meeting and included M. Hidayatullah, JC Shah, CK Daphtary, HV Iengar, K Subha Rao and of course, NA Palkhivala, the speeches, pithy and substantive, voiced strong dissent against the then Central government’s brazen move. My grandfather, MC Setalvad, India’s first Attorney General was among the speakers. I was eleven at the time.

The speeches were inspiring and erudite. [They were reproduced later into a booklet, A Judiciary Made to Measure] published by NA Palkhivala.]  Setalvad, who had been both India’s first Attorney General and the chairperson of the first Law Commission and Palkhivala had both reacted sharply to senior lawyer and union minister M. Kumaramangalam’s speech in Parliament, defending the government’s action. There is a chilling similarity between what was said then and what Rohatgi is saying today.

Kumaramangalam, justifying the central government’s actions said that since Parliament was supreme in the Indian scheme of things, it was but natural that when it comes to the appointment of the Chief Justice, the Government of the day will select a person who shall uphold the Government’s view of the Constitution!  Setalvad, critiqued this interpretation as partisan and misguided since this meant that the Government was bound to uphold not the philosophy in fact underlying the Constitution but a particular Government (and by that logic, a particular party’s) understanding of that philosophy.

To further quote, Setalvad, he said, “We all know that when a judge takes office, including the Chief Justice, he takes on oath of office and his oath pledges him, among other things, to decide cases in accordance with the Constitution. Now if he looks at the Constitution and feels that its interpretation, is according to him, in a particular direction or it has a particular meaning, he has not to give that direction or meaning to the words of the Constitution. He has to apply to the words of the Constitution, contrary to his own understanding, the philosophy of the Government. Let us analyse what the philosophy of the Government would, in ordinary practice, mean. The philosophy of the Government would mean the philosophy of the ruling party. Today it may be the philosophy of the ruling Congress, tomorrow it may be the philosophy of another party-it may be the Jan Sangh, it may be the Swatantra. Therefore, the judge or the Chief Justice has to keep track, when he is sitting on the Bench, in interpreting the Constitution, not of the language and the words of the Constitution, but of the philosophy of the ruling party which may change from time to time….”

What could be the consequences of such a move? Setalvad, “So, you have not to have an impartial Chief Justice but a judge or a Chief Justice who will bear in mind what, in effect, the Government thinks the Constitution means…….And the mischief does not end there. It goes further. Though the observations which were made in the Lok Sabha by Mr. Kumaramangalam refer to the office of the Chief Justice, they would apply all the way down to all judicial appointments. Every judge of the Supreme Court when making a decision in which Government policy is in question will have to think of his prospects of being appointed the Chief Justice and bear in mind what the philosophy of the Government of the day is, if he wants to be in good favour with the Government of the day is, if he wants to be in good favour with the Government in order to earn his appointment as the Chief Justice. Nay, it will travel down further. Take the judges of the High Court. Naturally and rightly they all aspire, as soon as they grow senior, to be selected for the highest Court in the land. But they must bear in mind that in order to be so selected they must also interpret the Constitution, not as they think it requires to be interpreted, but according to the philosophy of the Government in power at the centre for the time being.”As chair of India’s first law commission, MC Setalvad had with others also recommended that there should a severe restriction on post retirement postings for Judges of the higher courts.

Succinctly arguing against the ‘pre eminence of Parliament over the Court argument’, NA Palkhiwala, India’s pre-eminent jurist had said at the same historic meeting held in Bombay that,  “….Mr. Kumaramangalam has argued that the Government wants a Chief Justice who is able to recognize that Parliament is sovereign; that Parliament’s powers in relation to the future are sovereign powers….This ability required of the Chief Justice makes a mockery of the Constitution. Parliament has no unfettered sovereignty. The Constitution is supreme over Parliament; and not Parliament over the Constitution. The fundamental rights which are the basic human freedoms are fetters on Parliament’s powers. The Supreme Court has itself held by a majority in the great Constitutional case decided on April 24, 1973, that Parliament has no power to amend the Constitution in such a way as to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution; and the Government’s emphatic arguments to the contrary were expressly rejected. Mr. Kumaramangalam’s statement amounts to a refusal to accept the law as laid down by the Supreme Court.”

