The nagging question has finally been put to rest as the SC has ruled that questions about the acquisition of the 36 Rafale jets from Dassault, need to be answered. The SC reaffirmed due process while asserting the right of the media to bring facts to light. For a jet that would undoubtedly strengthen the Indian Air Force (IAF) doesn’t deserve to be bandied about as a political bogey, sometimes being used as an example of crony capitalism by the Opposition, at other times being used as a strategic achievement by the ruling party and in the worst case mimicked as floatable balloons on the current campaign trail. So the Supreme Court, which had given a clean chit to the deal in December rather summarily, has decided to examine the review petitions against it, go through due processes and uphold its own against charges that the Government was steamrolling the wrinkles in the argument favouring the contract. If indeed the top court had been mistaken or facts obfuscated from it, the judges decided they would not hesitate to go through the procedural route again. Particularly, when high-level corruption allegations were involved. Whatever the informed verdict thereafter, justice would not at least seem one-sided. Or be seen as secondary to power. Most of all, the institution of the judiciary would not seem to be compromised.
So, much to the Government’s discomfort and the Opposition’s glee, the apex court will now examine secret, leaked documents on the Rafale deal which indicate parallel negotiations outside the purview of the Defence Ministry and tweaking of provisions. Much of this information was publicised by the media and the Centre objected to their credibility and intention, saying these were classified documents “stolen” from the Defence Ministry, unauthorised and should not be admissible as evidence. By rejecting this claim, the court has also restored the sanctity of the Press at a time when freedom of speech is perceived to be under threat. So it will hear review petitions in the light of new media reports cited by petitioners alleging wrong-doing in the Rafale case. The judges also took into account petitioner Arun Shourie’s argument that since the leaked documents concerned national security, they should hear out the counter views for a fair assessment of truths. The court felt there was no point in shooting the messenger by invoking a State secrets protocol or coercing it into revealing its sources. The Press had only sought answers for clarity in the public domain. Besides, the court could not ignore co-petitioner Prashant Bhushan’s logic that “if a document is relevant in deciding a fact, how it was obtained becomes irrelevant.” Citing the US verdict on Pentagon papers leak, he had said once documents are published, the government can no longer claim privilege. In December, the top court had dismissed petitions alleging that the government had gone for an overpriced deal to help industrialist Anil Ambani’s fledgling firm get an offset contract with Dassault. But then the loopholes appeared. First, the court seemed to have been misled by the Government’s claim that the pricing of the Rafale deal had already been examined by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), when, in fact, it had not. The Government tried to hide the flaw in the argument as a “typing error” and even sought a “correction.” The judges certainly did not take kindly to the idea of being fooled on technicality and language, something they are supposed to be masters of. Then media reports implied that the deal became more expensive for India because of France’s refusal to provide bank guarantees. Besides, the apex court had to maintain parity considering its own ruling that confidentiality in documents had undergone a huge change since the Right To Information Act was put in place. Whatever the outcome, the ruling has once again put Rafale back on the electoral plank as political parties continue to fan out to all corners of India through several phases of elections. But the undeniable fact is we need a decision, and a fast one, if we want to spare a thought for the severe operational deficiency in our armed forces. Whoever wins and loses the case, crows or frets about the verdict, in the end, muscular militarism is really about meeting the basic requirements of India’s most apolitical and secular institution.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
Indian Business schools are rated every year by most Indian business publications, both magazines and newspapers. The administrators and students of the top ranked institutions find them to be a chore as the rankings are pretty predictable. But for many smaller institutions, getting ranked might mean the difference between survival and death. A good position will draw new students. However, the highly competitive nature of the game — with several media houses bending over backwards to please institutions that advertised and institutions themselves knowing that they could ‘buy’ a better spot — means that the college ranking system has been badly broken, particularly in the case of professional institutions. This is symptomatic of the ‘Wild West’ nature of India’s education sector. In fact, while politicians lament the lack of jobs for youth, which is an undeniable fact, they rarely lament the poor state of Indian education because they themselves are knee-deep in the sector and purveyors of substandard education. So a standardised ranking system monitored by the government, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) to be precise, made sense.
