While the Prime Minister’s critics allege that he is building brand Modi abroad, he feels that the power of global citizens should be harnessed for the growth of India as well as projecting a positive image in the US
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is all set to woo the Indian diaspora once again when he visits the United States (US) later this month to participate in the United Nations General Assembly meeting. Howdy Modi, a mega community summit that plays on the popular Texas greeting, is being planned in Houston on September 22. Modi is expected to address about 70,000 Indian-Americans in a show of popularity aimed at wowing Americans for the third time around.
The first was when he dazzled New York in 2014 during his Madison Square Garden rally with more than 40 American lawmakers by his side. “You play a key role in shaping a positive image of India not just in America but also around the world,” the Prime Minister told a rapturous crowd chanting “Modi, Modi” at the venue. The second was an equally big show in Silicon Valley in 2016, which was also a huge hit.
The Houston show is also significant as this will be the first in the US, after Modi got a huge mandate in the 2019 Lok Sabha polls. A known orator and showman, Modi will utilise this opportunity to connect directly with Indian-Americans and Non Resident Indians (NRIs). Texas, which is known as the energy capital of the world, has a special relationship with India as it is home to more than 300,000 Indians.
So the question is why is Modi investing so much in the Indian diaspora? For one, they play an important role in Modi’s politics and economics. He wants to mobilise the diaspora and use them to project a positive image of him in the US. He also wants to use this opportunity to further India’s business interests in that country.
As the Indian community has grown in influence, it is only natural for Modi to utilise it further. Even as Chief Minister of Gujarat, he knew its importance. Besides, while addressing them, Modi also targets his domestic constituency. The Indian diaspora is the second-biggest after China, with 30 million Indians living in 205 countries around the world.
Modi has made his interaction with Indians overseas a fundamental part of his foreign visits. In contrast, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister, pursued a policy of active dissociation from them. This continued until former Prime Minister PV Narasimha Rao realised the need for mobilisation of Indians abroad soon after kicking off liberalisation policies.
Modi is not the first to woo Indian Americans, as it was during the Vajpayee regime (1998-2004) that the lobby became quite influential and got American sanctions lifted after the Pokhran-II nuclear test and persuaded the then US President Bill Clinton to visit India in 2000.
Vajpayee, in his enthusiasm appointed Bhishma Agnihotri, an NRI as ambassador-at-large but Washington refused to recognise two ambassadors. Vajpayee was the first to organise Pravasi Bharatiya Divas to honour them for their contribution. Later, it was the diaspora’s influence that helped Manmohan Singh clinch the Indo-US nuclear deal in 2008.
The glitz and glamour surrounding Modi’s visit this month are part of a diplomacy drive, which is getting more and more refined. One of the main deviations from India’s traditional foreign policy is that Modi has instructed all Indian embassies to be receptive to the concerns of the community there.
Second, he has turned overseas Indians into an effective tool of his foreign policy, which is a key achievement. Modi has praised them and called them ambassadors of India and treats them as part of India’s soft power standing. He believes that Indian-Americans are one of the wealthiest and most educated communities in the US.
Third, even electorally, Indian-Americans have been useful to Modi. They raised money, provided technical services for his election campaigns, volunteered for mobilisation campaigns and lobbying. Moreover, by showing off his clout Modi also sends a signal to the US political parties about his extended vote bank.
Fourth, given his proposed meeting with Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) in Houston, he could also promote Indian business interests by seeking investment from American multinationals. To his credit, Modi has never lost a chance to promote Indian interests.
Moreover, the BJP has always been more active among Indians living abroad than the Congress. For decades now the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its constituents have been working in the US and elsewhere propagating Hindu culture and building temples. By contrast, the Congress has been slow in getting connected with Indian- Americans.
Why do Indians abroad look to Modi? It is because they trust him and hope he will turn India into a land of opportunities. They appreciate that Modi has given them many facilities like the Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) card, making visas easier, voting by proxy and admission in schools etc. They are now demanding dual citizenship.
For Modi the diaspora is not a liability but an asset. While Modi’s critics allege that he is building brand Modi abroad, he feels that their power should be harnessed for the growth of India as well as his own image and he has succeeded in both so far.
(The writer is a senior journalist)
Writer: Kalyani Shankar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
How can a journalist be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for focussing on child rights?
It’s a classic case of shooting the messenger who was just trying to help focus on a scam in the mid-day meal scheme in Uttar Pradesh (UP), where children were being abominably fed roti and rice with salt. Considering that funding for such welfare schemes can at least ensure a minimal balanced diet, the journalist felt it was his duty to expose the anomaly. Especially since it concerned the health index of children, an essential component of the demographic dividend that we so love to talk about. Instead, Jansandesh Times reporter Pawan Kumar Jaiswal was arrested with the State administration bizarrely accusing him of trying to defame the Yogi Adityanath Government. And in a blatant onslaught on the freedom of the Press, Jaiswal has been booked for criminal conspiracy after he circulated a video on the travesty at Siur near Mirzapur on August 22. According to the UP Government’s mid-day meal guidelines, Rs 4.48 is allocated to each primary student daily for providing a nutritious, balanced meal, consisting of dal, vegetables and rice or roti. Community kitchens under welfare schemes by various State Governments have also been known to arrange meals at Rs 5. So clearly Jaiswal was highlighting the fund leakage that happens at the micro-levels in collusion with implementing authorities. This is not just characteristic of UP but other States too, a similar incident being reported from West Bengal a couple of weeks ago. So the crackdown by the UP Government is uncalled for, which has clearly been put on the backfoot by the extensive media coverage of this outrage. Of course, now it has been compelled to order a probe.