When we look back at those dark, dark days when authoritarian rule, the atrocities at Turkman Gate et al, the silver lining in the cloud were and are the audible protests from across the Bar. Today, when we await a verdict on which the future of India could hinge, a studied silence, by and large, prevails. Faced with a regime defined by its credo of vendetta-driven governance, the India that was built on the wisdom of men and women who had through sweat, principles and toil fought against a colonial oppressor, today needs to give voice to a spirited resistance that reaffirms our fundamentals.

This piece was originally published on CJP on 12, Jan 2018  and may be read here

Also read:

India’s Justice League: 4 SC judges Defend Democracy
Procedure not Privilege: Assigning cases in the SC Roster
SC wants Modi to explain Rakesh Asthana’s Appointment as CBI Director
CBI resembles Gujarat Bureau of Investigation

The post When the Government tried to browbeat the Judiciary appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On December 10, 2020, the central government accepted that the three laws opposed by farmers are made for traders, said farmers’ leaders at Singhu border stressing that this confirmed the doubts that Indian farmers had harboured for the past six months.

During a press conference earlier in the day, Union Food & Public Distribution Minister Piyush Goyal attempted to dismiss farmers’ claims that the central government had no right to pass these laws by stating that “the central government has the power to enact laws under the Concurrent list for trade, particularly in foodstuffs.”

However, farmers’ leaders argued a rebuttal that this very fact made the laws “unconstitutional.”

“Today the government accepted that they made these laws for trade and commerce – the thirty-third item in the Concurrent list. However, this makes any further talks about amendments moot. Agriculture is an item under the State list. This means the central government has no right to make farming laws,” said President of Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) Balbir Singh Rajewal.

Regarding encouragement of private sector activity in agriculture, the farmers’ leader pointed out that the APMC Act already has a clause for allowing private investment in farming, making the recently passed laws redundant.

“There is no need to create a parallel market for private companies. The central government’s statement today has proved that we are right,” said farmers.

Similarly, President of Krantikari Kisan Union Darshan Pal said, “We warn the government against stopping fellow protesters from marching towards Delhi in coming days. Farmers do not want these laws. We never asked for privatisation in farming.”

Speaking about future protests, farmers’ leader Boota Singh said that farmers have resolved to block railway tracks. The Sanyukta Kisan Morcha will soon announce a fixed date for the same.

Meanwhile, a press release released by the All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (AIKSCC) also condemned the Union Agriculture Minister Narendra Singh Tomar for stating that the three laws were welcomed by farmers across the country despite nationwide protests.

The pan-India protests showed that working-class people also understood the threats of these laws, said the organisation. They said that farmer organisations representing 20 crore farming households have rejected these laws.

They also ridiculed Goyal for saying that the Prime Minister’s visionary steps had resulted in higher farm productivity during the pandemic.

“Either the Minister does not know how hard farmers struggled to reach these productivity levels despite numerous government-imposed hurdles – from harvesting to marketing – or he is joining Modi in trying to steal credit for the hard-work of farmers. In either case, he must be history’s most anti-farmer Farmer Welfare Minister,” they said.

They also accused Goyal of spreading a false narrative that the government has ensured fees for private mandis when the government’s proposal recommended that state governments have the liberty to levy fees on private mandis. The AIKSCC expressed dismay at government officials discussing political events in West Bengal during a government press conference.

“It is clear that the authoritarian BJP government has forgotten the line that divides the party from the government,” they said.

Related:

MP Adivasi farmers send memorandum to Prime Minister decrying Centre’s farm laws
Brazil and Canadian Unions promise their support to Indian farmers
Farmers fight corporates, remove central government middlemen
Farmers reject government’s repackaged old amendment proposal
‘Samundar Bandh’ if gov’t does not listen to farmers: Fishworkers show solidarity

The post Modi government’s anti-farmer face exposed: Farmers’ leaders appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led government dressed up and offered a formerly rejected amendment proposal to farmers’ leaders on December 9, 2020. The much-enraged farmers once again rejected the proposal and demanded the withdrawal of the three anti-farmer-dubbed laws.

