The methodology adopted in the next 18 months will be crucial for Rahul Gandhi and the Congress. It will determine their success in the 2024 general elections
Congress MP Rahul Gandhi understood to be the de facto president of his party, made a hectic rendezvous in the heat and dust with the farmers of Punjab and to some extent with those in Haryana on the farm Acts. Some observers once again termed his latest avatar as “version 2.0 or 3.0”, depending on how they saw the political graph and career of the Gandhi scion.
The visits got good traction in both the States, particularly in Punjab, as the Congress is not only the ruling party there, it is in a position to organise the machinery for protest marches and public meetings. Plus there is resentment against the laws across the State and among all parties, except for the BJP, which initiated the Acts.
The two political protests in a row — first in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, in support of the Dalit woman who was gang-raped by upper caste men, followed by the one in the food bowl of the country, Punjab and Haryana — catapulted him into the public eye. And he did seize the first mover advantage on both these issues. At least now he is being viewed as some sort of a “fighter” rather than a “shirker.” Also, since these visits are not related to elections but concern specific issues, the images and footprints of both Hathras and Punjab would remain imprinted on the public consciousness for a while. The image of Rahul being roughed up by cops, consoling the victim’s father in Hathras and riding a tractor in Punjab would help his cause immensely in the medium to long run.
But there is a rider. Rahul has shown consistently that he adopts a strategy and abandons it completely and goes for a long political vacation. Hathras and Punjab —the cause of a Dalit girl and farmers, besides other issues of the subaltern — need to be sustained and adopted in the long term political strategy of the Congress and should not remain a photo opportunity alone. Adopted for a while and then abandoned, something which had become Rahul’s signature for long, the news-grabbing moments gave his opposition repeated opportunity to project him as a politician aloof from the grind, not suited for the heat and dust or the combative brand of grassroots politics. This image can be altered only when there is consistency in his political approach followed by an action plan for each and every issue which concerns the people at large. You cannot be a part-time agitationist and also a part-time tourist vacationing in a foreign country when face to face with an extremely combative adversary who is better planned and always a step ahead.
Remember the temple-hopping spree of Rahul and his attempt to sport a Janeu by proclaiming himself as a Dattatreya Brahmin in the run-up to the last Lok Sabha polls? No one, not even Rahul himself, knows what happened to those half-hearted attempts to play the majority religion card and the efficacy of the strategy itself. No one has even asked him if he had gone to a temple after those photo ops and does he wear a Janeu now. Perhaps after getting a thorough drubbing in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, the Congress strategists who advised him and he himself realised that this was not going to cut any ice with the voters and abandoned the discourse.
Long ago, when the UPA was in power and Rahul was calling the shots, he used to occasionally visit Dalit hamlets in parts of UP and used to spend the evenings and nights there, trying to understand what the downtrodden faced. Once, in 2009, he even took the visiting British Foreign Secretary David Miliband along with him to spend a night in such a household, which became a media sensation worldwide. But this practice, too, was abandoned summarily, suggesting a lack of consistency and strategy in the political methodology adopted. No one has heard if he ever spent a night in a rural household after the Congress-led UPA was ousted from power in the 2014 general elections.
Remember, the Hathras visit came nine years after his much publicised visit to Bhatta Parsaul village in Greater Noida area during a farmers’ agitation, when they were protesting against alleged forcible land acquisition. He was pillion riding a motorcycle then and had entered the village in solidarity with the agitating farmers and sat on a dharna with them. The Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) was ruling the State then with Mayawati as Chief Minister and Rahul was detained for a few hours. Of course, the Congress-led Government at the Centre subsequently passed the Land Acquisition Act, 2013, which raised the compensation given to farmers manifold.
Bhatta-Parsaul was a success story of sorts, which led to the passage of a Bill, considered extremely friendly to farmers if any Government/private agency wanted to acquire the land. But Rahul failed to publicise this success story. Perhaps not realising its significance, he and his party let go of an opportunity which could have helped both politically. On the contrary, the Congress became defensive when its political opponents targeted it over the Bill, saying it hampered easy land acquisition and prevented industrialists from setting up new units and giving employment.
Rahul has been put through tough scrutiny all these years, more so in the post-2014 era when the Congress lost to the BJP lock, stock and barrel and the decline continued like a free fall. In 2017, as Congress president, Rahul did a magnificent job for his party by trying to halt the BJP juggernaut in its strongest base for decades — Gujarat. The party lost but did put up a spirited fight against the political giants — Prime Minister Narendra Modi and then BJP president Amit Shah — both from the same State. The performance of the underdog (Congress) was hailed and it was billed as a new beginning, a new dawn for Congress. This performance was followed by Karnataka where the incumbent Congress government did reasonably well and prevented the BJP from claiming power. Victories in Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan added to Rahul’s stature and the possibilities of a Congress revival became real. But come May 2019 and all advantage was lost. The party simply could not build the momentum or keep the pressure and lost out on issues to tackle its opponent, driven as it was by aggressive nationalism and Hindutva. It simply had no answer to the blitzkrieg launched by the BJP in 2019 and surrendered meekly without even putting up a semblance of a fight.
The question now is when the momentum seems to have slightly become favourable with Hathras and the farmers’ issues, will the party, particularly Rahul, be able to sustain it in the medium to long term? That will be a challenge and also provide answers to the political discourse in the run-up to a series of Assembly elections in the next one-and-a-half years.
Many Congress leaders privately say that the practice of starting a campaign or a narrative and then abandoning it midway has to come to an end. A narrative, once adopted and made a part of political strategy, has to continue and given an incubation time. Only then can one build momentum and swing tides of opinion. Partymen need to be consistent and have to hit the streets every two to three weeks to get traction and occupy the opposition space, not wake up every three years.
The Uttar Pradesh Assembly polls, scheduled for February and March 2022, are less than one-and-a-half years away. A State where BJP is firmly entrenched under Yogi Adityanath as Chief Minister, the Congress is still considered to be a rank outsider at this juncture despite Hathras and despite the absence of Samajwadi Party (SP) and the BSP from the politics of agitation. Can Congress fill the vacuum here? Can it spring a surprise? Will the Rahul-Priyanka duo be able to project themselves as some sort of an alternative and replace the caste narrative of SP and BSP? Will they come out with a game-changer? Do they have it in them? This is what Congress leaders and workers alike are asking. For many within the party and outside, the revival of the organisation in UP is the key for success in the 2024 general elections. The road to Delhi goes through UP was an old saying but this holds true even at this juncture where a great churning of the political process is taking place.
(The writer is Senior Resident Editor, The Pioneer, Chandigarh)
NEST Result Update: Candidates will be able to check their NEST 2020 result 2020, as per the information on the official website. The NEST result 2020 has been delayed due to technical difficulties and will be released today evening after 7 PM. Candidates who have appeared for the NEST 2020 examination can visit the official website of NEST 2020 to check the examination results. To download the NEST Result Scorecard students are required to login to the NEST Exam portal - nestexam.in. Candidates will also be able to check the NEST 2020 Results through the direct link which will be provided below.
Students can check the result on: https://nestexam.in
Article 338 and 338A of the Constitution have to be amended, conferring powers upon the commission to take action against State offenders
The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted with the objective of protecting marginalised communities against discrimination and atrocities by the upper castes and the rich and privileged. Section three of the Act enunciates the nature of various actions against a SC/ST person to constitute an offence punishable under it.
The provision stipulates that any act, which is derogatory to human dignity, constitutes an offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. The Supreme Court, too, in the Nandini Sundar case, observed that the Constitution itself, in no uncertain terms, demands that the State shall strive incessantly and consistently to promote fraternity among all citizens such that the dignity of every person is protected, nourished and promoted. The conduct of the police in cremating the Dalit gang-rape victim from Hathras, allegedly without the consent of the family members, constitutes an offence under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
The Hathras gang-rape and the subsequent events leading to the cremation of the victim by the police in the dead of night raises the question whether the State had responded to the incident as required?
The incident shows that the atrocities committed against the Dalit girl were two-fold. First, the gang-rape of the victim by the accused, who allegedly belong to the upper caste and second, the conduct of the police in cremating the body after sunset, allegedly without the consent of family members.
