Digvijaya Singh, a secular Congressman, now has to deal with a BJP Hindutva hardliner, Sadhvi Pragya
Battleground Bhopal is now a matter-antimatter confrontation without any pretence of electoral grace, propriety or even issues. The BJP has fielded its newly-inducted member Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, facing trial in the Malegaon blast case and the new flame of extreme hate politics, against Congress heavyweight and the author of the term “saffron terror,” Digvijaya Singh. It is a blatant battle between hardline Hindutva and secular Congressism. It is the NDA’s reaction to the UPA’s action. It is also about muscularity over protocol, about the accused taking on the accuser. Thakur, one of those charged in the Malegaon blasts, is still out on bail though the National Investigative Agency (NIA) has claimed the evidence against her was insufficient and exonerated her. However, a special court in Mumbai says there’s evidence to prosecute her. But for the BJP, the shroud of doubt, the burden of crimes or law don’t matter in choosing a Lok Sabha candidate no less. The same law, of course, denies Opposition candidates similar privileges. It is about ideology rather than grammar. As BJP president Amit Shah said, since Digvijaya Singh had defamed India by coining terms like “saffron terror”, the party had decided to take the matter to the people’s court by fielding the Sadhvi against him in a sort of reckoning. Digvijaya has also been a bitter critic of the RSS, the ideological guide of the BJP, and the party has, therefore, taken him on with stridency. In the process, the extremist fringe that had so far been treated like disruptive outliers in the Modi-led NDA-1 has now been mainstreamed in the political narrative. And while murmurs were raised about the virulent Yogi Adityanath when he was made Chief Minister, looks like his kind will now find a greater voice. The kind that doesn’t carry the baggage of history and can give a fresh spin to the legacy of identity politics. Besides, with Uma Bharti refusing to contest against Digvijaya in Bhopal, whom she had dislodged once in the Assembly, the BJP has been only too happy to find her younger version. With her saffron robes and self-proclaimed fight for dharma, the BJP has found a way to strike an emotive chord in the heartland and win back old faithfuls bred on the Ayodhya plank. It is also an overture to the RSS, whose network needs to be fully activated to secure a victory. And if Bhopal, being the State Capital and a high-profile seat, sets off a tide, then the BJP could recover some lost ground from the Assembly elections last year.
Bhopal is a tough fight for the Congress, the party having plummeted there since 1984 and the seat sending BJP MPs since 1989, that too with convincing margins. Yet the newly-elected Chief Minister Kamal Nath has taken on the challenge of wresting some seats that have eluded the party for 30 years and has, therefore, deployed former Chief Minister and colleague in arms Digvijaya. Thakur has the advantage of not just being a flag-bearer of Hindutva but the legacy of the party’s former Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan, whose personal stock works with the masses. Little wonder then that the Sadhvi claimed his support immediately after emerging out of the BJP office. However, Digvijaya is no pushover. His huge following across the State cannot be denied and having been a two-term Chief Minister, he has a grip on Bhopal and Indore. Compared to him, his peers, be it Kamal Nath and tribal leader Kantilal Bhuria, or even junior colleague Jyotiradtya Scindia just command their own pocket boroughs. In the halcyon days, Digvijaya would not only pilot his own chopper and drive to the hinterland to meet his constituents, he knew their names and had the statistics, down to the block level, at the back his hand. Digital India may be common speak now but back then, he introduced e-governance and e-Chaupal modules in Dhar district. But that vision is not under review anymore, his rabid support to conspiracy theories about the 26/11 Mumbai attacks and Hindu extremists is. And in a polarised polity, that myopia is rampant. That also helps Sadhvi Thakur. Her vote count will decide her guilt or innocence.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
Easter has been a subject of major controversy in the past in terms of its placement, with one notable time being when it triggered the reform of the Julian calendar in 1582. This time, Easter has tested the patience of its believers, almost to the limit. It usually happens exactly one month after the Spring Equinox. The festival shifts irregularly in the compass of 35 days, ranging from March 22 to April 25. But this shift is not akin to that of a Hindu festival, say Holi or Ram Navami. All Hindu festivals follow a pendulum-like trajectory while shifting as per the lunar tithi year-on-year.
The Easter is reckoned according to three factors — Spring Equinox (March 21), full moon and day of the week (Sunday). It is the principal movable feast in the Christian liturgical calendar. Notwithstanding its irregularity, future Easter dates could be predicted hundreds of years in advance, algorithmically. However, determining its placement has been subject to major controversy in the past. Ironically, it was this controversy that triggered the reform of the Julian calendar in 1582 by Pope Gregory XIII.
Easter celebrates the supernatural Resurrection of Jesus Christ after his mortal death on the Cross. While the Resurrection is in the domain of belief, his death may be a historical event. There must have been a date for it as per the Julian solar calendar, applicable throughout the Roman world then. The Romans were the masters of Israel-Judea during the lifetime of Christ. Though Jesus was crucified according to the orders of a Roman Governor viz, Pontius Pilate, the date of his crucifixion was either not recorded as per the Julian calendar or at any rate not available to us. In fact, it was never available to the Church, which led to a lot of kite-flying.
But evidence in the Gospel shows that Jesus was crucified around the Passover feast of the Jews. The Jews celebrate the Passover feast — in remembrance of their deliverance from Egyptian captivity by Moses — on the 14th day of the month of Nissan of the Hebrew calendar. Each month of the Hebrew calendar begins on the morrow of the new moon (which is actually no-moon or amavasya), the 14th day would be full moon. On that day, every Jewish family eats the ritually slaughtered and roasted Passover lamb. Jesus had occasionally likened himself to a lamb in the Gospel. His martyrdom coinciding with the Passover feast carries a religious analogy. His last supper is believed to be the Passover feast meal.
The Jewish calendar is lunisolar, which means an intercalary month is added (as in the case of Vikram Samvat in India) to keep it abreast of seasons. The Nisan is a spring month. But in ancient times, intercalation was not done through any algorithm but by an arbitrary decision taken by the Jewish grand assembly viz, Sanhedrin, based in Jerusalem. Sanhedrin was in existence till the destruction of ancient Israel in 70 AD. Thus, a day cannot be transposed from the old Jewish calendar to Julian Calendar with reliability.
One good way of determining Easter for the Church was to consult the Hebrew calendar itself. This was exactly what the early Eastern churches, which were in closer communication with the Jews, did. Thus, they celebrated the Easter feast on full moon on the month of Nisan, regardless of other factors. But for the Western churches, headquartered in Rome, the day of the week was equally important. The concept of the week, as a grid of seven days, was incorporated into the Julian calendar by the Church. The week is astronomically an arbitrary concept and ancient Romans were ignorant of it. The Roman Church emphasised the fact that Jesus rose from the dead on a Sunday, which is celebrated every week in the form of a Sunday mass. Thus, Easter must be held on no other day expect Sunday. Since the Gospel says he rose from the day on the third day he was crucified, Friday became his day of crucifixion. This is called “Good Friday.”