But going through this year’s rankings, tabulated under the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), there are some incongruities. While it is true that some universities do not have constituent colleges, the fact that Delhi University is ranked 13th among universities while six of its constituent colleges are in the top 10 colleges seems odd. The other major point that gets lost in all the hoopla is that several new private universities that are attracting a lot of attention have not been ranked. Also, there is the curious case of Mumbai University, one of India’s largest universities by student body size, which is now ranked 81st in India. Indeed a worrying sign. In rankings of professional institutions, the usual suspects win, which is not surprising. However, while the rankings are not surprising for the large part, the HRD Ministry still finds itself unable to fix the core problems that underlie Indian tertiary education. As stated earlier, the jobs crisis is real, no matter what the government says, but understanding that poor education is responsible to a large degree should be the main priority of the day, not one of rankings. Also, with regard to private rankings conducted by media houses, the MHRD should insist that the methodology is suitably publicised.
Writer: Pioneer
Courtesy: The Pioneer
The hope for sympathetic amnesia is apparent in the recently released Congress manifesto as it talks just about governance and politics post 2014, while hoping to relegate the emergency to the doldrums of history. As it is India’s oldest party with presence in every part of the country, however nominal and depleted it may be today in many States, its statement of intent, should it come to power, must be read with utmost seriousness. However, while doing so, one must test its assertions, claims and promises on the anvil of truth. The first impression one gets from reading this document is that the party would like us to believe that the history of democratic India began in 2014! The entire narrative is pinned on this premise because if it were to go back, it would have to account for its past sins. In other words, while it makes the most noble declarations about democratic values, the Constitution, its commitment to federalism and to fight corruption, it would like the nation to forget its own dreadful track record when it imposed a dictatorship on India in 1975-77; when it crushed non-Congress Governments time and again over several decades using pliable Governors; when it brought a vicious defamation Bill to curb the media during Rajiv Gandhi’s prime ministership and, of course, when it was caught in the Bofors bribery scandal.
The manifesto is hoping for sympathetic amnesia on the part of the electorate by just talking about governance and politics post 2014 and hoping that the people will forget its pathetic record when it governed this country for close to 60 years. It is, therefore, time to tickle public memory and leave it to their wisdom to remember or forget the disturbing events of the past.
The manifesto begins with a foreword by Congress chief Rahul Gandhi, who began with a rhetorical question: “Will India be a free democratic country and will Indian people be free from fear?…Or will India be governed by a pernicious ideology that will trample upon peoples’ rights, institutions, conventions?…”. This is exactly the question that was on the top of every Indian’s mind when the Congress imposed a fascist regime on the nation during the Emergency.
Further, he claimed that his party stands committed to “truth, freedom, dignity, self-respect and prosperity of our people.” This statement must be tested on the anvil of truth. The manifesto loftily proclaims that “Freedom is the hallmark of our open and democratic Republic. The purpose of law is regulation in order to strengthen freedom. Laws must be just and reasonable and reflect our constitutional values.”
The question we need to ask ourselves is whether the Congress has the moral right to even discuss these core democratic principles. If freedom is the hallmark of our Republic, why did the party impose an Emergency and snatch away all the fundamental rights of citizens? If laws must be just and reasonable and reflect Constitutional values, why was the dreaded Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA) enforced ruthlessly in 1975-77 and why were all leaders of the Opposition incarcerated? Why was the 39th Amendment introduced to put Indira Gandhi above all other citizens and bar the Supreme Court from hearing her petition? Why were the essential features of a democratic Constitution like equality before law and right to life and personal liberty done away with?
Let us turn to the media, institutions and the judiciary. About the media, the manifesto says the party firmly believes that “the media must be free and self-regulated.” It says it will “uphold editorial independence and guard against Government interference.” Really? This is the same party which cut off electricity to newspaper offices in New Delhi on June 25, 1975, jailed 253 independent journalists, banned many foreign correspondents, imposed censorship on the media and even appointed an Inspector-General of Police as Chief Censor in Karnataka. This is also the same party which classified newspapers as “friendly”, “neutral” and “hostile” during Indira Gandhi’s time and brought a draconian defamation law to curb Press freedom when Rajiv Gandhi was the Prime Minister. Can we trust this party when it comes to media freedom?