The conduct of the police raises a suspicion that officials were trying to protect the accused. She was allegedly attacked on September 14 and succumbed to her injuries on September 29. A statement has been made by the police that the post-mortem report does not disclose any evidence of rape. Obviously since the post-mortem was conducted after a lapse of more than eight days of the alleged incident, there is a big possibility of the evidence of rape getting erased. However, there is a dying declaration made by the victim that she was subjected to gang-rape, which is admissible in evidence.
Now the issue is whether the State can remain a silent spectator without responding against the alleged conduct of the police in cremating her body without the consent of the family members, which also constitutes an atrocity under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
The response of the State in the present scenario is only at the mercy of the politicians who are running the Government. There is no “body” constituted under the Constitution, which in such circumstances can take cognisance of the conduct of the erring officials involved in the alleged crime and take necessary action against them without the interference of the Government.
Though Article 338 of the Constitution contemplates the setting up of the National Commission for SCs and Article 338A of the Constitution constitutes a commission for STs, they are only recommendatory bodies. The Constitution only confers power upon them to prepare reports and the President shall cause all such reports to be laid before each House of Parliament, along with a memorandum, explaining the action taken or proposed to be taken on the recommendations relating to the Union and the reasons for the non-acceptance, if any, of such suggestions.
Obviously the President will be acting on the aid and advice of the Ministers. Therefore, the commission cannot take action against the people, who are involved directly or indirectly in the entire episode. The implementation of the recommendations of the commission is within the domain of the political system. Therefore, there is no other Constitutional provision or a created body, which comes to the rescue of the victim when the Government does not respond in a proper manner.
There has to be a mechanism provided by the Constitution to respond to such a situation. The apex court, while deciding the review petition of Dr Subhash Kashinath, observed that the prevailing conditions in various areas of the country show that the SCs/ STs are still struggling for equality and for exercising civil rights. They have been suffering ignominy and abuse and they have been outcast socially for centuries. It was also observed that every person has the right to live with dignity and the right to die with dignity, too.
In fact, the Supreme Court, while upholding the constitutional validity of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, observed that all the three ideas, liberty, equality and fraternity, are intimately linked. The right to equality sans liberty or fraternity would be chimerical, as the concept known at present would be reduced to equality among equals, in every manner a mere husk of the grand vision of the Constitution.
Likewise, liberty without equality or fraternity can well result in the perpetuation of existing inequalities and worse, result in licence to indulge in society’s basest practices. It is fraternity, poignantly embedded through the provisions of Part III, which assures true equality, where the State treats all alike, promises the benefits of growth and prosperity to all, with equal liberties to all, and what is more, guarantees that every person treats every other citizen of the country in a like manner.
Obviously, the State actors at the higher level due to political interference would not respond as the situation mandates. There has to be an independent body which can spring into operation to take necessary action against erring State officials. Therefore, Article 338 and 338A of the Constitution have to be amended, conferring powers upon the commission to take necessary action directly against the State or non-State actors who indulge in illegal acts. Unless such a suitable amendment is made incorporating such powers, justice cannot be done to victims and there cannot be any effective implementation of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.
(The writer is Advocate, at the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Courts)
India should stay just under the diplomatic threshold and engage more visibly with Taiwan, especially in economic ties, to keep China in check
In any other year, the Taiwanese National Day celebrations in India wouldn’t have assumed such political proportions had both nations not been at the receiving end of China’s maximalist ambitions. So they needed to make a statement about standing by each other in the face of a shared geo-political threat. In a move laden with a message to China, posters of the event were put up outside the Chinese embassy by a ruling BJP member, though they were taken down later on the grounds of not having the required permission. But they had served their purpose. Similarly, Taiwan’s President Tsai Ing-wen thanked “dear friends in India” for sending wishes for the annual celebration, clearly intended to rile up China further after its embassy issued a “letter” to the Indian media to not cover Taiwan’s National Day as it would violate our “One China” policy. Not only that, she even mentioned the Ladakh standoff in her speech among many examples of Chinese expansionist tendencies in the region. What China does not understand is that the Indian media is free to pursue its own policies independent of the official Government line and is not beholden to follow it. The “One China” policy means that the Government doesn’t have diplomatic ties with Taiwan, though both sides have trade offices which operate as de-facto embassies. Beyond the officialese, Taiwan has always been building stronger economic and cultural associations with India. In fact, it is looking at India as a potential business destination as the US trade war with China has pushed its companies to look for newer markets. Besides, to counter China’s colonial takeover of the economic and cultural space in south and southeast Asia with its Belt and Road Initiative, Taiwan has set up its own southbound policy. This focusses on strengthening ties in the areas of culture, tourism, education and trade with 18 southeast and south Asian countries, with India being pitched as one of the pivotal collaborators. The new President is pursuing this aggressively one-on-one with each nation. Trade between India and Taiwan will likely touch $10 billion over the next few years and this has led to synergies across sectors with consistent media coverage of the same. Little wonder then that the Ministry of External Affairs dismissed the Chinese embassy’s instructions, saying the “free” Indian media would report “as it sees fit.” China must realise that the Indian media does not operate by the rules and framework of its own Press, which is an extension counter for its propaganda. And as a free medium in a democracy, it allows debates and discourse on everything, including foreign policy, and allows even dissent. Besides, it has only to measure the coverage and importance that Chinese President Xi Jinping is given whenever he visits India. The Government may have to be vigilant about sensitivities and anxieties but the Indian media is well within its right to criticise China and give space to Taiwan. Even if China insists on “good faith”, it must realise that it has long broken that understanding with predatory moves in Ladakh and insisting on reclaiming border positions from 1959. And in a hostile environment, diplomatic niceties cannot be expected. Still India has never subverted the rule of law so far despite Chinese provocations.
Meanwhile, Taiwan, too, has used its National Day to reassert its political and cultural identity and undercut its existence as tied to the mainland. It commemorates a 1911 uprising in the central Chinese city of Wuhan against the nation’s last imperial dynasty. This led to the creation of the Republic of China, which leader Chiang Kai-shek then brought to Taiwan seven decades ago when he fled Beijing as the Communist Party took power. It is just about remembering a historical event but allows Taiwan to technically bypass anything that would suggest total independence. Yet it allows it wiggle room to assert its historical, political and cultural identity subtly. And leverage itself vis-a-vis China, which has been breathing down on it by sending jets in the Taiwanese straits. As far as India is concerned, it can use its proximity to Taiwan more effectively and discomfort China just like it does by using Pakistan against us. The first blow could be economic, by reducing dependence on Chinese goods and moving to high quality Taiwanese products, particularly in the technology and electronic space. The Government has been overtly careful about relations with Taipei for fear of a Chinese hitback. In return for increased Taiwanese investment, it can widen its access to our markets and act as an enabler of Taiwan’s inclusion at all global commercial and strategic bodies and cooperation groups. This way it can have an ally in China’s immediate neighbourhood and use it as an irritant alongside the Quad initiative with the US, Australia and Japan. That China is uneasy about the Indian attempt to encircle it is evident from its mouthpiece Global Times, saying such closeness to Taiwan would “only exasperate the already soured China-India ties.” In fact, India can very well use Taiwan and the Tibet question — by joining the US-led campaign on the latter — to force China into yielding some ground at the negotiating table. Intransigent though it might be, Beijing realises that it cannot risk open hostility with India in a post-pandemic world where opinion is loaded heavily against it. Besides, India can stay just under the diplomatic threshold and niggle China. Instead of being muted, it can be visibly seen to heighten its confabulations with Taiwan and Tibetan representatives, just about enough to pressure China. It is high time we tweak our status quoist positions.
Had the Government chosen a Standing Committee scrutiny or even had a dialogue with farmers, the opposition to farm laws could have been avoided
The new farm laws might not be as disruptive as their critics want us to believe. They are apparently as logical and timely reforms as interventions like State procurement and notifying of Minimum Support Price (MSP) had been in the mid-1960s. The ruling and Opposition parties are engaged in a wholly avoidable fracas, both refusing to view things in totality. The Opposition is indulging in loathing and fear-mongering, reminiscent of the times when economic liberalisation was introduced in 1991. Paradoxically, it was the Congress’ Government then. The party now is behaving differently when in the Opposition.