.#SinghuBorder We have ruled out all amendments to #FarmLaws; there is nothing less than the repealing of the laws we will settle for. We are yet to receive any proposal from the government. The agitation will continue and intensify: #Farmer leader Prem Singh Bhangu @the_hindu pic.twitter.com/kcaaoRITkP

— Jatin Anand (@JatinPaul) December 9, 2020

A summary review of the proposal by farmers showed that the central government assured continuation of the Minimum Support Price (MSP) system while imposing tax fees on private companies. Private traders would be asked to register themselves and contracts between a farmer and a company will be registered within 30 days. Further, the contract will state that the farmer cannot loan or pledge the land or building. Similarly, the proposal recommended a farmers’ tribunal or a fast track court.

The current laws bar farmers from approaching civil courts for dispute resolution. Instead they can only approach Sub-District Magistrates for contract disputes who lack the expertise to understand farmers’ situation. This clause effectively undercuts the authority of the judiciary!

According to Kisan Sangharsh Samiti President Dr. Sunilam, “This is an old proposal that does not benefit farmers. It is well known that MSP is not available for the 23 declared agricultural products, let alone far from all agricultural products. There has been talk of improvement in the mandi committees but what reforms will be done? There is no mention of what will happen to the reform farmers want. Private companies have always had to register and regarding farmers approaching courts, the Indian Constitution states that no citizen can be prevented from going to court.”

During a press conference at Singhu border, farmers declared that two major highways, the Delhi-Agra highway and the Delhi-Jaipur highway will be closed by December 12. Similarly, Saturday, toll plazas will be freed to allow an influx of more farmers in the city.

“This is a united decision by all farmers present in Delhi. We will hold demonstrations every day and Adani and Ambani malls will be closed down as well. We will also boycott all Reliance Jio products. from here on out,” said farmer leader Prahalad Singh Bharukheda.

In addition to the Saturday protests, leaders have also sent out a call for nationwide demonstrations outside offices of district magistrates in all states. Similarly, states near Delhi have been called on for a ‘Delhi Chalo’ protest. Southern and similar states shall continue protests even after Monday’s protest.

Angered by the central government’s disrespectful behaviour, leaders have also stated that farmers will hold demonstrations outside houses of BJP leaders.

Meanwhile, the All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee (AIKSCC) plans to launch a nationwide campaign  titled Sarkaar ki Asli Majboori – Adani, Ambani, Jamakhori to expose the central government. They called upon farmers organisations to organise continuous sit-ins in all districts and state capitals, jointly with other supporting organisations at public places.

Dr. Sunilam told all Indian farmers to start an indefinite peasant maha panchayat at all possible levels of administration. “Sit at village chaupals, squares and inform farmers about issues like mandi system, MSP system, food security system, employment crisis due to the end of agriculture,” he said.

While farmers talked to the media at Singhu border, Opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, Sharad Pawar, Sitaram Yechury, met President Ram Nath Kovind to advise the withdrawal of farm laws.

Related:

Are the new farm laws constitutional?
Talks with Amit Shah fail: Farmers firm on demand for the repeal of the anti-farmer laws
Bharat Bandh became a reckoning for the central government: farmers’ leaders
Snapshots of revolution! Top 10 photos of Bharat Bandh
‘Samundar Bandh’ if gov’t does not listen to farmers: Fishworkers show solidarity
Uttar Pradesh: Photographer who clicked farmer being hit by police ‘attacked, beaten’

The post Farmers reject government’s repackaged old amendment proposal appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A November 28 briefing in The Economist, has once again voiced strong opinions against the Modi government. The piece titled Narendra Modi threatens to turn India into a one-party state minces no words as it enumerates instances of how there is a marked difference between how people are treated in India based on their support for the ruling regime.

It begins by giving the example of Republic TV editor-in-chief Arnab Goswamy, whose case was addressed by the judicial system with an unprecedented speed. “Mr Goswami spent just a week in detention, and his case had hardly reached the lowest rung of courts, yet the country’s topmost judges ignored the court’s backlog of some 60,000 cases to schedule a bail hearing within a day of the anchor’s appeal. This is in a country where prisons hold twice as many inmates awaiting trial, some 330,000 people, as they do convicts,” said The Economist.

It goes on to showcase how a majority of undertrials, especially from oppressed and marginalized groups or religious and ethnic minorities seldom get access to justice at the same speed. It also highlights how the courts have treated cases of dissenters and activists. The piece sites examples of Fr. Stan Swamy as well as the hundreds of habeas corpus petitions filed in Kashmir when several young men, some still teenagers, went missing during the shutdown in the region after the abrogation of Article 370.