So what message is the UP Government giving to journalists? Don’t expose corruption, else you will pay? But isn’t it antithetical to the Adityanath Government’s avowed commitment to clean up systemic deficiencies? In a democracy, people have the right to know what the Government is doing with their hard-earned money. And in exposing corruption and scams, journalists are not only keeping the electorate informed about what’s going on but also making the Government accountable and aware of the malpractices taking place right under their nose that they might not be aware of. As Supreme Court Justice KM Joseph, who was part of the Bench hearing the Rafale deal case in April 2019, noted, the Indian Press has greatly contributed to strengthening of democracy and “it will have a pivotal role to play for the continued existence of a vibrant democracy in the country.” He also reminded the Press of the public duty it has in disseminating truthful information as its freedom continues to be protected under the Constitution. The Government must take exposés and sting operations in the right spirit and clamp down on corrupt officials, not journalists. As it is the World Press Freedom Index 2019 downgraded India two places and ranked it 140th out of 180 countries. The index listed reprisals by corrupt politicians and criminal groups exposed by reporters as some of the occupational dangers.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
The idea behind this process is to have each Member of Parliament represent roughly an equal number of voters, say Adithya A Variath and Abhishek Negi
Democracy is one of the cardinal principles of constitutional values guaranteed to the citizens of India. The State, as a social institution, draws its contemporary powers and sovereignty from its citizens. Constitutionalism demands electoral democracy and popular sovereignty, which in turn require not just theoretical representation but also equal representation. Since the end of the Cold War, the universality of elections and electoral reforms has been institutionalised by democracy.
A radical move was taken by the Constituent Assembly by adopting the parliamentary system of governance in India. It is also essential to understand that it was implemented at a time when more than three-fourths of the world’s population lived under autocratic or partly free governments. It was still a distant dream for a majority of the world population to exercise their civil liberties and to freely participate in political life. The success of Indian elections is not limited to just political liberalisation or democratic advancement. It has also played a vital role in the transfer of power from the entitled to the empowered.
A vibrant democracy requires timely reforms. The Constitution of India has put a cap on the maximum number of representatives (Members of Parliament) elected to the Lok Sabha at 550. In countries like the United Kingdom (UK), there are 650 MPs, with each one representing roughly 1 lakh individuals. In India’s present demography, each MP represents about 24 lakh citizens if we divide 1.3 billion among 545 Lok Sabha MPs. India is one of the most disproportionately represented parliamentary systems in the world. The problem is not limited to this as the bigger elephant in the room is the issue of unequal representation. India is the second populous country in the world and there is a growing need to exercise delimitation of constituencies to ensure equitable representation.
Delimitation is the act or process of fixing limits or boundaries of territorial constituencies in a country or a province having a legislative body. A delimitation commission is set up to undertake the exercise across the country. There are multiple methodologies used for delimitation such as the Jefferson method, the Hamilton method, Quota method, Webster method, etc. India used the Webster method or one-person-one-vote method. India redrew its Lok Sabha boundaries in 1952, 1963, 1973 and 2002. The Indian Constitution has laid down certain basic rules for delimitation and left out other actual procedural regulations to be decided by the Parliament. The idea of delimitation is to have each MP represent roughly an equal number of voters.
Articles 81, 82, 170, 330 and 332 of the Constitution touch upon the constitutional provision of delimitations and electorate matters. As per Article 82, delimitation shall be carried out by such authority and in such manner as the Parliament may, by law, determine.
Article 81 (3) after the 42nd Amendment provides that in this article, the expression population means the population as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published. The Constitution (84th Amendment), Act 2001 under Section 3 extended the deadline from 2000 to 2026. This was done because States like Kerala, Punjab and Tamil Nadu would lose several seats as they had brought down their fertility rates, whereas poor family planning programmes had ensured that the population in Uttar Pradesh (UP), Bihar and Rajasthan continued to be high. This would have affected the representation of States in the Lok Sabha.
Both the 42nd and 84th amendments froze the number of Lok Sabha seats from 1981 to 2031 for 50 years. The population of India according to the 2011 Census is around 121 crore, out of which 83.41 crore are registered voters. Keeping the 1971 Census with a 54.81 crore population and a 27.4 crore registered electorate as a yardstick to demarcate constituencies to represent today’s 1.3 billion people is counter-productive to democracy. Given the 2026 timeline, fresh delimitation would be done after 2031 with new census figures. This is expected to revamp the existing territorial boundaries of seat allocation to the States in Parliament.
By making the provisions of Article 370 of the Constitution of India otiose, the Modi Government has given hints of addressing the delimitation issues of the Legislative Assembly seats in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). Non-applicability of People’s Representation Act of India in J&K has been a common hindrance to the delimitation of parliamentary seats as recommended by the Justice Kuldip Singh Commission. The Kashmir Valley, comprising the total area of 15,953 sq km, had 46 Assembly seats as compared to 37 seats for Jammu with a geographical area of 26,293 sq km. There are wide disparities with constituencies based on demography. For instance, Gurez Assembly has merely 18,000 voters as against around two lakh voters in Jammu West and Gandhi Nagar constituencies. Kishtwar region has only two Assembly seats with an area of 7,824 sq km, which is half of the area of Kashmir.
Delimitation is not just a political process, its an administrative action backed with political intent. If implemented in 2031, the process would lead to some substantial problems. Politically it might expand the North-South divide. There would be a substantial increase in the number of MPs from the States in the Hindi belt but not from those of the South as these States have managed population control better.