During the first century AD, the churches in the East and the West mutually tolerated, celebrating Easter on different days. But towards the end of the century, there was a heated exchange among correspondences on the subject between Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus and Victory, the bishop of Rome (equivalent to Pope). Victor sternly severed the whole Eastern Church from being in communion with the Roman Church. This was indeed the beginning of a split in the Church into Western and Eastern domains, which was completed a thousand years later in 1054 AD. The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea in 325 AD ruled that Easter should be celebrated on Sunday, following the full moon, following the Equinox.
If the full moon happens to coincide with the Equinox as it happened this year or previously in 1981, one will have to wait for the ensuing full moon to apply the formula. But if the full moon occurred even a day later (provided it is not as late in the week as of Saturday) the Easter could be marked on that very Sunday. But in the latter case, the full moon should occur latest by Friday. This because Good Friday has to precede the Easter.
The Equinoxes and Solstices together form the four pillars of the tropical calendar inaugurated by Julius Caesar in 44 BC. These astronomical phenomena were known to the ancient Greek astronomers long before. But Caesar made it an integral part of the Western calendar, though it was not necessary that the year or month should begin from those points. In innovating quadruple leap year, Caesar had assumed the length of a tropical year to be 365 days and six hours; whereas in reality, it was 11 minutes shorter (365 days five hours 48 minutes and 46 seconds). The surplus 11¼ minutes remaining unadjusted led to the Julian year overshooting the natural year by three days in the course of four centuries. Thus, by the time of the Nicaean Council in 325 AD, the Spring Equinox had shifted from original March 24 to March 21.
But in the absence of a corrective mechanism, the Equinox shifted to March 11 over the next 12 centuries. The Church might not have bothered itself with Equinox but for determining the Easter. How Equinoxes and Solstices had shifted over age is pithily described in a letter written by French theologian and astronomer Cardinal Pierre d’Ailly (1350-1425) to Pope (now regarded as Anti-Pope) John XXIII Baldassare Cossa in 1411.
Pierre d’Ailly’s ambitious plan to reform the Julian calendar could not be taken up at the Ecumenical Council at Rome in 1412 nor at the Council of Constance in 1414-18. But it created a tempo which culminated in the Gregorian reform of the calendar in 1582. By cancelling 10 days from the calendar in 1582, the Spring Equinox was restored to March 21 as in days in Nicaean Council in 325 AD. Pope Gregory XXIII wanted a fixed date for Easter, like Christmas, a demand that continued to be echoed till the 20th century by various stalwarts. This, however, has not come about.
(The writer is an independent researcher)
Writer: Priyadarshi Dutta
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Voters need to refresh their memories regarding INC’s past and realise that it never really changed from being colonised subjects of the British, says B Deepanjali
The fact that Mahatma Gandhi had wanted the Indian National Congress (INC) to be disbanded after independence is now common knowledge. That it was a party of the British and the Indian English-educated elite was clear to him and he knew that this was not what “freedom” truly meant. The purpose of INC as envisaged was to achieve independence from British Raj and to not hand over the country to them on a platter. Gandhiji was clear that the INC needed to be disbanded after the British left India. But what he wanted did not happen. He increasingly became disillusioned after independence. After his assassination, pressure to have a truly representational democracy took a backseat and the corrupt cronyism of the INC held sway.
Gandhiji was indeed right about INC. It did not quite truly understand what nationalism was. It still does not and does not even seem to care about it. As the 2019 election campaign is in full swing right now, we can see how the grand old party relentlessly disparages the nation, fails to stand by our brave armed forces and even scoffs the country’s phenomenal achievements —Mission Shakti and the testing of the first anti-satellite missile system that made us the fourth nation in the world to have this critical defence capability are a few examples. With 70 years of independence, we are now a witness to some of the most negative statements against the nation by INC members. So much so that today, even those Indians, who were supportive of the Congress, are stunned at the lows the party has taken.
In no other democratic country does the Opposition party ridicule the nation’s achievements or take sides with the enemy country — when its soldiers have been massacred by terrorists like in Pulwama — as in India. For, their opposition is to the ruling party and never to their nation. The INC’s behaviour as an Opposition party will be unthinkable say in Britain or the US where leaders’ loyalty to their country remains unquestioned — it defines who they are as a people.
So, why is it that in India we have a party like INC, whose statements, like the one doubting the Balakot strikes, sound like they are the same as the ones made by politicians in Pakistan? Why is it that the leading Opposition party is unable to distinguish between the nation and the ruling party and spares no opportunity to belittle the country? It’s, therefore, worth asking: Does this disconnect with the country have much deeper roots, going back to the formation of the INC itself?
INC still not rooted in India: The party was founded in 1885 by AO Hume, a British imperial civil service officer. But did the party ask for complete independence soon after it was formed? No. It was only after 44 years of its formation that the INC demanded poorna swarajya for India in December 1929. Until then, all that it meekly asked the British was a dominion status for the country. And who were the party’s members? They were a part of the British elite — those Indians who were educated in England and who held wealth and social standing. The formation of the INC can itself be seen as a smart move by the British to maintain a sense of stability, badly shaken as they were by the First War of Independence or what they called the Mutiny of 1857. It is an undeniable fact that early members of the INC looked up to British education and governance as means to achieving a “stable India.” There are documented references to past Indian presidents of INC eulogising the British Raj and one of its presidents, Pandit Bishan Narayan Dar, even said that British rule in India was the “greatest gift of providence to his race.”
Point to be noted here is that nowhere does the INC website mention about Hume. History of this party is one that was never actually rooted in India’s cultural identity as a basis for nationhood. This is a deeper theme in itself.
In the historical context, recent public pronouncements by INC members, who have alarmed many Indians and provided fodder dangerously enough to Pakistan, bears reference to the party’s history. The INC was indeed so cosy with the British that its prominent members failed to create a national identity that could resonate in its being — either before or after independence. The ones, who stood for a stronger and more assertive tone in demanding legitimate rights for the people, were staunch nationalists but were deemed as “extremists.” And this is well-known viz, the divisions between the “moderates” and the “extremists” in the INC.
The firebrand, who gave the first clarion call for swarajya before Gandhiji, was Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, who said, “Swarajya is my birthright and I shall have it” in 1906. This call came at a time when the INC was led by the moderates (which was true for its first 20 years of existence, working only on policy changes through administrative means). INC’s top leaders didn’t really want to let go off the British rule as they thought of it as being beneficial to the nation. This can be seen in the stated position of several INC presidents of the early days.
What is INC’s position on nationalism?
The party has never come to terms with what its position on India as a nation is and what it means to be an Indian. This could be because like many Indians believe, there was no armed struggle by its members to achieve independence, no suffering and no pain. It was, in fact, the armed resistance by the Indian National Army (INA), led by Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose, that pushed the British to the wall and raised the daunting prospect of an outright mutiny — the INA’s contribution to India’s independence is undeniable. The sacrifices made by INA soldiers are, however, not what we think about in the common narrative of India’s independence.