The Government’s cavalier attitude to the Opposition parties’ stance is equally uncharitable. Motives have been imputed to their decision. They are accused of having a vested interest in the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC)-run mandis, besides being friendly towards the middlemen who call the shots in those market yards. Ironically, on the National Agriculture Market portal (eNAM), started by the present Government in 2016, there were no less than 83, 958 commission agents registered as on August 31. Why is the Government promoting middlemen here?
The fear that APMC-run mandis would be abolished is largely unfounded. The eNAM platform can today boast of connecting about a 1,000 of them across 18 States and three Union Territories (UT). However, the passage of the Bills was not preceded by any kind of consensus-building. There was no dialogue with the farmers’ unions, State Governments or the Opposition parties. The laws were rushed through the Ordinance route on June 5. This starkly contrasts with the spirit of federalism and the consensus model that marked the implementation of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). The matters concerned with agriculture being under the State list in Schedule VII of the Constitution called for Centre-State consensus.
The legislative competence of Parliament to discuss a Bill on a subject placed in the State list (Schedule VII of the Constitution) was questioned by some members. However, we have precedence of the Seeds Act, 1966, which is a Central legislation. It was one of the key legislations enacted during the Green Revolution era. Still, one is reminded of how the Atal Bihari Vajpayee Government approached the contentious subject of contract farming. This was envisaged in the National Agriculture Policy 2000. Instead of bringing a Central law, the Government in 2003 circulated a Model Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act to the States for adoption in 2003. The ensuing UPA-I Government continued the policy. Contract farming was included as an option in the National Farmers Policy (2007). By August 2007, a total of 15 States had brought amendments in the APMC (Regulation) Acts based on the model legislation.
Why did the four Labour Codes, recently enacted, did not become a source of dispute despite the presence of controversial provisions? This was because the Codes, meant to reduce 29 existing labour laws into four legislations, were vetted by the department-related Standing Committee of the Lok Sabha. It was chaired by Bhartruhari Mahtab of Biju Janata Dal. The Government agreed to several suggestions of the committee.
How justified is the claim that previous governments had kept the farmers in chains? Such a view stems from inadequate appreciation of facts. Definite pro-farmer measures were taken by Indian National Congress since 1937 when it formed governments in coalition in seven out of 11 provinces (under Government of India Act 1935). These included debt relief measures, tenancy reforms and licencing and regulation of money lenders and so on. But separation from Burma (now Myanmar) from the Indian Union in 1937 stressed rice availability in India.
India’s agricultural policy since Independence was aimed at attaining food security. With fragmented landholdings, inadequate electricity supply, pitiable irrigation facilities and poor acreage, production was insufficient. To bridge the requirement and availability of food grains, India entered into an agreement with the US under their Public Law 480 on August 29, 1956. It allowed India to obtain wheat, rice, cotton, dairy products and tobacco in Indian rupees. It could not, however, be denied that import of food grains, in excess of the market requirement, de-incentivised the farmer to produce more. The production increased as the imports were brought down to realistic levels around 1966. However, the completion of the Bhakra-Nangal Dam on Beas-Sutlej (1963) was an achievement of the Jawaharlal Nehru Government, which accelerated the advent of the Green Revolution.
The current regime of MSP and Government procurement is a legacy of the short-lived Lal Bahadur Shastri Government (June 11, 1964 to January 10, 1966). It had its origin in the decline in wheat production, consecutively between 1962 to 1964, and decline and marginal recovery of rice production during the corresponding period. This compelled the Government to revisit its open market policy for wheat and modest control on transport and sale of rice. The severity of the food shortage could be understood from the sheer number of speeches that Shastri delivered on the subject as the Prime Minister. His Selected Speeches, published by the Publications Division, Ministry of I&B (1972) categorises a total of 10 under “Food Problems.”
The Shastri Government moved in towards a regime of greater regulation and control on sale, purchase and movement of food grains. On January 1, 1965, two new organisations were created, which became the hallmark of the Government’s intervention in the agricultural sector. These were Food Corporation of India (FCI) and Agricultural Prices Commission (now Commission for Agricultural Costs and Prices). The ambit of Government procurement, which was limited to a few edible items in the beginning, now extends to 23 items (in addition to sugarcane).
The developments since the Green Revolution (1967) have led to the growth in acreage and food surplus situation. Time is ripe for addressing the neglected problem of agricultural marketing. In pursuit of doubling the farmers’ income by 2022 (from the level of 2016), the Narendra Modi Government formed a committee led by Ashok Dalwai, IAS. The committee produced a 14-volume eminently readable report. Though the decision to “liberalise” the farm was not among its direct recommendations, one has to realise that significant decisions are always political rather than bureaucratic in nature. The farmers must have better alternatives for remunerative pricing with legal safeguards. Even today, there is no legal restriction on farmers selling his/her product in the open market. What cripples the farmer, however, is not merely the logistical problem but also the absence of a legal architecture to protect his/her interests.
A single line in these Acts, like “notwithstanding anything contained in the aforesaid sections, no trade transactions should take place below the notified MSP”, would have allayed the misgivings of the farmers. A line in time could have saved the Government from putting eight Cabinet Ministers on ground (not including the Agriculture and Farmer Welfare Minister Narendra Singh Tomar) to convince agitating agriculturists.
(The writer is an author and independent researcher based in New Delhi. The views expressed here are personal)
In these difficult days, there is reason to believe that the tribe of progressive social critiques is still heard
The Covid experience has been unique in more ways than what most of the webinars are talking about. For example, social media is not exactly known to elaborate concepts. However, the online versions of printed news media platforms appear to have widened and deepened their reach and impact as compared to the pre-Coronavirus era. The galloping use of smartphones in the country has enabled the reach and availability of news through a large part of the day, beyond the morning. At times, the impact is even clearer. Thankfully, the print media has not fallen prey to that claim that resonates through the electronic channel news daily: The phenomena called “breaking news.”
The concept of “breaking news” has undergone a sea change over the years and it doesn’t even titillate like before. “Breaking news” in years past used to be the equivalent of “Stop Press”, in the print media, when they used to stop the printing presses because something of phenomenal importance just had to be reported in the next day’s newspaper. For instance a war, or the declaration of Emergency, or demonetisation or the assassination of an important leader. Now, like many advertisements, “breaking news” seems more like an attempt to grab attention rather than share any meaningful news story that is unfolding at that time.
Then there is the claim of “impact-making” news. For instance, the gate of a VIP’s residence was plastered with a quarantine notice, which was found to be very embarrassing by the bureaucrat who lived there. Reportedly, the notice was torn away. One of the news channels picked this story up and ran a campaign on “differential treatment.” Soon after, the notice was restored by the authorities that be. Subsequently the news channel claimed to have run an “impact-making” story. Maybe, it was because of the news coverage of the channel that the notice was restored. Maybe it was not. Maybe colleagues persuaded the bureaucrat to tone down the reaction to the quarantine notice. Or maybe the bureaucrat’s good sense prevailed in the end. However that may be, not long thereafter, the practice of pasting quarantine notices on the entrance of households with Coronavirus patients was reportedly discontinued by the Haryana Government.
The impact may not be monocausal. There may be many claimants to the impact and many perspectives. Be that as it may, one thing is obvious that the media does carry a clout, though one-to-one impact-change correlation is difficult to establish. However, when one notices a change after reading something in news columns, it does raise the possibility that the writing made an impact and caused the change.
In these columns on September 28, para three of the text said “…even today in a city that is the proverbial centre of power, pick up a phone and call a landline of the metropolitan telephone service, the ring is preceded by a recorded voice message which, when translated into English, goes something like this: ‘In the entire country the process of un-lockdown has begun. In such circumstances, move out of the house only when it is totally necessary.’” What followed was a light-hearted banter on the intended impact of the message. Several days later that message was replaced by one from a well-known voice from Bollywood. Significantly, the text of the new message on the telephone service resonates far better than the preceding one. Now the person holding the telephone is reminded that not only India but the whole world is grappling with the impact of the Coronavirus.