2018 already saw the southern States coming together to express their anger against the 15th Finance Commission which determines the share of each State in the nation’s resources. They claimed that the richer and less populous States in South India end up contributing more than they receive. The success of urban development programmes and start-up hubs in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh has led to large foreign investments in the region, which are all set to economically advance their contribution to the national economy.
According to an IndiaSpend analysis of a Kotak Securities report on the demographic dividend of India’s Gangetic belt, which includes Uttarakhand, UP, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh and West Bengal, if India’s parliamentary seats were to be re-allocated on the basis of population, the Gangetic belt would send 275 of 548 MPs to the Lok Sabha. It was also reported that around 33 per cent of members of the Lok Sabha will come from three states — UP, Bihar and West Bengal. Then there’s the administrative problem of gerrymandering, which is redrawing boundaries in a manner that it tilts the outcome of an election in favour of a particular party or candidate. Democracy can be easily hijacked as a legitimising tool by undemocratic forces. The 2002 Delimitation Commission had politicians as its members and this led to charges of malpractices and manipulation being raised.
With an upper limit on the maximum number of representatives mandated by the Constitution, it is upon the policymakers to look for alternatives. It can be adopting the presidential system of governance or decentralising power. The number of MPs in metropolitan cities can be reduced substantially by empowering mayors or strengthening municipal corporations.
The process of defining the areas and nature of such constituencies is important to ensure good governance and accountability. Underrepresentation of voices of the people in the Parliament is a great threat to our constitutional mandate. While constitutions of countries like New Zealand and South Africa provide explicitly for delimitation, in others like India and Ireland, it is left to the Parliament to make legislations. 2031 is not far away and it is crucial for the Government to start consultations with States and bring more legal clarity in the matter.
(Abhishek Negi is an Assistant Professor of Law at Dharmashastra National Law University and Adithya Anil Variath is a student of Master of Laws at the institute.)
Writer: Adithya A Variath/ Abhishek Negi
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Greta Thunberg is the face of a global revolution by young people on climate change. We need many more like her
If you have not read about Greta Thunberg and the climate revolution that this teenager from Sweden is leading, you have either been living under a rock or completely obsessed by domestic news. However, this is the time that you must pay heed to what this young girl has been saying, which is quite simply that the way we are living today is unsustainable for the environment, that the current generation is completely messing up the planet and this will make it uninhabitable for future generations. Her voice is strong and credible, simply because she practises what she preaches, eliminating carbon footprints in her everyday life. For her journey to New York to address the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), she refused to fly. Instead, she sailed with her father, a two-man crew and a cameraperson on the 60-foot Malizia II racing yacht with solar panels and underwater turbines that generate electric power. Understandably she is being heard across many developed nations. However, she is not being heard in several others, including India. That is why it is vital that India gets a Greta Thunberg of its own, someone who can speak truth to the powers that be about the way we are treating this planet. Undoubtedly, the country will suffer some of the worst consequences of global warming and it is important that voices of young people, who will suffer the consequences of our actions and the lack of policy initiatives when it comes to the environment, are heard.
Climate change is for real and while leaders and bureaucrats in our country understand that, one presumes they are so focussed on other matters right now that environment is being swept under the carpet as a secondary concern. India and the rest of the world cannot afford to make this mistake. As the burning Amazon rainforest reminds us, the actions or inactions of nations will have long-term implications for humanity as a whole. India needs voices to pipe up and the media will play a crucial role here. Instead of the incessant jingoism and the bullying that masquerades as nationalism, we need to talk about the environment. And who better than a teenager, someone whose generation will suffer the consequences of what we do today, can do that? This effort also requires teachers in schools to make young people aware of how unbridled and unchecked development will impact the country and the world. It is a challenge though in India, not least because it is faced with the task of lifting millions out of poverty and hopelessness and giving them access to electricity and other such services, which will have an environmental impact. An aspirational population, which wants access to modern conveniences, will have an environmental impact. For better or worse, it would be desperately unfair for anyone to argue that they should not aspire towards a better future. There will be more thermal power generated and as new factories, airports and roads come up, we cannot escape all these. Ergo, it is important to teach the population at large to minimise that impact and this will be best served by someone young. While Miss Thunberg carries on with her stellar work, convincing young people and politicians in Western nations, who have contributed the most to environmental degradation, that they have to change their ways, we need an Indian inspiration.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
Yet another case of sexual abuse involving a politician in UP should be the last straw for lawmakers
Hardly has the focus from the Unnao rape case shifted than a new controversy over the alleged sexual harassment of a 23-year-old law student by a BJP politician, no less than a former Union Minister of State for Home, is making headlines. Both the cases have some uncanny similarities as they involve high profile politicians from the ruling party and that, too, in Uttar Pradesh. It is former BJP MLA Kuldeep Sengar in the Unnao case and a three-time former BJP MP, Swami Chinmayanand, in the latest Shahjahanpur sexual harassment case. In both instances, the victims feared for their lives for speaking the truth about their humiliation and the accused, with all the muscle, money power and political alignment on their side, have claimed being framed. Both the girls resorted to desperate measures to be taken seriously, the Unnao girl by threatening to immolate herself in front of the UP Chief Minister’s residence and the other girl through a viral video.