Unlike other nations, India did not really win a war and defeat foreign forces to reclaim its sovereignty. So, post-independence, the INC captured national consciousness by means of educational propaganda that highlighted the party’s role in the freedom struggle when the fact remains that none of the prominent leaders from INC lost their lives to gain independence. The great sons of India, who sacrificed their lives like Shaheed Bhagat Singh, Rajguru, Chandrashekhar Azad and Khudiram Bose, were not talked about in the public domain. Instead, India’s freedom from the British was and is still showcased as being an INC affair, failing to highlight the internal struggles within the party in its early days with the “moderates” toeing the British line of administrative reform and discussions and “extremists” demanding freedom from foreign rule before Gandhiji came to India and led the struggle. Needless to say, these “extremists,” or assertive nationalists, didn’t really make it big in INC as time went on after independence.
This then is the problem with INC: It never believed in the main pillars that define a country — a unified core cultural identity and military strength that builds a nation. This is why when quite naturally all Indians would feel a swell of pride on the achievements of the military, Congressmen don’t. The INC’s disparaging stand on the brave and impactful Balakot strike by the Indian Air Force even disturbed former party leaders like Tom Vadakkan, who spoke about it later when he was asked as to why he decided to join the BJP.
A disconnect with India: With no clear policy except for mentions like secularism, the party members’ lack of national pride remained obfuscated from public knowledge all these decades except for the occasional mention of 1971 and Bangladesh (of course, it didn’t explain why 90,000 PoWs had to be returned to Pakistan to keep aflame the fire of hatred against India in them as free Pakistanis and go on to spawn anti-India terrorism). The truth of the INC — as a party still comprising the English-speaking elite, scoffing at all that is anti-thetical to its understanding — is being exposed now. All of this reveals a well-entrenched disconnect with Indian ethos and pride of the people.
In the 10 years of UPA rule, there was nothing much to feel proud about but much to be disheartened about, including the cowardly silence by the Congress’ powers-that-be in Delhi after the horrendous Mumbai 26/11 attacks. But after losing power in 2014, party leaders have maintained a unified stance to run down India’s significant achievements.
Since the last five years, India has touched significant highs on defence and technology fronts, something it had not pursued in its years in governance. So its principal strategy is to attack Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Given its origin, it is difficult for the INC to internalise the idea of India, the nation, its pride, its spirit and its civilisational sanctity. For it, poll time means reviving divisive agenda and let’s not forget that the divide and rule policy worked well for the British, who inspired and founded the INC anyway. And so this saga endures. It is time for the voters to inform themselves of the history of the INC and realise that it never really came around to re-modelling itself from its British past as colonised subjects. And any party, which chooses to ally with the INC now, is also standing by the same credo of perpetuating that legacy.
(The writer is a social activist)
Writer: B Deepanjali
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Numerous global and national leaders today appear to be victims of self-pride and gratification, when they are expected to be humble and modest personalities
Many knowledge organisations and institutions in this country prefer to work entirely on their own and seldom join hands across problem areas or sectors, which might provide far more integrated assessments and solutions for the growing challenges we face. While the interlinked nature of human activities — and their globalisation — is becoming increasingly more complex, it appears that efforts to work along narrow subjects and along established silos seem more deeply entrenched on the Indian scene. This is a major deviation from collaborative trends in several parts of the world, particularly in the developed countries, even though there are disturbing trends to the contrary in those nations as well.
A significant example of partnerships and outcomes thus produced lies in an interesting series of publication entitled, The Conversation. The subtitle for this series describes it as “Academic rigour, journalistic flair.” Indeed, while the analysis presented reflects substantial academic rigour, the style in which it is written is purely that of a conversation, which makes it possible for journalists and the average public to grasp the depth of what is conveyed. When Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister of India, this writer sent him a detailed note on the need to bring together a group of knowledge organisations, which were working on strategic issues. Rajiv Gandhi’s response was swift and positive and the Cabinet Secretary was instructed to convene a meeting of half a dozen knowledge organisations, including The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA) and others. The Government agreed in principle to provide regular support for cooperative and interactive work between these organisations. Unfortunately, like several other initiatives, this one also suffered from the plunging decline in political standing of the Government and its inability to undertake fresh initiatives.
The Conversation has a number of sponsors and partners, including the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) of Australia, the University of Melbourne, the Australian National University and several others. The CSIRO was patterned along the lines of India’s own Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), but it has gone far beyond the capabilities of the latter with a strong market orientation and ability to generate financial resources and fostering innovation in various fields.
In general, if we were to analyse the lack of effort on the part of leaders in India to reach out and collaborate on issues of contemporary importance, we may be able to identify a certain level of hubris and extreme ego on the part of those responsible for such organisations.
Interestingly, a recent issue of The Conversation discussed hubris and described it as: “Hubris is a dangerous cocktail of over-confidence, over-ambition, arrogance and pride fuelled by power and success. When found alongside contempt for the advice and criticism of others, it causes leaders to significantly overreach themselves, taking risky and reckless decisions with harmful, sometimes catastrophic consequences for themselves, their organisations, institutions and even for society.”
The view seems to be that a number of leaders, both at the global and the national levels, today appear to be victims of hubris. An example can be provided of former US President George W Bush, who overreached himself in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Similarly, the former and final CEO of Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld, who, in his overreach, was responsible for the financial crisis bringing down the Lehman Brothers with him. Former British Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision to hold a referendum on EU membership such that he may be able to stop his party’s Eurosceptics on that issue is another example of hubris. Supposedly, Cameron made a decision against the advice of more reasonable colleagues such as George Osborne.
Another issue of The Conversation discussed the area of bipartisanship wherein even a proud Democrat like Lyndon Johnson worked closely with General Eisenhower when the latter was President of the US. Similarly, Democrats also worked with President Ronald Reagan in a similar spirit, which showed the absence of hubris so prevalent among leaders of today. A leader who is down to earth is supposed to identify himself with the interests of the people he leads. Eisenhower even went to the extent of defying the demands of his own party. It is reported that he refused to cut taxes on those upper income groups that had traditionally supported and heavily influenced his own party. Instead, he worked to cut spending and balance the budget — a goal he achieved three times during his two terms. He supported additions to social security and went to the extent of a federally funded national highway system, which was supported by the Democrats as part of a publicly-funded infrastructure programme.
The question is whether these leaders are seen by their followers as larger than life and measuring up to the dimensions of a superman, to be idealised and admired by them. It is hoped that distinguished leaders in the future would show a certain level of humility and shed the hubris that they appear to have acquired in recent years.
It is relevant to recall that the brightest scientist in history Albert Einstein is reported to have said. “I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.”
Could it, therefore, be that those leaders with hubris lack an intellectual understanding of their own being and most certainly that of nature, which takes the form of remoteness from reality and basic humility? We urgently need leaders in this mould before those with hubris can impose untold harm on society and distort the finest attributes of human nature. But in recent times, leaders with hubris have strutted the stage in the US, the UK, the Philippines, Indonesia and many other countries. Will they be succeeded by more humble and modest personalities?