The Economist then goes on to warn of impending authoritarianism in the country, given the systematic groundwork being prepared by the regime. “Many cogs in India’s institutional machinery are not merely complacent, but have grown complicit in a project that threatens to turn the country into a one-party state,” says the piece. It slams the police in particular for allowing itself to become a tool of oppression saying, “Of the ostensibly independent institutions that are now compliant, India’s police stand out. Despite individually humane and honest officers, the impression Indians hold of the force is that its main purpose is to protect the powerful and persecute the weak. A case in point is the Delhi police’s management of communal riots that racked parts of India’s capital for three days last winter, leaving 53 dead.”

It also cites examples of the regime’s stranglehold over other institutions such as the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), where the regime has instituted its ‘yes-men’ in positions of power. It even questioned the impartiality of the Election Commission of India (ECI).

The Economist also sites examples of non-BJP run states in India being targeted by the party in a bid to overthrow existing state governments fiving examples of Madhya Pradesh where the party has been successful and West Bengal where Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee remains a thorn in the side for Amit Shah who The Economist calls “Mr Modi’s fearsome chief lieutenant”.

It criticizes the Modi government’s increasing stranglehold on the media saying, “In the past two months, new rules have curtailed the permitted level of foreign investment in online media and placed the entire sector under the authority of the broadcasting ministry.” Curbing access to foreign funding has been a strategy the government has used previously in shutting down human rights organisations and NGOs. It cites the example of how Amnesty International was forced to wrap up operations in India.

The entire piece as published in The Economist may be read here.

Related:

Time magazine calls Shaheen Bagh daadi global icon!
Spending is the easiest way to revive the economy: Abhijit Banerjee
George Soros calls out Modi on Kashmir, Hindutva
India plummets 10 place on Global Democracy Index

The post The Economist slams Modi regime again! appeared first on SabrangIndia.

A significant group of 146 academics and scholars from across the world have come together to ask the Indian government to release 80-year-old Telugu poet Varavara Rao from prison. Varavara Rao is currently in Mumbai’s Nanavati Hospital for neurological and urological treatment. He has also tested positive for COVID-19 when he was brought to Mumbai last week.

Rao, one of the unfortunate victims of political vendetta and a political prisoner, has been seriously unwell in prison over the last month, and his family has alleged that his medical condition was ignored and allowed to worsen by the authorities. It was following several appeals from his family, rights activists and lawyers that Rao was moved to a hospital.

Among the signatories of the statement are Naom Chomsky, Barbara Harris-White, Jan Breman, Alpa Shah, Gyanendra Pandey, Christophe Jaffrelot, Ania Loomba and others. In the past weeks, several appeals have been made for the poet’s release, arguing that it is unethical to keep the undertrial octogenarian in jail in the midst of a global pandemic, especially given his frail health.

Rao, who has been in jail since August 2018, is one of 11 human rights activists and lawyers who have been arrested in the Elgar Parishad case and accused of inciting violence against Dalits at Bhima Koregaon on January 1, 2018. The police also claims that they have “Maoist links”.

In 2018, under the BJP-ruled government in  Maharashtra, the local Pune police was assigned the investigation in the case. The police had then claimed different theories and had branded arrested persons as “urban Naxals”. Among several theories floated by the Pune police, those arrested were also accused of plotting Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s assassination. This claim was made in a press conference, but strangely never investigated or made a part of the two bulky chargesheets filed in the case.

In December 2019, soon after the coalition government of the Shiv Sena, the Nationalist Congress Party and the Congress took over, the case was swiftly taken away from the local police and handed over to the central agency, NIA. This was a unilateral action  of the Modi 2.0 government.

The list of signatories with the statement may be read below.

“Varavara Rao, poet, writer, activist and long-time speaker of truth to power has been imprisoned for two years now, along with ten other scholar-activists. They have been charged with inciting violence in Bhima Koregaon, a charge widely regarded as false, and over the past two years the government has failed to bring the charges to court and start the trial. Conditions in the jails in which these prisoners of conscience have been kept are said to be unhealthy and the threat of spread of infection has grown. Mr Rao, who is 80 years old, has now tested positive for COVID-19 and is seriously ill with several co-morbidities. His condition suggests clear neglect of his health by the authorities. We join other international scholars in appealing for the immediate release of Varavara Rao and the other Elgar Parishad activists.