The purpose of the above narrative is not to claim that the September 28 write-up in this column triggered this modification. Far from it! However, it pleases one to note that somewhere, someone has contributed towards a change for the better. In the past, too, I have flagged such correlations. It is possible that others have written on similar things, too. Others may have talked or others may have noticed what I noticed too. The important thing is we should be proud of having a responsive governance system at least in some kind of experiences and cases. Once should notice the brighter aspects of public life in an otherwise grim scenario. It keeps hope alive. Hope need not come in large parcels or in areas where someone feels fatigued. It is just the indicator of life. In these difficult times, there is reason to believe that the tribe of progressive social critiques is still heard. Whether it is heard often or not often enough is a matter of perception and appetite for favourable response. For some it is still a matter of joy that sometimes those who matter do hear and do respond. We are blessed!
(The writer is an internationally-acclaimed management consultant)
In spite of buzzwords such as diversity and heterogeneity, such a culture stands for homogeneity and singularity in thought and action
That an innocent sounding word, “cancel”, has come to define contemporary culture in modern democracies may sound rather baffling to a lay person. The fact that it actually has, at least in select spaces involving debate and dialogue, reveals the degeneration of those spaces, theoretically given to welcoming diverse opinions. In everyday usage, cancel may mean withdrawal or scrapping of a contract, but the “cancel culture”, which unfortunately has become the logic of an impatient generation, has many more layers of meaning that are interlocking and complex. Regardless of its advocates from contrasting ideological umbrellas, “cancel culture” implies that the country and its institutions have failed the people, prompting the militantly “conscientious” groups to take over. Needless to say, such campaigns remain predominantly urban and middle-class. Analysts have traced the prevalence of this culture as definitive of our intellectual reality to the #MeToo campaign in the US. A powerful and perfectly legitimate movement slowly became the weapon of a generation glued to the internet, though without any sincere commitment to the cause that defined earlier generations of protesters, involving marches or picketing, which were demanding in terms of time and energy. Before we realised its frequent occurrence and increasing moralising tendency, it had become part of our cultural sphere and expressed itself through withdrawal of support, challenging authority and advocating suspension of the offender. Thus, Starbucks was targetted for asking its employees not to wear “Black Lives Matter” badges, a gym club brand, Equinox, faced backlash after its owner was found collecting donations for US President Donald Trump. Opinion writer Bari Weiss resigned from her job when her employer, The New York Times, failed to protect her from constant harassment by her colleagues for holding on to different political values. JK Rowling was “cancelled” because of what was seen as her intolerance of trans-women.
The war among liberals: In-built into “cancel culture” is an ethical imperative on the part of the people championing it, who see themselves as the defenders of democratic ethos, prompting them to raise their voices against what they feel is unjust. What is ignored in this so-called ethical order is the reality of an anti-democratic force that betrays intolerance of difference and disagreement. That explains why the same group of people demanding freedom end up cancelling conservative intellectuals. So “cancel culture” remains anti-democratic and promotes a culture of purity where being different and adversarial are offensive. In spite of buzzwords such as diversity and heterogeneity, such a culture stands for homogeneity and singularity in thought and action. It always looks for new outrages almost as an obsessive compulsive and pounces upon the politically incorrect to threaten him/her or the organisation so as to impose costs.
If it silences democracy in the name of democracy, tramples upon freedom in the name of freedom, we must understand where this habit of speaking in a forked tongue is coming from. It is not difficult to understand that it emanates from within liberal discourse and survives on its propensity towards double-speak and obfuscation. Writing letters to put pressure on governments and organisations for protecting rights, which the Left liberal intelligentsia excels in, is a technique whereby they legitimise themselves. When JK Rowling joined hands with Chomsky, Fukuyama, Rushdie, Atwood and so on, and called out this “cancel culture” as intolerance in an open letter published in Harper’s Magazine, she was, to some extent, joining hands with those who gave oxygen to such a culture. They wrote, “Censoriousness is spreading more widely in our culture: An intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism, and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.” What these people often forget is that writing such letters is always more about protecting their authority over liberalism than the cause itself. If they suddenly realise the violence of “cancel culture”, they should not look beyond themselves to find its provenance. “Cancel culture” is a product of their muscular approach to truth.
Even as “cancel culture” is a product of liberal discourse, it poses an existential threat to that discourse in its demand for a forced outcome rather than a process-oriented approach. It is equally protestant in nature in the sense that it has scant respect for liberal idols and high priests who symbolise entitlement. In fact, we may discern inter-generational conflict within this liberalism or a kind of castration anxiety (in Freudian terms). It marks the coming of age of the next generation of relatively young champions, who see their ideological fathers as patriarchs who have always benefitted from peddling liberal wares. When Pankaj Mishra trashed the Harper’s Magazine letter, he showed a mirror to these ideologues and accused them of fighting for their own freedom rather than that of free speech. This competitive liberalism is not a fight between right and wrong, but the sign that a smooth transition is not taking place. Unlike political parties or sports teams, the “liberal progressive” shop has the same set of owners who refuse to allow the new generation to replace them. Impatient, restless, combative and young, “cancel culture” warriors cannot see themselves waiting perpetually to be counted as intellectual adults. When Pankaj Mishra took issue with Rushdie for being called “the voice of the continent”, he was protesting against an intellectual culture that condemns authors like him (Mishra) to the waiting room of intellectual history.
The Indian story: In India, unlike the US, this culture has traversed both Left-and Right-wing narratives as well as not so politically-conscious actors. In the recent Bloomsbury controversy relating to a book on Delhi riots, the first move came from the Left to cancel the book followed by backlash from the non-Left quarters, who took issue with Bloomsbury’s cancellation and then cancelled Bloomsbury as a publisher of their choice. The death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput (SSR) also created a polarising climate where the outsiders to Bollywood, such as SSR, were pitted against the privileged insiders, who took their stardom for granted. This infuriated and angry group collectively trashed Sadak 2, a movie made by one who is seen as a promoter of nepotism.
However, it will be off the mark to project this as the expression of Right-wing angst. On most occasions Bollywood prima donnas of liberal hue have voiced their opinion against politicians, fellow actors and producers and whoever they imagined is expressing anti-democratic values. The present polarisation of Bollywood and its adoption of “cancel culture” implies the culture’s traction, cutting across ideological lines.
“Cancel culture” in India remains derivative of American leads, as in the “Black Lives Matter” movement being converted into “Dalit Lives Matter.” However, the cultural Right is learning from its past mistakes and using the vocabulary of democracy and victimhood for its own purpose. Like its Left adversaries, its supporters are writing letters to the public or to the President to raise awareness. They are writing books and speaking from public fora and forcing the Left to dehumanise itself by turning violent. Even as the Right is learning from the Left, the latter is getting into the slush of what it accused the Right to be. The liberal Left, which claimed to have exclusive right over free speech, now understands that liberty and free speech are no longer its exclusive domains. Leftists fear that liberty can be effectively used by the Right and this makes it suspect liberty as an impediment to its ideals of democracy and justice.
Economic imperative: There is yet another dimension of “cancel culture”, namely the economic imperative. Sometimes, acting on public outrage, as in sacking an employee for contrarian political values or insensitive posts, organisations seek to arrest a backlash or cash in on public outrage or hold on to their clientele. Given that the US intellectual sphere is totally dominated by the Left and the so-called multi-culturalism complex, and common people do not care much until election time, the media and publishing industry actually gain from this competitive outrage. In India however, due to its millennia old culture that has been evolutionary rather than revolutionary, such disruptive changes remain confined to select, elite spaces.
(The writer is Professor, IIT, Madras)
People vote for a party depending on various factors but little or no importance is given to the quality of the person chosen to lead it
Politics is the engine of society. The best of carriages, bogeys and saloons would come to naught if the engine was not maintained well. India has had satisfactory governments and poor ministries but still little thought has been given to the quality of men and women who should govern the country. Neither voters nor parties and their leaders or even our political scientists have given much thought to this subject. If the latter have thought about it, they do not seem to have written or propagated any ideas about it.