(The writer is former chairman, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2002-15)
Writer: RK Pachauri
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Priyanka Gandhi Vadra has taken the political plunge, but the question that remains is, will she be fielded against Prime Minister Modi? Though it will make for a tantalising contest, will the Congress take the risk?
The buzz in the Congress’ circles is that general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra may make her electoral debut by contesting against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Varanasi. The Congress’ leadership is tight-lipped about it although Priyanka has herself kept the mystery alive. When party workers in Rae Bareli recently urged her to contest the elections, she responded by asking if she should contest from Varanasi. Reports that the Congress could field Priyanka from Varanasi have been doing the rounds since the last few days. The party on Saturday said that it would not comment on hearsay and that media would be informed if any such decision was taken.
The question is: Will she take the electoral plunge? After all, it took so many years for her to enter politics. The Gandhi family is very cautious about when to enter politics and from where. The family is quite calculative about these matters. These things are choreographed well. Even Sonia Gandhi took seven years to decide and she took the plunge only in 1998 when the party was almost withering away and needed a charismatic leader. She was bold enough to enter politics when the party was languishing in the Opposition with no chances of immediate revival. Though she joined the electoral fray in 1999 and became the first woman Leader of Opposition, she took on the BJP on issues despite being a novice. She developed a reasonable understanding with former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee and then surprised every one by leading the UPA, which came to power for two consecutive terms, thus shattering the BJP’s “India shining” dreams.
Similarly, Rahul Gandhi entered politics in 2004, contested from Amethi and won the family’s bastion. He has been in politics since then and was made the general secretary in 2007 and vice president in 2013. Last year, he took over as party president. This will be the first time he will be leading the party to the polls and, therefore, it is crucial that he does well.
Priyanka’s entry into politics was also a calculated move and the timing was a surprise; though people had been wanting since many years that she join the party. Seen as a more charismatic leader than Rahul, it was speculated that she was staying away for fear of overshadowing her brother. Anyway, now that Sonia Gandhi has decided to take a back seat, Priyanka has taken the plunge.
The decision to contest is entirely left to the family. Whether it is a good move to field all the three Gandhis is a question that the family will consider. But the chorus from Uttar Pradesh is becoming shrill day by day. Party leaders and workers from the State argue that the move will enhance the Congress’s poll prospects.
Initially, it was believed that if Sonia Gandhi bowed out, her daughter would contest from Rae Bareli. The party’s Allahabad unit had passed a formal proposal, urging the Congress’ leadership to field Priyanka from Phulpur, which was represented by her great grandfather and India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. This might still happen as Priyanka is likely to fare better in Phulpur. Defeating Modi may be difficult as he is still popular in Varanasi. Also, traditionally, barring once in 2004, the BJP has won Varanasi comfortably since 1991. Then came the speculation strengthened by Priyanka herself. Responding to a frequently asked question whether she would contest, Priyanka surprised the media with a direct “why not” “even you can” and added, “If my party wants me to contest polls, then I will definitely do so.” Congress workers believe that she has a striking resemblance with her grandmother Indira Gandhi and would be a good vote-catcher. Priyanka is more connected to the people in her interactions and she is a crowd puller.
A section in the party also believes that if Priyanka contests from Varanasi, Modi can be pinned down to campaigning in this seat. Second, since there is no Modi wave, it may be easier for Priyanka to face him. Third, about four lakh votes were split against Modi in 2014. If Priyanka is fielded as a joint candidate of the Congress, Samajwadi Party, Bahujan Samaj Party and Rashtriya Lok Dal, a division of votes can be avoided. Fourth, she would be a fresh face with the Gandhi mystique. The party has not announced any name so far for both Varanasi and Phulpur. Incidentally, both Rahul and Priyanka are building the ground for the 2022 Assembly polls and seems like she could be its Chief Ministerial candidate. “We are preparing the ground for 2022 Assembly elections” Priyanka clarified herself.
Prime Minister Modi’s response to Priyanka contesting against him was: “In a democracy, anyone can contest from anywhere. I don’t fear about who is contesting from where, it doesn’t matter to me.” Modi versus Priyanka would be a tantalising contest but will the Congress risk it? This is a million dollar question.
(The writer is a senior political commentator and syndicated columnist)
Writer: Kalyani Shankar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
With Indonesians gearing up to vote for the country’s next President and Vice President, the world looks up to them to elect a capable and strong leadership
As India, the largest democracy of the world, is poised to elect its new government, one of its oldest allies in Southeast Asia, Indonesia, will elect its new President this month. The world’s largest archipelagic country is the third largest democracy after India and the US. Indonesia is heading towards a stronger democratic set-up after 15 years of stable Government — the first led by former President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, popularly known as SBY, and then Joko Widodo, popularly known as Jokowi.
This writer has just come back after a week-long trip to Java island where a majority of the population concentrates. During the previous trip in October last year, there wasn’t much to talk about the presidential elections but now, after five months, one can notice a paradigm shift in the way Indonesians are thinking about the elections. A country that reeled under 31 years of dictatorship of Soeharto, the second President of Indonesia, is now fast becoming more decisive in choosing its eighth President.
In 1998, the country transited from 31 years of long dictatorship of Soeharto when he was ousted from office. The 15-year rule of SBY and the current Government helped the country become a stable economic power amid rampant corruption among Government officials. It also witnessed a few incidents like terrorist attacks in three Churches in Surabaya in May 2018 and the imprisonment of a dynamic and pro-development leader belonging to the minority community, Basuki Tjahaja Purnama, in 2016 in the name of blasphemy and inciting violence alleged by Muslim hardliners during Jokowi’s tenure.
As Indonesia grappled with an economic crisis, coupled with ethnic and sectarian clashes in 1998, the country saw three consecutive short-term Presidents — BJ Habibie, Abdurrhaman Wahid and Megawati Soekarnoputri, who was defeated by SBY in 2004. SBY ruled for two consecutive terms till 2014 when an ordinary man, Joko Widodo, who had no elite political or military background, was elected as President.
Jokowi, a member of the Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle (PDI-P), was the Mayor of Surakarta — a small city in central Java — from 2005-2012. He became very popular among the mass due to his hard work and fast-track problem-solving skills, which made him the best choice to become the Governor of Jakarta in late 2012. He remained in the limelight due to his policies, mostly driven by infrastructure development and focussed on the marginalised section of the society. The PDI-P, led by Sukarnoputri Megawati, backed his candidature for the President in 2014, which he won but not comfortably with just over 53 per cent of the votes against former military general Prabowo Subianto. This time again, Jokowi is running for re-election scheduled on April 17 with a handful of success stories. His counterpart, Prabowo Subianto, is a very strong candidate who has been successful in garnering support from a few conservative Muslim groups by accusing Jokowi of being pro-Chinese, who opened the red-carpet for Chinese investors in the country.
Focussing on infrastructural development, speeding up the most-awaited project of metro train in Jakarta, Jokowi sped up the work on inter-city connectivity in the country, having more than 17,000 islands. Located on the ring of fire, the country faced numerous natural disasters during his tenure. However, he made sure that maximum transparency be maintained in the rehabilitation programmes.