The Unnao rape victim and her lawyer are battling for their lives after an accident, which is being suspected as a deliberate conspiracy to eliminate her. And now that the complainant has gone missing in the Shahjahanpur case, reports surfacing that she has fled to Delhi, there is fear that she, too, could be intimidated. Already she is being defamed. So lest this becomes another blot on the nation’s consciousness, a group of Supreme Court lawyers has asked the Chief Justice to take suo motu cognisance of media reports and help her speak the truth. Chinmayanand has had a controversial past, being a rape accused in 2011, a decision still pending. The Unnao girl has been waiting for over two years despite the allocation of investigations to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Although sexual offences of this grave a nature have a timeline for resolution, the State prosecution has nothing to show yet. This wilful delay and the impunity enjoyed by the accused have anyway compromised evidence, witnesses and the fairness of the justice delivery system. And with political parties across the spectrum endorsing sexual offender-leaders, prizing their local organisational relevance above the rights of the girl child and women, victimisation of women has in popular perception become a scandal to be ignored rather than a gross persecution by powers that be. This, then, is not just travesty of justice but its total absence. At the heart of such cases lies the failure of the police, the Government as well as the law enforcement agencies who have failed to respect the criticality of the matter. They, perhaps, get more anxious about brushing the case under the carpet than ensuring a fair and speedy trial. In both cases, the girls’ families had a tough time to lodge an FIR with the police. Clearly, the reforms introduced after the infamous Nirbhaya incident, including legislative changes and the institution of fast-track courts for speedy prosecution of cases, has changed nothing on the ground. The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) figures are proof: Reported rape cases have increased 88 per cent from 20,737 in 2007 to 38,947 in 2016. In comparison to the number of rape cases, conviction rates remain low. UP registers the second-highest number of rape cases after Delhi. Of the 38,947 rapes in the country, the second highest was from this State (4,816). As for all crimes against women, UP reported 14.5 per cent (49,262 out of 3,38,954 cases) of the total. Till we ensure closure of every violation of women and stop treating them as negotiating tools of power games, we cannot claim to be an equal and plural society. How long will we let our girls and women down?
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
The appointment of convicted SKM leader, PS Golay, as Sikkim CM has thrown up some sticky questions about constitutional propriety by the Governor
In the Indian Constitution, the Governor of a State occupies a unique position. He is, by virtue of his oath, expected to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the country and uphold the law. No other high functionary, except for the President of India, is sworn in as per such phraseology.
While the oath that a Governor takes is similar to that of the President, unlike him, the Governor is allowed a certain degree of discretion, albeit within constitutional limits. For instance, Article 163 (2) reads, “If any question arises whether any matter is or is not a matter as respects which the Governor is by or under this Constitution required to act in his discretion, the decision of the Governor in his discretion shall be final, and the validity of anything done by the Governor shall not be called in question on the ground that he ought or ought not to have acted in his discretion.”
At the time of formation of a State Government, when the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers are yet to be sworn in, constitutionally there is no one to aid and advise the Governor as per the provisions of Article 163 (1). However, over time, precedents and conventions have evolved which are usually followed by the Governor.
Also, in this matter, the Sarkaria Commission that was set up in 1983 by the Central Government to examine the Centre-State relationship on various portfolios and suggest changes within the framework of the Indian Constitution, had given some concrete advice.
One of the key suggestions made by the Commission was that while going through the process of Government formation, the Governor should select a leader who, in his opinion, is most likely to command a majority in the Assembly.
In this context, Article 164 (1) lays down that the Chief Minister shall be appointed by the Governor and further as per Article 164 (4), a minister who for any period of six consecutive months, is not a member of the Legislature of the State, shall at the expiration of that period cease to be a Minister.
In this context, an unprecedented situation continues to prevail in the sensitive State of Sikkim, where Prem Singh Tamang alias PS Golay of Sikkim Krantikari Morcha (SKM) was sworn in as the Chief Minister on May 27, 2019. The unusual thing about this swearing-in is the fact that Golay, during his tenure as Minister for Animal Husbandry in 1996, was held guilty under the Prevention of Corruption Act for misappropriating Rs 9.5 lakh meant for the purchase of milch cattle. Golay’s conviction was upheld by the High Court and he was released only after serving a one-year prison sentence last year.
This conviction and subsequent imprisonment has brought Golay under the ambit of Section 8 (1) (m) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, entailing disqualification for a period of six years from the date of his release from prison.
Perhaps it was only on account of this disqualification that Golay did not contest the election to the State Assembly held in April 2019. This also disqualifies him from becoming a member of the State Legislature in accordance with the provisions of Article 173.
Despite the disqualification, the SKM elected Golay as their leader and Governor Ganga Prasad swore him in as the Chief Minister, being the leader of the party with an absolute majority. It is obvious that the Governor had used his discretion and not followed the principleslaid down by the Supreme Court in such matters.
The Governor is at liberty to appoint a person as the Chief Minister, who may not be a member of the Legislature, at that time, provided the State Legislature endorses such a choice, with the condition that he has to get himself elected within a period of six months.
Keeping this rule in mind and in a last-ditch effort to secure his position, Golay requested the Election Commission of India to waive his disqualification from contesting polls. He cited Section 11 of the Act, which allows the Commission to remove any disqualifications under Chapter 3 of the Act (which includes Section 8) or to reduce the period of such disqualification. Golay argued that he needed to be elected to the Assembly within six months of his appointment.
On the other hand, there is this case where the person so elected has the confidence of the House but is not qualified to be elected as a legislator. It was argued in late J Jayalalithaa’s case by KK Venugopal, the incumbent Attorney-General that, in a parliamentary democracy the will of the people must prevail.
Justice Patnaik, however, ruled in Jayalalithaa’s case that with the disqualification under Section 8 (3) of the Representation of People Act staring him in the face, the Governor would be acting beyond his jurisdiction and against the constitutional inhibitions and norms in appointing a disqualified person as the Chief Minister on the sole reasoning that he/she had been elected as leader of the majority party.