Indian elections have experienced positive polling, negative voting, voters choosing with their feet and polarised mandates, caste, class or community-wise. People have been heard saying that they voted to feel safe as a country after Indira Gandhi’s assassination in 1984. Never have I heard anyone saying that he/she voted to try and ensure good governance. Although after the 2019 polling, I did hear some Kolkata voters say that they voted for Narendra Modi for he was the fittest ruler among the choice before us at the Centre, although they did not agree with his party’s ideology.
That a successful democracy needs an effective Opposition is universally agreed. To add, a credible Opposition should also have an inner-party democracy. Out of the 68 years of India’s democratic functioning, most of the time we have either not had an adequate Opposition or the main Opposition party lacking internal democracy that would have injected fresh energy and perspectives. Lately, we have the doubtful benefit of hereditary parties or family-led organisations. The flip side to this problem is that most politicians in recent decades belong to mainly three categories — a family tradition, the unemployables and the freaks. Most others and their parents prefer secure careers or pursuits. Even well-to-do, financially secure families do not encourage their offspring to risk years in politics. Yet it is the same India which sent out their best youth, grown-ups and old, women and men to agitate for freedom. Was this patriotism spontaneous to the people or was it inspired by the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi? Before 1920, there was no tradition of such mass participation in the country’s political destiny, although India, certainly large swathes of it, was under the heels of invaders since the 12th century. And soon after 1947, the patriotic enthusiasm began to dry up.
Independence from the British did not mean that freedom was guaranteed or even secured forever. We experienced a shock in 1962 in Ladakh and Arunachal Pradesh (then North-East Frontier Agency, NEFA) at the hands of China to the extent that the Prime Minister appeared to weep on All India Radio when he said, “my heart goes out to the people of Assam”. Radio China was broadcasting in November 1962 that the brave soldiers of People’s Liberation Army (PLA) were looking forward to spending Christmas at Calcutta. And the State Bank had unlocked its treasury at its branch in Tezpur and currency notes were being blown by the breeze on the streets.
Retaining freedom is more important than winning it. Therefore, the best talent in the country should try going into politics. Everyone would not succeed. As planned, I rounded up my commercial career and came to Delhi nearly 40 years ago en route Gujarat. In those years caste mattered so much that even the most generous political party could not allot any seat (Lok Sabha). I, therefore, held back in Delhi and worked here quietly for 16 years and then got to the Rajya Sabha for a part term as a result of a byelection. I did my best and that was my satisfaction out of the service I performed. For example, I was able to build 49 Sulabh shauchalayas in Baroda city and in all 88 bus stops in the district with the Members of Parliament Local Area Development Scheme (MPLADS) funds I was allotted.
In India, members of the elite and intelligentsia often console themselves that politics is a dirty game and good people should avoid it. This is not true. In my years, I found politics was cleaner than my earlier 25 years in business. Let me quote one example, most of the non-performing assets (NPAs) with the banks are purely business failures. There are much fewer scams in politics.
If I did not go farther in politics, it was because of my peculiarities. I was an ethnic Gujarati, brought up in Bengal and had spent 25 years in business with no experience in politics. We must remember that while business management is a game of selection, politics is one of elimination and in business one generally succeeds without grabbing anyone else’s money. In politics, one wins by dispossessing someone else of his seat. Nevertheless, one’s attitude should be similar to the military national service. Whether one likes soldiering or not, two years are to be devoted to training as a matter of duty. In Britain, many Oxbridge graduates join politics as do a significant number of public school boys and girls. True, in the US it has not been quite the same. When my father was at the University of Boston, between 1929 and 32, he often said he would return to India and join the Congress party. Gandhi was already an acclaimed leader and yet the reaction was often, “After such expensive studies, why go to politics?” Yet the American standards are reasonably good.
Our voters should be more demanding and not so tolerant of standards as they often can be. Take the issue of dynasty. In May 1981, when Rajiv Gandhi was contesting his first byelections from Amethi, I spent a few days motoring through the constituency accompanied by a colleague. One afternoon we stopped at a dhaba where an enthusiastic discussion was going on. The general tenor was how well Rajiv spoke. What chaste Hindi he used and so on. After 15 minutes or so I intervened to ask, “What service has he done for the country except for flying aeroplanes for Indian Airlines?” One sleepy person present suddenly woke up to assert, “He is learning his mother’s vocation. Don’t doctors bequeath their dispensaries to their children? Don’t lawyers train their children how to be advocates? At least Rajivji had to come and get elected again and again to get the people’s approval.”
Coming to corruption, we came across a lucid explanation on the outskirts of Malihabad in the 1984 General Election. Again a dhaba discussion, Anwar Ahmed, a Minister in the State Cabinet, was being praised for being such a good and honest man. One of the participants lost his patience and intervened to ask, “Yes, Anwar Saheb is very upright and honest, he has been a Minister for 10 years but has not been able to build a house for his family. If a person cannot do this least bit for his wife and children, what can he do to help common people like you and me?”
What management is to a company and its success, the Government is to a country. Yet most of our people do not connect the country’s stake when they go to the ballot box. The debacle of 1962 caused by unpreparedness needs recollection. The Indian Army did not have mountain guns or howitzers to fire in mountainous NEFA. The second batch of troops that was sent up to 16,000 feet had canvas shoes, no gloves and ordinary woollen pullovers. General Rob Lockhart, the interim Commander-in-Chief of the Indian Army after Independence, said that we are a peace-loving nation. We do not really need an Army. And that the police is sufficient for our purpose. After all this, the same political party was re-elected in the following election. And in the 1990s, our Prime Minister told in a reply to a journalist that India is too large a country to worry about terrorism.
(The writer is a well-known columnist and an author. Views expressed are personal)
The post of CAG is not a cadre post for IA&AS. Second issue is IAS versus IA&AS. No doubt IA&AS as a service is an excellent service, but its aspiring members cannot claim a comparison with IAS officers when it comes to appointment of CAG. IAS officers have wide range of experiences from the lowest ebb in a district to the top posts of Secretary to Government of India.
Former top CAG official KK Srivastava the internationally acclaimed poet and author’s recent book “Esthetic Blend of Flames of the Minds” on “Mann Ki Baat” programme of Prime Minister Narendra Modi has been well appreciated as it brings out the best features of 60 long episodes of “Mann Ki Baat” in just 4,000 words. Srivastava, before retiring as Additional Deputy CAG last month, had a long career, spanning over 36 years, believes an auditor should not venture into the domain of policy auditing as that means an attempt to usurp the role of a public representative. In a freewheeling conversation with The Pioneer’s Swarn Kumar Anand, KK Srivastava talks about his experiences and more…
The Pioneer: On Google, I read articles; your conversations with poets/writers about your fourth book Soliloquy of a Small-Town Uncivil Servant, and articles you wrote. I want to engage you with some articles and your service experiences. Leading a retired life, is spending time an issue?
KKS: No. I spend much time in thinking; I take out books I have not read for decades. Before Covid-19 pandemic, I occasionally used to meet friends from your fraternity over lunch or dinner in Press Club of India. The milieu and discourses with journalists and writers are soothing. I often write articles/reviews. Now retired, I try to spend some time in company of my wife which, for reasons best known to her, she does not seem to relish much.
The Pioneer: I understand you wrote your first review in 2011. You analysed a single, short poem, ‘I’ by a Romanian poetess. It is a long psycho-analysis of a small poem. Please give some background.
KKS: I don’t remember if it was the first review but certainly it was one of the earliest ones. I knew Veronica’s works earlier. She is sober, quiet and perceptive with limited literary output. This poem ran on her imagination of an arriving train at a platform. I analysed it which became longish. In Soliloquy of a Small-Town Uncivil Servant, she went through two sample chapters and made suggestions. In 2013, I introduced her to World Poetry, Canada International. They published her. I don’t know if she still writes or not.
The Pioneer: What prompted you to write ‘Esthetic Blend of Flames of the Minds’ on “Mann Ki Baat” programme of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. It is a mammoth piece which brings out the best features of sixty long episodes of “Mann Ki Baat” in just four thousand words.