Jokowi placed his first priority on protecting Indonesia’s sovereignty by taking many steps to strengthen maritime boundaries by stopping and sinking foreign vessels engaged in illegal fishing and harvesting sea-weed despite high criticism from neighbouring countries. He struck hard on drug mafia and traffickers by approving capital punishment despite intense pressure from his ally countries like Australia, France and human rights groups across the world.
His counterpart and the present Opposition leader, Prabowo, is running again with a changed strategy and has projected himself as being accommodative of Islam’s cause and is sceptical towards ethnic Chinese by touching a soft chord of the majority of conservative and poor Muslims, who think their economic development is directly impeded by the ethnic Chinese in the country. Subianto, with his running mate Sandiaga Uno, a renowned entrepreneur running for Vice President, has been critical of Jokowi’s pro-Chinese policy that places the duo in a bit stronger position.
During my interaction with some local people in different regions in Java, I found that a majority of them view Prabowo as belonging to the clan of Soeharto, whose 31 years of rule witnessed rampant corruption which became a culture popularly known as “envelop culture.” Corruption still plagues Indonesia. The country languishes in the 89th place of 180 countries in the global rankings of corruption, according to Transparency International. Subianto launched the Great Indonesia Movement Party in 2009 and has a mixed background of being a retired army general and a businessman. He rose to a very high position in the Indonesian Army as a Lieutenant General and was in the news for his swift rise in military positions, being a son-in-law of former President Soeharto.
Comparing both the presidential candidates, Setia Budi, a moderate Muslim middle-aged cab driver, said, “Prabowo is from a military background and he may turn to be a dictator like his father-in-law, Soeharto. He is full of attitude and is very rich. On the other hand, Jokowi, belonging to the lower middle class like us, leads a very simple life. He is very polite and keeps fast for the whole month during Ramadan but never shows it off. He does what he talks. Therefore, Budi is going to vote for Jokowi.”
Prabowo became infamous internationally for his covert operations in East Timor in 1996 in order to suppress the rebellions, which led to human right abuses in the country. In 1998, he was promoted as the head of the 27,000-strong Army Strategic Reserve Command (Kostrad), which is a key Jakarta garrison meant to supervise operational readiness among all the commands and carries out defence and security operations as per the policies of the Indonesian Army commander. Having served in the Army at a very high position, Prabowo, a successful businessman now, has emerged as a shrewd politician and has brought smaller political parties to his side. This time, posing as a pious Muslim, he has assured the safety of ulemas, restored respect and fight to free them from criminal threats against Jokowi’s decision to dismiss an ultra-radical group, Hizbut Tahrir, which aimed to establish an Islamic caliphate in Indonesia. Apart from giving moral support to the religious leaders, he has also promised to help improve the conditions of religious schools in the country.
The country’s political system is based on constitutional democracy. The legislature is made up of two bodies and has a total of 692 MPs. There are the 560-member House of Representatives (DPR) and the 132-member Regional Representatives’ Assembly (DPD) with four representatives from each of the 33 provinces of Indonesia. The Indonesian system of selection of legislators is complex unlike the Indian parliamentary system. In Indonesia, someone can be a member of DPR even though he/she has got less votes than his/her opponent. For the DPR, each Province has been divided into 1-10 constituencies or electoral districts, which finally has 3-10 seats, depending on its size and population. To make his candidature stronger, Jokowi has chosen a popular Muslim scholar Ma’ruf Amin as his running mate for the Vice President in order to connect with the larger section of the conservative Muslims.
Indonesia, a country rich in human and natural resource, has been faced with unemployment problems, too. The costly education system prevents many aspirants to go for higher education, leaving many young students — aged between 14 and 17 years — to seek low-paid jobs, mostly in the booming hotel and service industries. Indonesia has become the world’s seventh largest economy due to its purchasing power capacity. According to the World Bank, the country needs massive investment to develop its massive infrastructural projects, create employment opportunities and streamline its economy.
Islamic fundamentalist groups are trying hard to pronounce their presence in a rather syncretic social system that has been influenced by its long history of the presence of Hinduism and Buddhist empires by opening up more madrasas, making it compulsory for Muslim women to wear headscarves in the rural and semi-urban areas. However, already exposed to Western culture during a long rule of Suharto, the majority of the populace doesn’t seem to be tamed easily by the call of conservative Muslim groups. As the world looks up to Indonesia to throw a viable and strong leadership and have a say in the international issue like the ever-brewing South China Sea dispute, its mature electorate is gearing up to show the power of democracy.
(The writer is a Southeast Asian analyst at the Jawaharlal Nehru University)
Writer: Gautam jha
Courtesy: The Pioneer
As the Indian National Congress remains dysfunctional and unable to take leadership of regional parties, the BJP seems poised to gain in several States
One of the most remarkable features of this year’s general elections is the failure of the Opposition parties to stitch a “grand alliance” to challenge the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-National Democratic Alliance (NDA). Even more inexplicable is the Congress’ sudden dysfunction, when it should have been upbeat after staving off the BJP challenge in Karnataka (May 2018) and wrestling the party’s strongholds of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh (December 2018).
Far from seizing leadership of the regional parties, Congress president Rahul Gandhi has failed to set the narrative and lacks the “winning momentum” that the firm, Cambridge Analytica, expected him to gain if his party won in Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh. In fact, Congress also won Rajasthan but it is already so outclassed that a feisty Smriti Irani sent Rahul Gandhi scuttling for a safe seat in distant Wayanad, Kerala.
It remains a mystery why regional parties cold-shouldered Congress after promising, soon after the Karnataka election, that the BJP-led NDA would face a united Opposition candidate on every seat. While the BJP sealed alliances (party workers said it conceded too much to please allies), the Congress failed to have serious dialogues with major parties and was shocked when confronted with the Bahujan Samaj Party-Samajwadi Party (BSP-SP) alliance in Uttar Pradesh. The duo left Rae Bareli and Amethi for the Congress and later gave three seats to Rashtriya Lok Dal; Congress had no choice but to contest all seats (barring seven out of courtesy for SP leaders). However, there are doubts if BSP-SP can successfully transfer their votes to each other.
The Congress is unhappy with its alliance with the Rashtriya Janata Dal in Bihar. It has an understanding with the Nationalist Congress Party in Maharashtra but the alliance with the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in Tamil Nadu has yielded only nine seats and one in Puducherry. Adjustments are being worked out with smaller parties in some places but there is no bounce in its gait as it has been pushed to the corner of the stage. In Gujarat, its firebrand new faces — Alpesh Thakur, Jignesh Mevani and Hardik Patel — have crumbled.
Analysts say the regional parties wanted to maximise their own Lok Sabha seats to stake claim to the Prime Minister’s post later, or improve their bargaining position. If true, this is unwise. In 1977, when large sections of the Opposition united behind Jaya Prakash Narayan, it was largely held that Morarji Desai had the foremost claim as he had been “denied” his due after the death of Lal Bahadur Shastri. Charan Singh had his dreams and some felt Babu Jagjivan Ram was the most astute but Desai had the weightage. Similarly, 1989 tilted towards Vishwanath Pratap Singh, though Devi Lal nurtured ambitions.