The plea taken by the SKM that the relevant amending clause of the Representation of People Act has since been repealed, may not have much strength, as after the amendment has been incorporated in the main body of the Act and notified as such, repealing of the amending Act at a later date would not make an impact.
But this is also a matter on which the apex court has to take a view whether the repealing of this Act was constitutional or not.
The Supreme Court, in Jayalalithaa’s case, also went on to say that the Governor was a functionary under the Constitution and cannot, in exercise of his discretion, do anything that is contrary to the Constitution of the country and its laws.
When requested to wait for the period of six months allowed under Article 164(4) to expire before pronouncing the judgment, the court had taken the view that “appointment of a person to the office of Chief Minister who is not qualified to hold it should be struck down at the earliest.”
The situation as it prevails today is that a person disqualified under the law has been in the Chief Minister’s chair for the last three months. It is now for the apex court to decide whether the discretion used by the Governor was constitutional or was a matter of indiscretion.
In the latter case the appointment of Sikkim’s Chief Minister and his entire Council of Ministers would become invalid as happened in the case of Jayalalithaa in Tamil Nadu. What the future holds and what precedents will be set through the Golay case, only time will tell.
(The author is a former Governor and a senior advisor at the Pranab Mukherjee Foundation)
Writer: KK Paul
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Each year, thousands of VIPS students enter various professions. Unknown to them, they all have a huge debt to pay to Arun Jaitley because it is due to his skills as a lawyer and his benevolence that they got their alma mater
The untimely demise of former Finance Minister Arun Jaitley has been variously mourned as the passing away of a political and legal giant, a strategist par excellence, both in the court of law and in the people’s court, an erudite orator and above all, a great human being. Jaitley’s acts of benevolence touched many hearts and were duly mentioned by many people in their remembrances.
However, there was one aspect of his personality that was not written about much, and that was Jaitley, the institution builder.
Today, the Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies (VIPS), the institution I head, ranks among the top centres of higher education with state-of-the-art facilities. Each year, thousands of VIPS students enter the fields of law, media, business and the IT sector.
Unknown to them, they all have a huge debt to pay to Jaitley because it is due to his skills as a lawyer and his benevolence that they got their alma mater.
More than a decade ago, the institute was given a five-acre plot by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) for a hefty sum. However, the DDA was not forthright about the fact that there was a jhuggi cluster on the plot. The DDA intended to hand over the plot to us without bothering to clear the settlement, as it should have done.
We filed a suit and the matter came up before the Delhi High Court. Our lawyers advised us to hire a senior advocate and suggested Jaitley’s name. I was acquainted with Jaitley but did not know him too well. When I accompanied my lawyer for a meeting with Jaitley, he offered us a cup of coffee, heard us through and said, “Dr Vats, I am told that your law school is doing very well. In fact, my son refers to the tutorials that you give to your students.” I was taken aback and didn’t know how to react to this high praise.
Going back to the case at hand, Jaitley told my lawyer that it would be a long-drawn court battle needing several court appearances; nevertheless he would fight for the institute.
Amazingly, after the first hearing in the matter, he told his legal clerk not to raise any bills as he was offering his services pro bono because the future of students was at stake.
In all, there were over 20 hearings before the High Court and Jaitley, who was a senior Supreme Court advocate, would appear for each of them. In case there was a delay for some reason like the DDA counsel not turning up, he would settle down in the High Court canteen, have cups of coffee while chatting with the lawyers there and wait for his turn before the Bench.
There was only one hearing for which he did not appear as there was a pressing meeting of the Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) in Mumbai.
On the day of the final argument, Jaitley spoke with erudition, authority, conviction and aplomb for nearly 45 minutes. He concluded by saying that the plot was meant for an educational institution of eminence and not for a five-star hotel, hence, the land allocating authority could not apply similar parameters for handover. Needless to say, we got relief from the HC. It was a monumental judgment that forced the DDA to revise its land allocation policy.
Thankfully, Jaitley’s association with us did not end with the case and he began taking a keen interest in the development of VIPS. In fact, he visited the VIPS campus twice after its completion.
His second visit to the campus was as Finance Minister and he took the time out from his busy schedule to preside over the convocation function. In his address, he spoke like a true scholar and impressed the faculty and the students alike with his knowledge of diverse issues.
His last public function too was with us, as a few days before his 66th birthday in December 2018, he agreed to release a book on photography published by VIPS. This book titled Wide Angle showcased my efforts and that of the students and faculty. Since he was recuperating from a kidney transplant surgery, it was difficult for him to travel all the way to the VIPS campus in Pitam Pura. Jaitley requested for a venue in the heart of Delhi and despite health restrictions, he arrived on time.
Once again he spoke with similar affection and enthusiasm for the institution he had helped build. He spoke about the new avenues in education and how the art of photography not only encouraged creativity but also created employment opportunities.
He encouraged young minds to move off the beaten track and look for newer and richer employment avenues. Jaitley was very clear that evening about his vision of ‘New India’, which he and his long-time friend and comrade-in-arms Prime Minister Narendra Modi had got together to implement.
I am sure that Jaitley must have helped several other institutions like VIPS to overcome obstacles created by obdurate systems. I cannot speak for others but for us at VIPS, he shall ever remain a guiding star.
(The writer is a former MLA and Chairman, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies, GGSIP University)
Writer: SC Vats
Courtesy: The Pioneer
With our neighbour negating bilateralism, only global pressure can help limit its nefarious abilities so as to establish relative peace between India and Pakistan
US President Donald Trump overcame his mercantilist instinct to “mediate” in the India-Pakistan muddle and reason was restored in the debate, albeit temporarily, given his whimsicality and penchant for “deals.” The initial hoopla to “mediate” was unnecessarily created by an over-enthusiastic Trump, who rode roughshod over the deliberately-calibrated position articulated by previous presidential regimes in deference to “bilateralism” as the preferred means to address India-Pakistan differences.