KKS: Because it is apolitical and creative. “Mann Ki Baat” is about creativity of not only one mind i.e of that of the Prime Minister but of minds of millions of Indians. It connects Indians to India and India to Indians. Being collective thoughts of millions of Indians, “Mann Ki Baat” represents an unprecedented oneness between the Prime Minister and the people of the country and vice versa. Listening to “Mann Ki Baat” is a must for all public, including civil servants. They ought to know India, its past glory and emerging NEW INDIA through the minds of millions of Indians. It gives physical, mental and spiritual solace.
The Pioneer: You reviewed Vinod Rai’s book, Not Just an Accountant: The Diary of the Nation’s Conscience Keeper in Kitaab Singapore. How did you view the book as a reviewer?
KKS: I read a much lesser publicised book by another CAG, late CG Somiah: The Honest Always Stand Alone. Somiah’s was a complete book: a book of ease, Rai’s was a hurried attempt. As a critic, I have to do justice with a book being critiqued. For me the book: its content, threads, influences and temperament matter. The writer stays invisible. I liked Somiah’s book. It offered his holistic life story. You digest complete, not partially covered periods unless you have the second volume. If you read my review in Kitaab Singapore, you will find in second but concluding paragraph my expectations of the same from Vinod Rai. Six years past, I am not sure if second volume came about his whole life experiences.
The Pioneer: Who are the writers in India you interact with or living Indian writers whose works you read?
KKS: Jayanta Mahapatra, the renowned poet from Cuttack, Odisha. He is above ninety and we have been exchanging hand-written letters for last fifteen years. His mental and intellectual alertness is amazing. Sometimes, I phone him. When he returned Padma Shri in November 2015, I wrote to him why I expected him not to do so. Columnist and writer A Surya Prakash’s books and articles interest me. I critiqued Chief Editor of Indian Express Raj Kamal Jha’s book SHE WILL BUILD HIM A CITY in my fourth book and currently reading his latest book The CITY AND THE SEA. I cherish eccentricity of his hallucinating themes in stylish prose. I planned to call on him after retirement but Covid has vitiated everything. I am also reading Vinod Kumar Shukla’s Hindi poems.
The Pioneer: You had a long career, spanning over thirty-six and half years. You went in capacities from Deputy/Senior Deputy Accountant General, Accountant General, Principal Accountant General, to Pondicherry, Allahabad, Bombay, Ranchi, Jaipur, Rajkot, Delhi as Chief Auditor, New Delhi Municipal Corporation, Gwalior, Thiruvananthapuram and at the end CAG office Delhi and superannuated as Additional Deputy CAG. Your vast experience across the country and varied literary background gives you an enviable position to share your experiences with readers and civil service aspirants.
KKS: I feel amused you took the trouble of seeing my profile. If I saw India, its people, its cultural and intellectual strength, its different shades, it is through the organisation of CAG of India. Mine being a Central service with all India transfer liability, my postings to so many different places taught me uniqueness of Indian people: the oneness within different shades. I could know life people live. I could handle tough associations in places like Allahabad, Ranchi, Rajkot, Gwalior and Thiruvananthapuram. With my growing experience, I could easily relate to staff, their anxieties and strength. When I got posted as Principal Accountant General, Kerala at Thiruvananthapuram, the very next day of my assuming charge, I visited each section, met and shook hands with each and every member of staff. Towards the end, I visited Association room and met members of the association present there. The depressing atmosphere started becoming diminutive immediately. I did this every station I was posted to. It gave me confidence; it gave the staff confidence; it gave a relationship of ease vitally needed to run a big office. Similarly, I had interaction with Principal Secretaries in various States. In retrospect I feel happy to have an augmented life, courtesy learning from experiences of life of thousands of wonderful people.
The Pioneer: Did these transfers never affect your family?
KKS: The family stayed with me throughout.
The Pioneer: We hear various State Governments don’t respond to audit. Which State was most responsive to audit? Please share a few experiences?
KKS: I had cordial relationship particularly with Principal Secretaries (Finance) in every State. It facilitated response from the Government. But Gujarat, where I was stationed at Rajkot, was where officers showed inherent keenness to discuss particularly draft Performance Reviews and that too at very high level. There was an issue. Immediately, after taking over in 2008, I called on the then Chief Secretary who understood issues from me and within a month or so, remedial measures were taken by State Government with detailed work plan for a year in place. Similarly, in 2009, Performance Review on Modernisation of Police Scheme was to be discussed and the then ACS (Home), chaired the meeting spending full half-day in Gandhi Nagar conference room where many senior officers were present. He read each and every line of the draft report himself and requested authorities to respond and give comments/constraints, if any. He wanted me to appreciate and reflect these in the review. I learnt a lot from him during discussion. At the end, both audit and administration were satisfied. I moved from Gujarat but think the review featured in the Audit Report.
Kerala was equally responsive at very high level, though I was heading Accounts Office. Early 2016, perhaps January or February, one evening, ACS (Finance) telephoned me regarding a portion of work of our office and told me to meet Chief Minister without any delay. I sought appointment from him. Next day, it was a State holiday but he called me at his residence. I briefed two other PAsG located at the station and urged them to accompany me. They promptly agreed. Next day, we met the Chief Minister and I explained to him how functioning of that work had improved very significantly in our office and showed him data. My two colleagues supported my contention wholeheartedly. Then he came up to the door where I, folding my hands, said, “Namaste, Sir. Kindly keep our request in view. Our office is performing well.” He looked at me; it was reassuring. That important portion of work stayed with us. On taking over as DG in CAG office, I called on my earlier boss and told her about that episode saying “Ma’am, I did not bother you. I solved it locally.” Appreciating it, she told, “That’s why we call you, KK.” Unfortunately, we lost her sometime back. Normally, I tried to solve issues without flagging these as big issues.
The Pioneer: Recently, when GC Murmu, an IAS officer of 1985 batch, was appointed as CAG, there were talks about his superseding six IA&AS officers (three from 1983 and three from 1984 batch). Is it IAS versus IA&AS issue? Is it discouraging for the officers and organisation?
KKS: When I joined the service at the then Staff College, Shimla, a faculty member explained to us the meaning of the word, “cadre” in the context of IA&AS as a cadre. He clarified that the post of CAG is an ex-cadre post. The post of CAG is not a cadre post for IA&AS. Second issue is IAS versus IA&AS. No doubt IA&AS as a service is an excellent service, but its aspiring members cannot claim a comparison with IAS officers when it comes to appointment of CAG. IAS officers have wide range of experiences from the lowest ebb in a district to the top posts of Secretary to Government of India. They work with different regimes of political leadership which is a big learning opportunity for them. They have public dealings, they meet public, come to grips with people’s grievances on day-to-day basis; they are a part of micro and macro socio-economic problem solving process. They prepare groundwork for political leadership in deciding policies and understand the essentials of policy making. They are certainly better placed as compared to any other service including IA&AS, to occupy the chair of CAG of India. I agree that knowledge of audit and accounts may be beneficial for an outsider CAG, but that knowledge alone is not the sole criterion. Wise people accept immutably universal facts and don’t lament over spilt milk at the last moment.
The Pioneer: What about the supersession of six IA&AS officers?
KKS: My answer is embedded above. I will clarify my understanding once more. Supersession is within a particular service. Supersession is never with reference to other services. It is unbelievable that an IA&AS officer of 1983 batch has been superseded by an IAS officer of 1985 batch, though it is quite possible and a fact an I A&AS officer of 1983 batch being successfully superseded by IA&AS officers of 1985 batch and who knows it better than me. Hence, GC Murmu has superseded no IA&AS officer. The post of CAG is a constitutional post and the Prime Minister has the final word on his selection. I visited GC Murmu’s Wikipedia page. Though it might seem preposterous on my part to say so, in my view, he is a very suitable selection for the post of present CAG and seems to be a down to earth man. Organisation needs such a CAG.
The Pioneer: It is alleged that there is lack of transparency in selection of CAG. How would you react?
KKS: First, I have no means to ascertain whether the process is transparent or not. Second, as I understand this issue has also seen judicial scrutiny in the past. Third, if certain individuals and groups think process is non-transparent, they should take timely and appropriate steps to elevate discussion, debates to higher plateau.
The Pioneer: Why only IAS officers? Why not other professionals like economists, chartered accountants, academics, scientists or even journalists?
KKS: I tend to agree. This should be debated in various forums.