Currently, major Opposition parties have concluded that Rahul Gandhi lacks the gravitas to be primus inter pares. If this assessment is correct, it is a major blow for the Congress. Moreover, while the BJP is contesting around 450 seats and the NDA plans to contest all 543 seats, the Congress seems likely to contest only around 230 seats. In the unlikely event of Narendra Modi not winning a clear majority, Rahul Gandhi will have to jostle for supremacy with leaders of parties that contested only at the State level, namely, SP (37), BSP (38), Trinamool Congress (42), Telugu Desam Party (25); only the DMK and the Rashtriya Janata Dal are committed to Rahul Gandhi. Further, regional parties may not win all the seats they are contesting; the alliance with the Congress could have strengthened some.
It follows that if the Opposition parties cannot agree on Rahul Gandhi in principle, there is no guarantee they will accept him later. The Janata Dal (Secular) insisted on the Chief Minister’s post in Karnataka in 2018, forcing the Congress to play second fiddle. These parties would also have to thrash out a common minimum programme before collecting letters of support and approaching the President. A single hold-out could bring the whole process crashing down — should it even reach that point.
As of now, the BJP seems slated to make gains in West Bengal, Odisha, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Haryana, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Assam and the North-East; Gujarat remains a stronghold. More pertinently, as the NDA is the only pre-poll alliance in this election, the President would have to first invite Narendra Modi as the leader of this alliance, to form the Government. Anyway, the BJP doesn’t lag when it comes to staking claim.
Rahul Gandhi’s greatest failing is his inability to build a cogent narrative and excessive reliance on slogans and sundry activists. Rafale has no money trail to the accounts of cronies, as Ottavio Quattrocchi had in the Bofors deal. Refusal to drop it after Pulwama shows lack of imagination. As for his trailblazing Nyuntam Aay Yojana (NYAY) scheme, there is zero clarity on what it involves. A US-based advisor, who probably conceived it, has scared the middle class with the threat of higher taxes to fund it. The BJP has neatly countered this with the promise to reduce taxes further. Meanwhile, farmers are angry that the new Congress State Governments have reneged on loan waivers.
The Congress has side-stepped the contemporary narrative over Pulwama, Balakot, terrorism and national security and hopes the Supreme Court will pass strictures on the Rafale deal and help it electorally. The apex court often takes up matters in the domain of the executive but it will remember how the Congress tried to impeach a Chief Justice of India to ensure that the court did not take up the Ram Janmabhoomi case; it will not oblige the party.
More pertinently, the Congress’ promise to remove the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA) has shocked the entire military constituency and embarrassed Lt Gen DS Hooda, who heads its panel on national security. Modi has already responded, “Removing AFSPA from Jammu & Kashmir is the same as sending our soldiers to the gallows. I will never let this happen to our soldiers”.
For the Congress, this is a battle of diminishing returns. None of its State Governments have achievements to showcase to the nation (Shivraj Chouhan’s Ladli Lakshmi Yojana became the precursor to many Modi schemes for the girl child). Hence, it is difficult to see how the party can dramatically improve upon its 2014 performance of 44 seats. Whatever the Cassandras may say, the BJP has no cause for pessimism.
(The writer is Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library; the views expressed are personal)
Writer: Sandhya Jain
Courtesy: The Pioneer
History is about to made once again as the Chieftain of the Gauls’ daughter will soon cross paths with Asterix and Obelix in a new album
Sixty years after he first appeared in the pages of the magazine Pilote the hero Asterix, created by two geniuses René Goscinny and Albert Uderzo, is back.
If Asterix and Obelix thought they could recover from their last expedition in the tranquil setting of their beloved Armorica, they’d better think again. A mysterious teenage girl has just arrived in the village escorted by two Arverni chiefs. Caesar and his legionaries are searching for her and with good reason: word on the ground in the village is that the visitor’s father is none other than the great chieftain Vercingetorix, who was defeated at Alesia.
Commenting on the new adventure, the two authors revealed about the incredible discovery, “From what we know of the chieftain’s daughter, she’s a rebellious teenager. Hardly surprising — it can’t be easy having a name like Vercingetorix.”
They added, “We did quite a lot of research into her for the album — her appearance, name, and personality. As you may know, Vercingetorix didn’t give away much about his private life and there are a very few historical sources. But you’ll see, we’ve managed to track down quite a collection of scoops.”
The new Asterix and Obelix adventure, Asterix and the Chieftain’s Daughter, will be published in the UK on the October 24, once again created by the celebrated Jean-Yves Ferri and Didier Conrad.
Writer: Pioneer
Courtesy: The Pioneer
General Khalifa Haftar, an old foe of Gaddafi, is gearing up to make his bid for power in the country, as Libyans have to choose between the 76-year-old dictator and continuing chaos, poverty and intermittent violence
With Khalifa Haftar’s forces stalled outside the capital, Tripoli, the eight-year omnishambles in Libya is approaching a climax. It’s not clear yet which side is going to win but at least the dozens of rival militias in the country are now lined up in two recognisable sides. Haftar does have the gift of bringing clarity to a situation.
Alas, he achieves this mainly by making so many Libyans hate him. To them, he is Gaddafi 2.0, a would-be military dictator, who aspires to be a Libyan counterpart to Egypt’s General al-Sisi (and is generously backed by the Egyptian dictator). That’s not what they fought the 2011 revolution for.
Of course, the militia didn’t really do the heavy lifting in that revolution. They were colourful extras fighting little local battles, but the real execution was done by French, British and Canadian aircraft operating under NATO command that bombed Gaddafi’s troops almost to extinction in a six-month campaign in 2011.
The militias’ main role was to put a Libyan face on the whole operation but when NATO walked away after Gaddafi was killed, they were left in charge. They split repeatedly as their quarrels over local extortion rights became acute but they are united in resisting the re-establishment of Central control by a national Government. It is not in their interest.
There is, however, a basic division between eastern Libya (Cyrenaica) and western Libya (Tripolitania) that underlies the manifold rivalries of tribes and clans in both parts of the country. It’s a division that goes all the way back to Roman times, when the east spoke Greek (the language of the eastern part of the empire) and the west spoke Latin.
It persists today, even though everybody now speaks Arabic. The two parts of Libya live largely separate lives, divided by the central strip of coast where the desert reaches the sea — and the west has two-thirds of the country’s six million people.
Haftar controls Cyrenaica and the vast and largely unpopulated desert south of Libya (where most of the oil is) but the west has the advantage of numbers and a profound dislike of being ruled by the east. That’s why the western militias are coming together now, and why his offensive against Tripoli is at least temporarily stalled.
As for the rights and wrongs of the situation, there’s plenty of blame on both sides. Haftar ostensibly represents the Parliament elected in 2014, which fled to the east later that year when Islamist militias seized control of Tripoli. It now sits in Tobruk in the east and is entirely under Haftar’s thumb.