Trump had waded the perennially short-of-facts-and-sensitivities into the sub-continental quagmire and incredulously stated that he “would love to be a mediator”, without realising the inadvertent twist that such a reckless statement was affording. Soon, the revert to “bilateralism” as the strategic framework was clarified by the bumbling-fumbling US President on the sidelines of the G-7 summit as he restored America’s position by stating, “I have very good relationship with both the gentlemen (Prime Ministers Narendra Modi and Imran Khan) and I’m here. I think they can do it (resolve the issue) themselves.”
Part businessman’s braggadocio and part his genuine sovereign concern to keep the Pakistani establishment in good humour — given the tactical urgency to solicit Islamabad’s help in extricating itself out of Afghanistan — Trump had almost acceded to the Pakistani aspiration of “internationalising” the India-Pakistan differences instead of insisting on “bilateralism” between the two disagreeing parties as was maintained by the US for long.
The immediate battleground for the Indo-Pakistan war of words is essentially on the disagreeing framework of a possible peaceful solution ie, should it be conducted in a “bilateral” manner as India thinks appropriate or should third-party “mediate” as is the wont on Pakistan? Legally speaking, there ought to be no ambiguity as the last-standing agreement between the two sovereigns, overriding all previous understandings, is the Simla Agreement (1972) that unequivocally states that both countries will “settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations.”
The Simla pact also captures the essentiality of “non-interference” in each other’s internal affairs and conducting hostile propaganda — features that have unilaterally been violated by Pakistan with its proven support to insurgencies and terror groups in India, with Kargil emerging as the apogee of its misadventures and machinations. Today, despite much posturing to the contrary, having been found guilty on 32 counts of the total 40 parameters related to terror financing, Pakistan has been put on the “enhanced blacklist” by the global watchdog, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF). This backdrop of sovereign immorality, incorrigibility and duplicity is what underlies the Pakistani aversion to “bilateralism.”
There are various reasons as to why Pakistan abhors “bilateralism”. Conceptually and practically, the deliberations that are conducted in a “bilateral” framework are implicitly more focussed, nuanced with historical perspective and sensitivities and above all, lead to the fastest possible resolutions.
Ironically, the efficacy of “bilateralism” is what haunts the Pakistani narrative. Peace with India is the ultimate delegitimiser of the troika in Pakistani establishment ie, military, politicos and the clergy. The entire edifice and rationale of the Pakistani state is based on a regressive, competitive and flawed concept of “two-nation” theory that militates against the tenets of inclusivity, secularity and prosperity of the Indian state.
The creation of Bangladesh in 1971 destroyed the foundational raison d’etre of Pakistan. This was a deep wound that dangerously questioned its military and the ruling politicos of that time and, thus, germinated the seeds of the third vector of the Pakistani establishment ie, clergy, to inter-mingle, mutate and atrophy the societal-political-cultural moorings of the state. Post 1971, for Benazir Bhutto to Zia-ul-Haq as also subsequent regimes over there such as the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) [PML-N] and now Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) led by Imran Khan, the underlying, accompanying and unsettled fixation to “even” with India by keeping the fires burning is a predominant national instinct.
“Bilateralism” works on reconciliation, confidence-building steps, gradualism — all of this is an anathema to the very existence of the Pakistani troika/establishment. The third-party “mediation” allows the much-needed obfuscation, escalation and pandering to unrelated emotions that keep the issue “live”, thus necessitating the relevance of each of the elements of the Pakistani establishment. Third-party mediation is also sought via friendly and leverage-able countries and organisations who can provide the much-needed tilt in the battle of positions.
Resorting to pitching the Kashmir issue within the precincts of an organisation like the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) by default allows Pakistan to posit the same from a narrow religious lens and emotion as opposed to the reality of historical facts, agreements and any other societal lens. On the other hand, the Constitutional construct of India auto-rejects religiosity as a basis of difference, preference or concern. Equality of all, irrespective of their race, religion or region, is the Constitutional guarantee.
“Internationalising” the Kashmir issue is the only unifying aspiration for a nation that is deeply polarised, combusting and enfeebled (financially, socially and economically). However, Pakistan has not been able to replicate the wounded sense of “Palestine” as the comparable actions of the Indian state and Israel in addressing their respective concerns have been starkly different. With all its systemic flaws, occasional mistakes and missteps, India has always sought, invested and aspired for “peace.” This legitimises the larger Indian narrative.
Globally, there is an increasing amount of plain-speak, impatience and intolerance with roughish duplicitousness that naturally lends itself to isolating nations that still insist on carrying on the tracks of the past.
The recent retraction of Trump to re-suggest “bilateralism”, the haunting silence of the Arab Sheikhdoms towards the rote Pakistani pitch on Kashmir and the unrelenting pressure on Islamabad by multilateral organisations like FATF, are all symptomatic of the times that be.
Unfortunately, there is a parallel need to sustain the skeletal-structure of governance in Pakistan as it is, as the alternative to this can be far worse than the one that exists today — Libya, Iraq, and Yemen are cases in point of dismantling imperfect structures.