The Pioneer: As a writer, your perception of issues will have a more matured interpretative value. A person can draw meaningful conclusions from your views. What are your suggestions to new CAG?
KKS: I am not sanguine if others will be so sure of what you say but still I will share my honest views. My point of view is CAG of India means he is CAG for 138 crore Indians. Audit Reports get processed and discussed through Public Accounts Committees and COPU. That is a fine arrangement constitutionally mandated. We chalk out audit plans for both Centre and States. I don’t find any say by even a segment of Indian population on their suggestions. There is Audit Advisory Committee where experts are invited but these experts are not substitutes for 138 crore people. Therefore, my first suggestion to new CAG will be to open its website for one month in advance before the process of preparation of Audit Plans begins. During that month, public should be free to offer suggestions for topics to be covered in audit in next audit cycle. It will have two advantages. First, when nation is aiming to become an inclusive society, audit should open its gate to inclusion of nation’s population. Let people express themselves. CAG’s decision on audit plans will be final. Second, it will increase awareness in public about this august institution which is not there at present as it should be. When Sustainable Development Goals were being finalised, views were called from across countries through its website.
Second, last month, I wrote an article Kiran raises hopes for a robust New India. Late evening of the day article appeared, I got a call from a Professor of Psychiatry, AIIMS who had read the article. He invited me to join as a panelist for a webinar on “India’s first Mental Health Access Summit”, organised by AIIMS in collaboration with Mental Health Foundation, India. I participated in it on 4th of this month. I shared my little bit with mental health professionals. The picture of mental health issues that came during panel discussion was alarming.
An All India Performance Review on Assessment of extent of mental disorders, population affected, availability of infrastructure and preparedness to handle this invading behemoth is the need of the hour. This report will be very handy to Government, Medical Institutes, and NGOs generating keenness in Public Accounts Committee and public. I am not sure if this exercise was done in recent past. CAG may like to consider it.
The Pioneer: I came across an interesting set of statistics. I saw profile of some officers in different batches from 1981 to 1990. There were/are some officers who stayed/are staying in Delhi and adjacent States like Jaipur, Chandigarh, Faridabad or even Noida for 20/25 years, including deputation period in different spells. They had/have repeated postings in Delhi/CAG office. A few of them from this group went abroad for posting. This trend is seen even in case of currently serving officers. There are clusters of some officers having these three commonalities in selected batches spending almost 60 to 70 per cent of their service in Delhi and around places alone? It seems there is an elite group. Does it not affect efficiency?
KKS: You remind me of a Hindi proverb, “Haath Kangan ko Arsi Kaya.” The same thing has been felt by a majority of IA&AS officers over last so many years, even decades. Statistics is cited and statistics does not tell lie. Your observation is correct. It might affect efficiency at various levels.
The Pioneer: What are the expectations from new CAG in this respect?
KKS: New CAG may like to look into trends flagged. He may like to consider institutionalising steps as he deems necessary so that these end and corrective measures are taken. The new CAG seems to be a down to earth man.
The Pioneer: There have been media reports about delay in finalisation of audit reports in recent past. Any comments?
KKS: During last about three years before retirement, I had nothing to do with processing of audit reports. Therefore, I cannot answer your question.
The Pioneer: Any comments on delay in placing the reports in Parliament/ Assemblies.
KKS: The decision to place the reports has to be taken by the Government. The CAG has no role in it. His role ends with sending the reports to the President and Governors with the request to cause these to be laid in Parliament/State Assembly.
The Pioneer: Some audit reports become controversial. Why?
KKS: Late ST Kenghe was Director of IA&AS Staff College, Shimla when I was a probationer. He was a scholar. He quoted in Sanskrit from Vedas and Upanishads while talking to probationers. He was fond of saying, “Act as an auditor but don’t adopt holier than thou attitude”. He wrote the same thing in an article published in a book during late TN Chaturvedi’s period.
Two lessons emerge from above. An auditor should never think he is a paragon of virtue. Second his reports should speak, if at all necessary. Controversies arise if an auditor talks about his “achievements”. An audit report is a consequence of incessant hard work of more than hundred staff/officers. It should be kept in view. If these two criteria are respected, Reports will be respected.
The Pioneer: There were issues in the past weather an auditor can audit policies. What are your views and what role do you envisage for audit in current times?
KKS: I think an auditor should not venture into domain of policy auditing, Let me explain how I look at it. Political parties when they go to elections, go with their manifesto: a set of promises made to people. When a party comes to power, in order to convert the manifesto into action, they decide policies. Thus, a policy links public representatives and people through manifesto. Once an auditor tries to audit policies, he starts meddling with this link and thereby tries to usurp the role of a public representative which is barred in constitution. But he can always audit the outcome of policy which is normally done. Coming to the role of audit in current times, late CG Somiah, the then CAG’s advocacy “Audit as an aid to administration” should be respected and followed. Audit should facilitate reforms undertaken by Government and help in formation of a NEW INDIA.
The Pioneer: Any advice to young IA&AS officers?
KKS: It is said of the community of auditors they never welcome advice to them but are first to offer unsolicited advice to others. It’s in lighter vein. Audit organisation has intelligent and hardworking young officers. They should work for the organisation which has a long, glorious history. They should not suffer from ‘fixity and rigidity’ and should contribute to ‘collective personality’ of IA&AS and thereby strengthen the hands of CAG of India. Therefore, they should ponder over and learn from these lines of Salman Rushdie’s THE GOLDEN HOUSE, “In these our degenerate times, men bent on nothing but vainglory and personal gain-hollow, bombastic men for whom nothing is off-limits if it advances their pretty cause… and calling all who oppose them liars, envious, little people, stupid people, stiffs, and in a precise reversal of the truth, dishonest and corrupt.” My best wishes to them.
The Pioneer: Do you have any plans to write your autobiography?
KKS: The bridge is not visible to me. We will cross it if it ever comes.
It seems that the internal problems of other nations make up the necessary ‘bind’ that keeps our fractured and restive neighbour going
Pakistan was born to a regressive, exclusivist and instinctively interfering idea that has pandered to religiosity as a central tenet. This has over time pushed its fate towards the slippery slope of revisionism and medievalism. While the success of the secular “idea of India” and the independence of Bangladesh ought to have conclusively trashed the flawed “two-nation theory,” Pakistan has oddly accelerated its puritanical impulses towards unprecedented levels. From civilian Governments to military men, all have conceded ground to the mullahs, extremist ideologies and even terror organisations. A so-called liberal like Zulfikar Bhutto was responsible for declaring Ahmadis as “non-Muslims,” a career soldier like General Zia-ul-Haq ushered in Shariaisation, Benazir Bhutto’s Interior Minister Nasrullah Babar was responsible for creating the Taliban and so on. Each and every leader tried to run with the hare and hunt with the hound, thinking that they could manage and misuse religious passion for their own advantage but like the proverbial genie that once unleashed cannot revert, Pakistan is now combusting from within. Yet, it refuses to acknowledge and renege from the dangerous games of its past and the result is the Frankensteinian monster of religious extremism.
Pakistan’s exposed infamy as the “terror nursery” explains the ongoing tryst with the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), where it stands to be black/grey listed for its sovereign stand on money laundering and terror financing. As per FATF findings till now, Pakistan has “strategic deficiencies” that barely mask its indefensible reputation for misadventures in Afghanistan, India, Iran, Middle Eastern swathes to now even in the latest flashpoint, Azerbaijan. Former Commander of US forces in Afghanistan, Lieutenant-General John Nicholson, had complained about Pakistan’s incorrigibility by stating, “We have been very direct and very clear with the Pakistanis... we have not seen those changes implemented yet.” He had unambiguously added that the Pakistani establishment was harbouring “agents of chaos.” Typically, Pakistan denied the accusations and attributed all wrongdoings to what it has patently and conveniently called “non-State actors”. The conceptual formulation of “non-State actors” offers it an implausible opportunity of official deniability as Pakistan’s duplicity on terror has got firmly established; hence the FATF proceedings. The slamming observation and warning to Pakistan by the then Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, that the “snakes in your backyard won’t bite only neighbours”, has gone expectedly unheeded as the foundational spirit underlying the nation justifies its routine dalliances in the inappropriate name of religion. It is almost as if the internal problems of other nations are the necessary “bind” that keeps the fractured and restive Pakistan going. And Azerbaijan is its latest expression and foray.