This is Haftar’s only plausible claim to legitimacy. Once a colleague of Gaddafi’s, he fled the country, ended up in exile in the United States for 15 years and is an American citizen but returned to Libya in 2014 and gradually united the militias of the east under his command as the ‘Libyan National Army’ (LNA).
He cleared the Islamist extremists out of Benghazi, the big city in Cyrenaica, in a bloody two-year war and then set out to take the rest of the country. His troops reached the outskirts of Tripoli early this month.
The ‘internationally recognised’, United Nations-backed Government of National Accord (GNA) inside the city is equally unconvincing as a national saviour. It was not elected, but cobbled together by UN mediators in 2015. Its leader, ‘Prime Minister’ Fayez al-Sarraj, didn’t even arrive in Tripoli from abroad until 2016 and he has struggled to establish his authority over the city, let alone over the militias or the entire country.
So now Haftar is making his big bid for power and Serraj is practically irrelevant. The various militias of Tripolitania that are coming together to resist him undoubtedly outnumber him but they have no joint command structure and Serraj cannot provide one.
The ‘smart money’, says Haftar, is bound to lose but that remains to be seen. He has both Egyptian and Russian support (although it’s unlikely that either of them authorised this adventure). And ordinary Libyans face a choice between a new 75-year-old dictator and continuing chaos, poverty and intermittent low-level violence as the militias squabble over the spoils. Not that they will actually be asked about the choice, of course.
How much does this matter to other Arab countries? Not a lot. How much does it matter to the rest of the world? Not at all. As Janis Joplin once remarked in a radically different context, freedom’s just another word for “nothing left to lose.”
(The writer’s new book is Growing Pains: The Future of Democracy and Work)
Writer: Gwynne Dyer
Courtesy: The Pioneer
While much is being said about Imran Khan’s ‘Naya Pakistan’, protecting minorities requires a robust constitutional cover that does not diminish, indignify or decry any faith
Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan was too clever by half in suggesting that his supposedly ‘Naya Pakistan’ could teach India “how to treat its minorities.” The genealogical basis for Pakistan (literally “land of the pure”) was conceptualised in the 1933 pamphlet presented by Choudhary Rahmat Ali, who sowed his “two-nation theory” by institutionalising the spirit of “others” or minorities by observing: “These differences are not confined to broad, basic principles. Far from it, they extend to the minutest details of our lives. We do not inter-dine; we do not intermarry. Our national customs and calendars, even our diet and dress are different.” Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s speech on August 11, 1947 to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan, however, had sent a contradictory sense with, “You are free. You are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan.” But our neighbour has knowingly, steadily and violently walked towards its puritanical moorings. No amount of sophistry in ‘Naya Pakistan’ can cover the same. The drift towards religious extremism was a project-in-making that was temporarily contained during the direct military years of the Ayub-Yahya era and revived in full earnest with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s advent in Pakistani leadership. Thereafter, all leaders of Pakistan, be it military or civilian, have pandered dangerously to the clergy and the accompanying religious sentiments, thereby spiralling the narrative of religious importance to metamorphose into the “terror nursery” of the world.
Today, the concept of minority or the “other” in Pakistan is not just its shrinking minorities of Hindus, Christians, Zoroastrians and even Jews, but also includes the severely persecuted Ahmadiyas, who are condemned from preaching or professing their belief, besides being declared as “non-Muslims”, following Ordinance XX that was passed by the ultra-religious General Zia-ul-Haq in 1984. For all practical purposes, the simmering sectarian tensions of the Sunni-Shia divide have regressed into unprecedented levels of polarisation and violence with supremacist militia targetting the “minority” Shias and their offshoot adherents with either utter impunity or even indirect state-support. A far cry from the days when General Muhammad Musa Khan, a Hazara Shia, was the Pakistani Army Chief during 1958-1966. Contrast this with the uproar of the ostensible Ahmadiya/Qadiani link that surrounded the appointment of the current Pakistani Army Chief Qamar Bajwa, which expectedly had to be rebutted and squashed.
Recently, the ongoing and bloody saga of societal irreconcilability within Pakistan’s imploding mainstream claimed at least 20 innocent lives in a terror attack that was seen to be targetting the “minority” Hazara Shia community in restive Quetta. These veritable “minority” groups of nearly a million in Pakistan and three million in Afghanistan were also systematically targetted by the Pakistan-supported Taliban regime in the 1990s. Their distinct Central Asian features make them easily recognisable and easy targets of militant groups like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, who have reduced the Hazaras to a ghettoised existence in Pakistan. Last year, the Hazara community had to go on a public hunger strike and seek assurances of protection from the real seat of power in Pakistan, ie, its Army Chief Gen Bajwa, after the spate of Hazara killings had become chillingly commonplace.
Pakistanis are paying the price for patronising extremist elements and the parallel marginalisation of their moderate, secular and democratic forces. With a virtual immunity afforded to the likes of Lashkar-e-Tayyeba, and Jaish-e-Muhammad among others, it is hardly surprising that Pakistan is recognised as a confessional state, despite the feeble attempts of nomenclaturising itself as ‘Naya Pakistan’. It is under Imran Khan’s watch that the Princeton University economist, Atif Mian, was dropped from his Economic Advisory Council (EAC) on account of his belonging to the “minority” Ahmadiya faith. Imran Khan then failed to change the narrative with his feeble handling of the Asia Bibi (of Christian faith) blasphemy case, where he succumbed to the fanatical group Tehreek-i-Labaak. Imran Khan’s own federal Government is also guilty of funding Darul Uloom Haqqania (infamous as the “University of Jihad”) that has the most notorious terrorists, like Mullah Omar and Jalaluddin Haqqani among others, as its alumni. This instinctive tilt towards extremist thought has led Ministers of ‘Naya Pakistan’ to share public platforms with terrorists like Hafeez Saeed, who have been proscribed by the United Nations. Little wonder that global-watch agencies like the Financial Action Task Force have kept relentless pressure on Islamabad to mend its sovereign behaviour that nurtures terror, both externally and internally, as indeed leading to more insecurity for its vulnerable minorities. Herein routine news like the forcible conversions of minorities no longer make headlines.
Fact is, both in Pakistan and India, there is a societal churn and regression towards majoritarianism and hardening of religious opinions. Ironically, in both countries, religious sentiments are pandered and harnessed for their electoral currency. However, in Pakistan, there is an additional angularity of state sanctification afforded by way of its perceived utility in cross-border leverage that is sought by sheltering certain religion-inspired terrorist groups that routinely hit targets across India, Afghanistan and Iran. These extremist forces can often turn their attention towards Pakistan’s hapless minorities and exert violent intolerance and sectarianism against them. Unfortunately, Pakistan’s own track record on willingly controlling these extremist forces was in full display with its initial and natural reluctance to ban Hafiz Saeed’s Jamaat-ud-Dawa’ah and Falah-e-Insaniat.