Signed:

Barbara Harriss-White, FAcSS, Emeritus Professor and Fellow, Wolfson College, Oxford University, UK

Dr Hugo Gorringe, Co-Director Centre for South Asian Studies, University of Edinburgh, UK

Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor & Professor of Linguistics emeritus, MIT, USA

Jan Breman, Emeritus Professor University of Amsterdam, Honorary Fellow of the International Institute of Social History, Netherlands.

Jens Lerche, Reader in Agrarian and Labour Studies, Dept of Development Studies, SOAS, London, UK

Dr. Indrajit Roy, Senior Lecturer-Global Development Politics, Department of Politics, University of York, UK

Patricia Jeffery, Professor Emerita, University of Edinburgh, UK

Jonathan Spencer, Regius Professor of South Asian Language, Culture and Society, Edinburgh University, UK

David Mosse, Professor of Social Anthropology, SOAS, London, UK

Dr Shubranshu Mishra, Lecturer, Politics and International Relations, University of Exeter, UK

Kalathmika Natarajan, Teaching Fellow in South Asian History, University of Edinburgh, UK

Radhika Govinda, Lecturer in Sociology, University of Edinburgh, UK

Dr. Deana Heath, Reader in Indian and Colonial History,  University of Liverpool, UK

Anisha Palat, PhD Student, University of Edinburgh, UK

Roger Jeffery, Professor of Sociology of South Asia, Associate Director, Edinburgh India Institute, University of Edinburgh, UK

Colin Leys, Emeritus professor, Queen’s University, Canada

Dr. Lotte Hoek, Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology, University of Edinburgh, UK

Dr Kanchana Ruwanpura, Reader, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr Nandini Sen,  Researcher, Heriot Watt University, UK

Arnab Bhattacharjee, Professor, Economics, Heriot Watt University, UK

Meena Dhanda, Professor of Philosophy & Cultural Politics, University of Wolverhampton, UK.

Dr Amogh Sharma, Queen Elizabeth House, Oxford University, UK

Sebastian Schwecke, Associate professor, Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Kolkata and Centre for Modern Indian Studies, Göttingen University, Germany

Dr Krithika Srinivasan, Lecturer, University of Edinburgh, UK

Barbara Smith, Associate Professor in Agricultural Ecology and Public Science, Coventry University, UK

Dr Maryam Aslany, Post-doctoral Fellow, Wolfson College, Oxford, UK

Dr Alessandra Mezzadri, Senior Lecturer in Development Studies, Department of Development Studies, SOAS, London, UK

Ravi Ahuja, Professor of Modern Indian History, Centre for Modern Indian Studies, University of Göttingen, Germany

Dr Alfred Gathorne-Hardy, Lecturer in Sustainable Resource Use, University of Edinburgh, and Senior Research Fellow, Oxford India Centre for Sustainable Development, University of Oxford, UK

Ben Rogaly, Professor of Human Geography, University of Sussex, UK

Dr Vasudha Chhotray, Associate Professor, School of International Development, University of East Anglia, UK

Dr Devanshi Chanchani, Global Challenges Research Fellow, Brunel University, UK

Rashmi Varma, Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literary Studies, Warwick University, UK

Susan Newman, Professor and Head of Economics, Open University

Dr. Mukulika Banerjee, Director, South Asia Centre, London School of Economics, UK

Projit Bihari Mukharji, Associate Professor, University of Pennsylvania, USA.