As the bloody war between Azerbaijan and Armenia escalates in the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh, it collaterally galvanises foreign powers to intervene militarily in order to pursue their own selfish agenda. Unfortunately, this war in the erstwhile region of Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) has an unmistakable angularity of religion, where a Christian Armenia is pitted against a predominantly Muslim Azerbaijan. This opens the window to a neighbouring Turkey to establish its quest as the new “leader” of the Ummah (displacing the Arab Sheikhdoms) and to perpetuate its historical animus with Armenians. Turkey under Recep Tayyip Erdogan fancies itself as the sole power that hasn’t “succumbed” to Israel (towards the rapprochement and normalcy of ties of Tel Aviv with Abu Dhabi, Bahrain and by default, even Riyadh). This intra-Ummah struggle has seen Turkey tactically championing Kashmir even as Pakistan’s historical allies like Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates have started showing disinterest in such pitches. The fight for leadership is so intense that Saudi Arabia has called for an embargo on Turkish products and stopped further aid to cash-strapped Pakistan. Beyond China, today it is only Turkey that is supporting Pakistan at multi-lateral forums. So it is critical for Pakistan to reciprocate and curry favour with Ankara to consolidate its new-found and only ally (beyond Beijing). In siding with Azerbaijan, Pakistan kills three birds with one stone as it remains consistently involved in others’ matters, reciprocates by backing Turkey and can claim religious context for its action.
Officially, Pakistan denies any involvement in Azerbaijan, as it always does. However, the Pakistani Foreign Office leaves no doubt about its position in the conflict when it says, “intensive shelling by Armenian forces on Azerbaijan’s civilian population is reprehensible and most unfortunate” but denies sending Pakistani troops to fight alongside the Turkish and Azeri soldiers. Tellingly, Azerbaijan’s President, Ilham Aliyev, thanked both Turkey and Pakistan for their support in the fight against Armenian forces.
There is a tell-tale Pakistani pattern to external interferences that over time justifies and legitimises its own misadventures to itself. A key component of that strategy is what it ostensibly calls “non-State actors.” As early as 1947-48, it sent tribal lashkar (militia) from Waziristan to capture Kashmir even as it denied any official patronage. Its military doctrine to “bleed India with a thousand cuts” is from the same fount. Later in the Kargil war also, it was the infiltration of Pakistani military regulars in the guise of local Kashmiris that had been publicly opposed. The unconvincing cover of Pakistani involvement in foreign war theatres like Afghanistan and Kargil was later blown by self-goals by none less than former Generals like Hamid Gul, Ashraf Rashid and even former President, Pervez Musharraf.
Pakistan is a past master in arranging “mercenaries” or “non-State actors” that partake in operations at the behest of its establishment, and the comment of the Armenian Deputy Foreign Minister, Avet Adonts, that “we can’t exclude the possibility” of Pakistani wherewithal, is so familiar and repetitive. But as usual, Pakistan is playing a dangerously high stakes game of realpolitik where a lot more is loaded against it this time. Despite earning international notoriety as an unreliable partner in the global “war on terror,” the foundational flaw of the nation is too deep-rooted, existential and regime-sustaining to warrant any course correction. Though in the Azerbaijan-Armenia theatre, it may perhaps bite more than what many of its traditional supporters themselves will tolerate any further, let alone the rest of the world.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands)
As one of the tallest Dalit leaders of a post-Mandal India, Ram Vilas Paswan may not have been able to build a national party like the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) or have the mobilising force of its leader Mayawati, but he had Bihar. And the unflagging loyalty of his voters, who never deserted him and returned him as their representative with record-breaking margins, trusting he would deliver. It was this solidity of command and his unchanging vote pie that helped him become the kingmaker of heartland politics, one that no party could ignore and one that he was acutely aware of to become India’s most successful bellwether politician and influencer of coalition politics. In return, he got key ministries in successive Governments of VP Singh, HD Deve Gowda, IK Gujral, AB Vajpayee, Manmohan Singh and Narendra Modi. Portfolios that he used to ensure the development of his constituents and pilot their rights. Let us not forget that as Minister he brought in a strict law to penalise atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Tribes. He realised that national politics would keep him relevant even if his voteshare was no more than seven per cent of the Bihar electorate but enough to be a swing factor for any party needing it. Not that he wasn’t aware of the limitations of being a Dalit-only leader and, therefore, included Muslims to strengthen the electoral worth of his Lok Janshakti Party (LJP). The remaining deficit was made up by his national presence that helped him make or break governments in Bihar. He was responsible for dismantling Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chieftain Lalu Prasad Yadav’s hold on the State in 2005 and laid the ground for Nitish Kumar to become the Chief Minister. Committed to BR Ambedkar’s philosophy and the Lohia brand of socialism, he didn’t hesitate to stand up for what’s right and was instrumental in bringing down the Vajpayee Government over the Gujarat riots and attacks on Muslims. And at one time, he even insisted on a Muslim Chief Minister for Bihar. Yet such was his winsome personality and convincing ability that the cross-jumps he made, disregarding ideology to stay on the right side of power, seemed effortless than contrived, expedient rather than convenient. That explains why everybody may have ridiculed Nitish Kumar for jumping ship but spared Paswan. And using that advantage, he sided with the Modi regime to launch his son Chirag as a bigger player in Bihar politics. Knowing that all senior leaders were in their sunset years and grooming their younger lot, he wanted him to be chief ministerial candidate some day, something that eluded him. So he intended to chaperone him through the forthcoming Assembly elections.
Chirag has, of course, played into the BJP’s ambition of getting Bihar on its terms and, as its proxy, made no bones of his intention to undercut the prospects of Nitish Kumar’s Janata Dal (United) by fielding LJP candidates against it and playing friendly matches with the BJP while supporting the saffron party at the Centre. In fact, he has been aggressive about becoming the BJP’s B-team all too early, ceaselessly attacking Nitish, without testing strengths on the ground. One that forced the BJP to publicly restrain him by reasserting faith in Nitish as CM face, lest it be seen as a usurper of the federal space. Dalits account for 16 per cent of Bihar’s population and half of these are Paswans, a chunk that has been loyal to the LJP over the years. But Nitish, by introducing sub-quotas for Mahadalits, has chipped away at some of that base. Besides, he has roped in another Dalit leader Jiten Manjhi into his fold. But the ambitious Chirag feels that with the CM’s political stock at an all-time low, this is the best time for the LJP to shore up its base and anoint himself as a key power player. Besides, he wants to emerge as an alternative to Lalu’s son Tejashwi Yadav, who is also looking at the Assembly elections for legitimacy. Many believe that Chirag has a better appeal and acceptability among the youth in general than the arrogant Tejashwi but the latter is a bigger crowd puller. Both still rely on the aura and political legacy of their fathers to convince the voters and wouldn’t want to miss an opportunity to prove as much. Chirag, who has a largely urban persona, is handicapped by the lack of his father’s ability to feel the pulse of the underprivileged, speak their tongue and settle into their ways while campaigning. Paswan Junior, who once chased Bollywood dreams, seems that much more distant. Besides, unlike Tejashwi, who has his brothers and sisters propping up the RJD, Chirag has no family support to fall back on. And the LJP, with its heavy-duty reliance on its founding family, has hardly groomed outsiders who could emerge as his advisors. Uncle Pashupati Paras, who is the sitting Hajipur MP, is not interested in working with Chirag. And nobody knows how much he can depend on his cousins to do his bidding. So the young leader has not only lost his father’s counsel, he has lost the family mantle too. So far he has been able to fire up the LJP enough to risk it alone in the Bihar Assembly, naming candidates for 42 seats and netting in five BJP rebels too. But with Paswan passing away at a crucial transitional juncture, Chirag could plateau out and would be wise to not spread himself out too thin. Alternatively, Paswan’s death may translate into a sympathy wave among all Dalit voters, who may vote for legacy than its bearer. Either way, his political survival is at stake. The BJP will be watching him too.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month