Beyond the posturing of ‘Naya Pakistan’, the issue of protecting minorities needs Constitutional cover that does not diminish, decry or indignify the credentials of any faith. Basic amendments to laws concerning blasphemy are realistically a “no-go” for Imran Khan’s Government, given its track record of either supporting or capitulating to the regressive forces. The societal divide and tensions for “minorities” are a reality and not a matter of political one-upmanship or point-scoring between Pakistan and India. Pakistan (‘Naya’ or otherwise) has to redefine and legislate its corrective agenda within its Constitutional tenets, else horrific incidents like the latest Hazara massacre will continue unabated.
(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry)
Writer: Bhopinder Singh
Courtesy: The Pioneer
lf-motivated village activists, who have broken the shackles of caste and patriarchy to bring about notable changes, must be recognised and celebrated
Left by her parents to fend for herself at a residential school for poor children when she was just five, this was probably the best thing that happened to Jyoti. One of seven siblings, she showed no signs of heartbreak at being abandoned by her family. Instead, she displayed surprising maturity at that young age and understood that this was her big chance to do what she wanted the most — to study. So, unlike other girls of her age, Jyoti did not run away to escape the rigours of the spartan life there. She embraced life at the ashram and used the opportunity to improve her knowledge and skills. Little did she know that this wisdom and resilience would help her become a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of the ruling Janata Dal (United) [JD(U)] in Bihar. However, not many know how Jyoti was catapulted to the political centre-stage. As we celebrated the 129th birth anniversary of B R Ambedkar, the father of the Indian Constitution on April 14, it is also time to laud the achievements of the unknown and unheard Dalit women, who overcame caste barriers with their courage and determination to fulfill their dreams.
Jyoti’s win as the JD(U) candidate from the reserved seat (Scheduled Caste) of Barachatti in Gaya district, Bihar, was remarkable for many reasons. Before she received a call from Chief Minister Nitish Kumar to contest the Assembly poll in 2010, Jyoti and her husband used to teach children in Bapu Gram, a remote village in Gaya district. Both husband and wife saw this as an opportunity to give back to their Musahar community although salaries were low — Jyoti’s husband received `110 while she got a paltry `90. When they subsequently moved to a more backward block, Fatehpur, in the same district and found there were no schools, they decided to open one so that more children from the Musahar community could be educated.
The Musahar community in Bihar is one of the most deprived and socially disadvantaged groups in India. Literacy rate in this community is just 9.8 per cent, the lowest among Dalits in the country. Only about one per cent of the Musahar women is literate.
The couple began classes under a tree until the village gifted some land. The community pitched in by donating labour for the construction of a modest building. Since then, all children go to school. In fact, 10 neighbouring villages were so inspired by this community effort that they, too, got together to do the same. When the State Government opened a primary school and an anganwadi in Fatehpur block in Gaya, Jyoti was the natural choice as an anganwadi worker, being the only active woman from the community. She not only inspired women to bring their children to the anganwadi, she was also able to debunk several myths related to maternal and child health. Realising that the lack of information held back Musahar women from immunising their children, Jyoti said she first got her own children vaccinated and then asked other women to follow her example.
Realising that women’s empowerment was the key to improving maternal and infant health, she began organising them into self-help groups (SHGs). Over the next 10 years, the number of SHGs increased from 10 to 350.
Besides motivating them to stand up against violence, both within and outside their homes, she trained them to look after their own health, using a new farming technique, a system of rice intensification or SRI, after learning it from Pradan, a not-for-profit organisation working with the community. It was Jyoti’s success in turning vast barren lands into green belts with the SRI technique and other indigenous methods that caught the attention of Chief Minister Nitish Kumar. And it was these efforts that contributed to her victory in the polls — she defeated her opponent by a margin of over 24,000 votes. Although she did not contest for a second term in 2015, Jyoti did not let her experience as MLA go waste. She continues to work for the community and inspire other women.
Just as Phoolmati is doing in Nebua Naurangia, a remote block in Gorakhpur district in neighbouring Uttar Pradesh. Here, she is empowering women in her Dalit community to stand up for their rights. One of the big changes that she brought about was motivating women in this backward block to launch an anti-liquor agitation. Their determination and courage in standing up against the powerful lobby that promoted alcohol bhattis (small-scale production units) led to the closure of such units. The women overcame their fear of a backlash from upper caste men running these units, thanks to their collectivisation as SHGs facilitated by Phoolmati. She has single-handedly helped the formation of over 50 SHGs in the block. This is why women here have come together to demand roads and demonstrate in front of the district magistrate for employment under MNREGA, the Government’s national rural employment guarantee scheme.
Phoolmati has also inspired confidence among women in the community to stand up against violence. Women are ready to file complaints against perpetrators, including their husbands. In a State where patriarchy keeps women closeted in their houses and violence against women is the highest in the country, this is a big step. Statistics reveal that between April 1, 2017, and January 31, 2018, there was a 25 per cent increase in rapes, 40 per cent rise in incidents of molestation, 35 per cent jump in cases of kidnappings of women and a 50 per cent increase in cases of eve-teasing, compared to the corresponding period in 2016-17.
Not just in violence, Uttar Pradesh has another dubious distinction. Here one in every five girls is a child bride. Phoolmati was one of them. Married young to a much older man, Phoolmati managed to study only till Class V. When she got a chance to learn about her rights and entitlements after becoming a SHG member, thanks to the Rajiv Gandhi Mahila Vikas Pariyojana, a not-for-profit working for women’s empowerment, she decided to share this with other marginalised women. She has helped over 750 women step out of their houses and transform their lives with the help of knowledge and training disseminated through the SHGs.
But for Choti Bai, a resident of Chittorgarh district in Rajasthan, realisation of her rights came late. It was only after 22 years of cleaning toilets with her bare hands that she discovered manual scavenging was illegal. This was in 2008 when she met activists of the Rashtriya Garima Abhiyan (National Campaign for Dignity and Elimination of Manual Scavenging), a coalition of 30 community-based organisations from 13 Indian States, working to improve the lives of these marginalised communities. Once Choti Bai decided to give up manual scavenging, she braved opposition from her husband and mother-in-law. She turned to work as a daily wage labourer in the fields and took to sewing clothes.
When campaign activists saw her determination, they asked her to work with them. In 2012, she joined the campaign as a motivator, earning a monthly salary of `1,700, far more than she ever earned as a manual scavenger. Her new life has brought her dignity and respect, especially from those who once considered her untouchable. She has helped persuade 112 women working as manual scavengers in her district to give up this work. While some of these women have been helped to start a small poultry business, others have been helped to get job cards under MNREGA. Now, thanks to Choti Bai, there are no more female manual scavengers in her village.
This is a big achievement considering in India, manual scavengers are mostly women. Men from this community clean septic tanks and sewers. The Socio-Economic Caste Census of 2011 counted over 1.82 lakh families that had at least one member employed in manual scavenging.
Changes being brought about by women like Choti Bai, Phoolmati and Jyoti need to be recognised and celebrated. They have broken the shackles of caste and patriarchy and reclaimed their rights, especially to live with dignity.
(The writer is a senior journalist)
Writer: Swapna Majumdar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month