Alberto Toscano Co-Director of the Centre for Philosophy and Critical Theory. Goldsmiths College, London, UK

Dr Subir Sinha, Sr lecturer in Institutions and Development, SOAS, London, UK

Dr Madhumita Dutta, Assistant Professor, Geography, Ohio State University, USA

Dr Feyzi Ismail, Senior Teaching Fellow, SOAS University of London, UK,

Balmurli Natrajan, Professor, Anthropology, William Paterson University of New Jersey, USA

Suraj T. PhD student, Department of Development Studies, SOAS, London

Jonathan Pattenden, Associate Professor, Politics and Development, University of East Anglia, UK

Deepa Kurup, D Phil Student, Oxford University, UK

Lalit Vachani, Centre for Modern Indian Studies, (CeMIS), University of Gottingen, Germany

Dr Alice Clark, Principal, Clark Research Associates, El Cerrito, California, USA

Alpa Shah, Associate Professor, London School of Economics, UK

Adam Hanieh, Professor, SOAS, University of London, UK

Dr Jacob Copeman, Senior Lecturer in Social Anthropology, Edinburgh University, UK

Radhika Desai, Professor, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba, Canada

Haroon Akram-Lodhi, Professor of Economics and International Development Studies, Trent University, Canada

Ania Loomba, Catherine Byrson Professor of English, South Asian Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

John Harriss, Professor Emeritus, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver and Adjunct Professor, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada

Kalyani Monteiro Jayasankar, PhD Student, Princeton University, USA

Durgesh Solanki, PhD Student, Johns Hopkins University, USA

Dr Bashabi Fraser, Professor Emerita, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK

Neil Fraser, Retired Senior Lecturer in Social Policy, Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, UK.

Christopher Cramer, Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences (FAcSS),Professor of the Political Economy of Development, SOAS, University of London, UK

Gilbert Achcar, Professor, SOAS, University of London, UK

Jonathan Galton, Research assistant, SOAS, University of London, UK

Sian Hawthorne, Senior Lecturer and Subject Head, Religions and Philosophies, School of History, Religions and Philosophies, SOAS, University of London. UK

Brenna Bhandar, Reader in Law, SOAS, University of London, UK

Tim Pringle, Senior Lecturer, Department of Development Studies, SOAS, University of London, UK

Vanja Hamzić, Senior Lecturer in Legal History and Legal Anthropology, Associate Director of Research, SOAS, University of London, UK

Andrew Newsham, Senior Lecturer in International Development, SOAS, University of London, UK

Kenneth Bo Nielsen, Associate Professor of Social Anthropology and Coordinator of the Norwegian Network for Asian Studies, University of Oslo, Norway

Michael Levien, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Johns Hopkins University, USA

Geir Heierstad, Director, Norwegian institute of urban and regional research, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway

Pamela Price, Professor Emerita, University of Oslo, Norway

Adrija Dey Postdoctoral Research Fellow, SOAS, University of London, UK

Hashim Rashid PhD, SOAS, University of London, UK

Sara Kazmi, PhD, SOAS, University of London, UK

Shailza Sharma, PhD, University of Essex, UK

Shailaja Paik, Associate Professor, University of Cincinnati, USA

Pranav Jani, Associate Professor of English, Director of South Asian Studies Initiative, The Ohio State University, USA

Rachel Sturman, Associate Professor, Department of History  & Asian Studies Program, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, USA

Ashwini Deo, Associate Professor, Linguistics, The Ohio State University, USA

Dr Shalini Grover,  Research Officer, International Inequalities Institute, London School of Economics, London, UK

Ashwin Subramanian, Centre for Modern Indian Studies (CeMIS), Göttingen, Germany

Nikita Sud, Associate Professor, University of Oxford

Dr Satoshi Miyamura, Senior Lecturer, Department of Economics, SOAS, London, UK

Rochisha Narayan, Assistant Professor, University of Central Florida, USA

David Hardiman, Emeritus Professor of History, University of Warwick, UK

Dr Mayur Suresh, Lecturer,, School of Law, SOAS, London, UK

Dr Eleanor Newbigin,  Senior lecturer, Department of History, Religions and Philosophies, SOAS, London, UK

Malvika Gupta, DPhil candidate, International Development, Oxford University, UK

Ajantha Subramanian, Professor of Anthropology and of South Asian Studies, Harvard University, USA

Debjani Bhattacharyya, Associate Professor, Department of History, Drexel University, Philadelphiia, USA

Jonathan Parry, Emeritus Professor, LSE, UK

Jayant Lele, Professor Emeritus, Global Development Studies , Queen’s University, Canada

Raju Das, Professor, Department of Geography, York University, Canada

Mihika Chatterjee, Departmental Lecturer, University of Oxford, UK

Jan Toporowski, Professor of Economics and Finance, SOAS University of London, UK