Thus, it is only the collective global pressure to “manage” the Pakistani establishment and limit its nefarious abilities that can usher in relative peace as the existing issues are foundational, existential and regime-sustaining.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)
Writer: Bhopinder Singh
Courtesy: The Pioneer
The Government miserably failed to contain misinformation or disinformation on Article 370 in the foreign media. It should have given a historical briefing on all facets of the issue
The abrogation of Article 370 has led to a lot of typing on the keyboards of Indian as well as foreign journalists. Most scribes were ill-informed about the legality of the issue but generally, the Indian Press dealt with the subject more decently, taking into consideration the situation on the ground, including Ladakh where the “liberation” of the mountainous division was celebrated as in Jammu, too. The Indian Press also mentioned about the tragic fate of the Kashmiri Pandits and how the Article fuelled terrorist acts, which have plagued the Valley for decades. Even the Supreme Court, which sometimes does not mind stepping in the role of the Executive, handled the issue with restraint and care in the higher interest of the population concerned.
But this has not been the case of the foreign Press, which has once again shown not only its partisanship — the often-violent “anti-Modi” bias (they hate the ‘Modi’ phenomenon which eludes their understanding) — but also its abysmal ignorance of the historical background of the Kashmir issue.
Take the example of the French Press. Following the August 5 decision, it is difficult to say that it was the worst, because the British and the American were really bad, too (particularly the BBC). In their offices beyond the seas, editorialists remain stuck in old clichés — they love to portray Modi’s India as having only one objective: To massacre as many Muslims as possible. Due to sheer “White” arrogance, most of these “grand reporters” do not need to study the issue before writing on it, as “they know” about it.
After the Indian Prime Minister’s visit to the UAE, one French publication even wrote: “Modi has managed to escape the Muslim ire …for now.” The Chinese factor and their indecent claims over Ladakh have also been brushed aside; the Buddhists of Ladakh and the Pandits are not worth a word. It is ironic that at the same time, the Indo-French bilateral relations have been blossoming (but journalists will probably say, “Modi has bought Macron on his side by promising to buy a few Rafales more”).
Who is responsible for this constant misinformation or disinformation? As I said, it is not possible to change the ideological slant of the Press (foreign or French), so one should let it be. Where the Government of India failed is in “educating” the Press by giving a full historical briefing on all the facets of the issue.
One problem is that the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) today functions without a historical division, (in the 1990s, some smart mandarins thought they knew everything and that a division was not required). Before the announcement, the South Block should have prepared a “background note on the Kashmir issue and the history of the temporary Article 370 of Indian Constitution” but nobody probably had the time for such niceties. Foreign embassies could have been given this note, which could have informed their “all-knowing” Press; it is part of the bilateral relations, no?
The foreign Press could have been told: “You are free to use the briefing and check the facts if you want.” One of the problems is the sacrosanct “freedom of the Press” which allows anybody to write anything! Those who object to this are “fascists.”
Now what are the facts?
A few years ago, I came across a top secret note entitled, ‘Background to the Kashmir Issue: Facts of the case’, written in the early 1950s in the Nehru Papers (the JN Collections at the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library). It makes for a fascinating read. It starts with a historical dateline: “Invasion of the State by tribesmen and Pakistan nationals through or from Pakistan territory on October 20, 1947; ruler’s offer of accession of the State to India supported by the National Conference, a predominantly Muslim though non-communal political organsation, on October 26, 1947; acceptance of accession by the British Governor-General of India on October 27, 1947, under this accession, the State became an integral part of India; expression of a wish by Lord Mountbatten in a separate letter to the ruler the fulfillment of which was to take place at a future date when law and order had been restored and the soil of the State cleared of the invader, the people of the State were given the right to decide whether they should remain in India or not.”
Then the note mentioned “[the] invasion of the State by Pakistan Regular Forces on May 8, 1948, in contravention of international law. One of the grounds for this military operation, as disclosed by Pakistan’s Foreign Minister himself, was a recommendation of the Commander-in-Chief of Pakistan that an easy victory for the Indian Army was almost certain to arouse the anger of the invading tribesmen against Pakistan.”
Pakistan was not interested in the plebiscite, further it wanted to grab …Buddhist Ladakh, too. At some other point, the note observed: “Pakistan, not content with assisting the invader, has itself become an invader and its Army is still occupying a large part of the soil of Kashmir, thus committing a continuing breach of international law.”
This was noticed by Sir Owen Dixon, the UN Representative. Pakistani politicians (and others) often quote the UN resolutions but very few have read them. Has Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan ever looked at them? I bet not.
Following the ceasefire of January 1, 1949, the military representatives of India and Pakistan met in Karachi between July 18 and 27, 1949, under the auspices of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan. Before leaving for Karachi, the delegates had a briefing from Sir Girja Shankar Bajpai, the Secretary General of the MEA, who explained the legal position in detail to the delegates. He told them that the resolution of August 13, 1948 “had conceded the legality of Kashmir’s accession to India and as such no man’s land, if any, should be controlled by India during the period of ceasefire and truce.” Thus, the Line of Ceasefire (now Line of Control) was drawn and accepted by Pakistan on this principle.
Who remembers the August 1948 resolution today?
Similarly, for Article 370, the temporary background should have been explained, particularly how it deprived Jammu and Ladakh of their administrative freedom; how it helped fuel terrorism from across the LoC; how gender-biased it was. This should have been done. It would not have removed the bias of the foreign “secular” Press but they could not have said they did not know.
(The writer is an expert on India-China relations)
Writer: Claude Arpi
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Imran Khan may be throwing more ill-thought hurdles our way but is now being hounded at home for mishandling J&K
It is a tough time to be the Pakistan Prime Minister, even if one propped up, coached, tutored and played by the fountainhead of the nation’s real power, the Army. Little wonder then that Imran Khan is at his most vulnerable as his armed invincibility has now been hopelessly blown to smithereens and isn’t scaring anybody in the region. Completely spooked by US President Donald Trump’s stand on Kashmir that it was a bilateral issue between two neighbours and isolated by even the Islamic world that considers the abrogation of Article 370 as India’s internal and administrative matter, Khan is desperately short of ideas and is making one embarrassing counter-move after another. First, he is threatening to close down his country’s airspace to Indian flights, riled by the fact that Prime Minister Narendra Modi used Pakistani airspace to fly to France, a nation that has steadfastly helped India’s line on sponsorship of terror factories. Second, he is urging certain pro-Khalistani Sikhs, who have been used for anti-India propaganda for years, to support him on Kashmir. In a viral video, a Pakistan-based Sikh leader claimed that no less than the highest temporal authority of the Sikhs, namely the Akal Takht, had asked the community to do so. It is another matter that the Takht has passed no such unrealistic resolution. Third, he is threatening to close land routes between India and Afghanistan and block trade, something that is more disadvantageous to his economy than ours. We have already downgraded trade relations and withdrawn Most Favoured Nation (MFN) status to Pakistan since the Pulwama attacks. Khan has proclaimed himself to be a global brand ambassador of Kashmiris and is reminding the world of repercussions in the event of an escalation of Indo-Pakistan hostilities, considering both are nuclear powers. Does he realise that such a strike is the last option any nation would contemplate and obliterate his people as well?
Truth is Khan, and by extension the Pakistani Army, are just moving around traditional counterweights in the strategic chessboard, hopelessly failing to blur the hard-edged reality. And that is since Pulwama, India has stopped being preventive about but rather reactive to Pakistani threats. The Modi brand of Indo-Pak diplomacy has shown that it is not scared to take on Pakistan’s “what could be” scenarios and could frustrate its “thousand bleeding cuts” strategy of exporting terror and separatism, staying well under the nuclear flashpoint. This new-found boldness means Pakistan misadventures on Indian territory are not to be tolerated but acted upon and nipped in the bud. Khan’s emotional appeal to the Islamic world that Kashmir was a matter of protecting Muslim identity has also backfired miserably with the snub from OIC and the UAE. Bahrain named Modi for its highest civilian honour, coopting the centrality of India in economic and strategic cooperation in the Gulf. Even the Taliban, known for its hardline interpretation of Islam, has not warmed up to the Kashmir question, although it has been safe-housed and nurtured by the Pakistan Army. Then its all-weather friend China has been selective in its reaction to India’s mainstreaming of Kashmir, objecting only to the bifurcation of Ladakh and its impact on Aksai Chin that it had taken over after the 1962 war. Besides, given its own problematic record of human rights in minority provinces and with Uyghurs, it doesn’t want to attach itself to causes linked to religiosity or upset its bilateral paradigm with India at the moment, which is far bigger. The Asia-Pacific grouping of the Financial Action Task Force (FATF), the watchdog of nations promoting terror and empowered to restrain international funding, has already put Pakistan on an enhanced blacklist, so most nations would not want to touch it now because of that taint. Now, our western neighbour has to focus on avoiding the blacklist in October, when the final review comes up. If any good has happened to Pakistan, it is that the foreign policy of years is now being questioned by its opposition parties. Bilawal Bhutto has now advised Khan that he better focus on saving Muzaffarabad and Pakistan-Occupied Kashmir, lest that strategic pie also slips out of his hands. Of course, democracy is a long shot in Pakistan but Khan and the Pakistan Army have now got to reconcile that their age-old templates aren’t working or won’t be anymore in a world where politics will be dictated by the economy.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
The UK is driving towards the new deadline haphazardly. Its actions will impact the global economy
The United Kingdom (UK) is now in the midst of a full-blown Constitutional crisis with the new Boris Johnson-led Government deciding to prorogue Parliament. This might have been scandalous in other times, especially as the Government has a majority of just one, and could have led to “horse-trading” as several Constitutional experts in the UK have warned. But with Britain also rushing headlong towards the October 31 deadline to leave the European Union (EU), there’s no room for such machination. One can only imagine the volume of screaming and shouting had the Government in India tried to prevent Parliament from discussing something of paramount national interest. Comments by several British parliamentarians from the Opposition as well as the ruling Conservative Party, including the Speaker of the House of Commons, have been of surprise and outrage. For students of British history, it appears that another schism has emerged between Parliament and the Executive, which goes back before the English Civil War.
And while there is no risk of a violent second civil war, the country is hugely divided, politically, socially and economically. Yet, it is also clear that the vote on leaving the EU must be honoured — for better or worse. The problem is that several parliamentarians are rightly scared about the “for worse” option, particularly about a “no deal” transaction with the EU. This would, some fear, lead to a land border between British Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland as well as Customs and immigration chaos. There is no resolution as yet about the status of European citizens living and working in the UK as well as what will happen to British citizens in Europe. And with just about 60 days to work out a solution, Johnson must have felt that he could have done without the distractions of a deeply divided Parliament. What he might have created though is a monster and united the several warring factions inside the Houses of Westminster into a cohesive unit. Negotiating deals is not as easy as composing tweets or even campaigning, both things that Johnson is very good at. Dealing with hard-nosed bureaucrats of the EU and trying to extract concessions is even tougher. It appears Johnson has borrowed some tactics from Pakistan, which regularly negotiates with a gun to its head, as a commentator once aptly said. The UK, which sowed the seeds of conflict in the Levant, South Asia and Africa, finds itself in a bind and the rest of the world, particularly those that have once been part of the empire, cannot help but feel what the Germans call schadenfreude.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month