Anupama Rao, History, Barnard College, Columbia University, USA

Hira Singh, Associate Professor of Sociology,  York University, Canada

Sejuti Das Gupta, Assistant Professor, Michigan State University, USA

Geoff Goodwin, Departmental Lecturer in Development Studies, University of Oxford, UK

Ajay Skaria, Department of History/Institute for Global Studies, University of Minnesota, USA

Gyanendra Pandey, Professor of History, Emory University, Atlanta, USA

Professor Leslie Elliott Armijo, International Studies, Simon Fraser University, Canada

Tapas Bandopadhyay

Meenal Shrivastava, Professor, Political Economy & Global Studies, Centre for Social Sciences, Athabasca University, Canada

Radhakrishna Sanka, Ph.D. Candidate, College of Engineering, Boston University, USA

Isabelle Guerin, Senior Research Fellow, French National Research Institute for Sustainable Development (IRD), France / Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, USA

Deepak Kapur, Distinguished Professor of Computer Science. The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, US

Roli Varma, Carl Hatch Endowed Professor, School of Public Administration, The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, USA

Raja Swamy, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, USA

Dr Dolores Chew, Faculty, History and Humanities, Marianopolis College, Montreal, Canada

Rochisha Narayan, Assistant Professor, University of Central Florida, USA

S. Charusheela, Professor, Interdisciplinary Arts and Sciences, University of Washington, Bothell, USA

Christophe Jaffrelot, Professor of Politics, KCL, London UK, and Research Director, CERI-Sciences Po/CNRS, Paris, France

Nitya Rao, Professor Gender and Development, School of International Development, University of East Anglia, UK

Ratik Asokan, Writer, The Baffler Magazine, UK

Ilan Kapoor, Professor, York University, Toronto, Canada

Gyan Prakash, Dayton-Stockton Professor of History

Princeton University, USA

Michael Nijhawan,  Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, York University, Canada

Sanjeev Routray, Department of Sociology, UBC, Canada

Shyam Ranganathan, Department of Philosophy,,York Center for Asian Research, York University, Toronto, Canada

Aminah Mohammad-Arif, CNRS-CEIAS research fellow, Paris, France

Sugata Ghosh, Professor of Economics, Brunel University London, UK

Nalini Iyer, Professor of English, Seattle University, USA

Himani Bannerji, Professor Emeritus and Senior Scholar, Department of Sociology, York University, Canada

Nathaniel Roberts, Dozent, University of Göttingen, Germany

Rupa Viswanath, Professor, University of Göttingen, Germany

Michael Reinsborough, Lecturer, SOAS University of London, UK

Jostein Jakobsen, Researcher, Centre for Development and the Environment, University of Oslo, Norway

Stephen Watts, Poet, London

Alf Gunvald Nilsen, Professor, University of Pretoria, South Africa

Urs Geiser, Associate Senior Researcher, Dept. of Geography, University of Zurich, Switzerland

Shreya Sinha, Postdoctoral Researcher, University of Cambridge, UK

Dan Hirslund, Associate Professor, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Pallavi Roy, Lecturer, Centre for International Studies and Diplomacy, SOAS University of London, UK

Anne Waldrop, Professor in Development Studies, Oslo Metropolitan University, Norway

Joel Lee, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, Williams College, USA

Sarmistha Pal, Professor of Financial Economics, University of Surrey, UK

Sheetal Chhabria, Associate Professor of History, Connecticut College, USA

Judith Heyer, Fellow Emeritus, Somerville College, Oxford University, UK

Santiago Izquierdo-Tort, Postdoctoral Fellow, Institute of Temperate Forest Sciences, Université du Québec en Outaouais, Canada.

Dr Aparna Sundar, Contemporary Asian Studies, University of Toronto, Canada

David Gellner, Professor of Social Anthropology and Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford University, UK

Dr Nicolas Jaoul, CNRS /IRIS , Paris, France

Aman Bardia, Platform Cooperativism Consortium, The New School, New York, USA

Chinmoy Banerjee, Emeritus  Professor of English, Simon Fraser University, Canada

Srujana Katta, Researcher, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, UK.

Dr. Priyanka Basu Curator, The British Library, London, UK

The post Release Varavara Rao, 146 scholars tell Indian Govt appeared first on SabrangIndia.