The Congress’ manifesto promises that it will restore “the dignity, authority and autonomy” of institutions like the Election Commission of India. Is this believable, given the conduct of this party in the past? When the Shah Commission probed the excesses during the Emergency, the Superintendent of Tihar Jail told the Commission that Navin Chawla, who was close to the Nehru-Gandhis, asked him to throw political prisoners in asbestos cells and “bake” them or to dump them in the lunatics cell. Referring to Navin Chawla, the Shah Commission said, “tyrants sprouted at all levels overnight…”. It said Chawla conducted himself in an “authoritarian and callous” manner and rendered himself “unfit to hold any public office…”.
Is it not amazing that the party, which appointed Navin Chawla as an Election Commissioner in 2005 when Sonia Gandhi was the de facto Prime Minister, is now claiming that it will “restore the dignity, authority and autonomy” of the Election Commission and other institutions? Even more amazing is its promise that appointment to these bodies will be transparent and institutional integrity will be protected.
As regards the judiciary, the Congress has a terrible record. In the 1970s, it superseded three Supreme Court judges, clamoured for a “committed judiciary” and hurled abuses and threats on judges on the floor of Parliament. In fact, in November 1976, in the Lok Sabha, one Congress MP asked the Supreme Court judges if they had “the temerity” to go against the Government and went on to say that the party had its “methods and machinery” to deal with such judges. Now in manifesto 2019, the Congress has promised that “the independence and integrity of the judiciary will be maintained.” Given the party’s discomfort with an independent judiciary, this promise must be taken with a bag of salt.
Finally, a word about corruption. The manifesto claims that the party will take “determined steps” to bring back scamsters. This is the very party which ensured the exit of Italian businessman and Sonia Gandhi’s friend Ottavio Quattrocchi, who pocketed a commission of $7.3 million when we bought field guns for our Army from Bofors and got the UK Government to unfreeze his bank account so that he could walk away with the loot.
Somewhere in the beginning of the document, the party talks about its commitment to the Constitution and says, “Our record speaks for itself…We have done it before. We will do it again!”
Given the party’s track record, does this not sound ominous?
(The writer is an author specialising in democracy studies. Views expressed are personal.)
Writer: A Surya Prakash
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Political parties in India have not only failed to maintain a healthy gender balance in the Parliament, but have also propose feasible women empowerment schemes
“Feminism isn’t about making women stronger. Women are already strong. It’s about changing the way the world perceives that strength,” says activist and writer GD Anderson of an effort that has still not taken off in many disadvantaged countries, India included, when we should not be lumped in this category at all. So when BJP spokesperson Shaina NC recently expressed her concern that her own party was not fielding enough women candidates for the general election, she was just a vent for the volcanic anger of women who are struggling to find political representation in the world’s biggest democracy despite forming half its electorate.
If a study by the Inter-Parliamentary Union is to be believed, then India ranks 149th in a list of 193 countries in terms of women’s representation in the lower or single House of Parliament (Lok Sabha) as of July 1, 2017. The average percentage of women’s participation in political processes stands at about 22 per cent globally while in India it is a mere 11.8 per cent. Shockingly, lesser developed countries like Rwanda, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Iraq, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Fiji and Ghana rank higher than India. In South Asia, the reports say, we are behind Nepal, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh in percentage terms. Even in the Rajya Sabha, women MPs are just 11.1 per cent.
Both the national parties, the BJP and the Congress, despite their existing schemes and promises, have fielded just 12 per cent and 13.5 per cent women candidates this time. And both are equally guilty of shying away from affirmative action and not pushing the Women’s Reservation Bill so far. It must be remembered that when Parliament passed the 73rd and 74th Constitutional amendments in 1993, reserving one-third of the seats in all local bodies for women, it not only challenged the patriarchal clichés about their ability but empowered them enough to effect a socio-economic change in their circumstance. Their multi-tasking, managerial abilities cascaded into practical and dynamic decision-making in the constituency they served.
Some legislative bodies in Bihar and Delhi have reserved more than one-third of the total seats for women. Meanwhile, the Trinamool Congress, led by Mamata Banerjee, has apportioned 41 per cent of her party’s seats to women candidates while the Biju Janata Dal leader Naveen Patnaik has set aside 33 per cent. Yet winnability is a big concern, with most unsuccessful women candidates losing deposits in past elections, be they national or local.
It is rather ironic that this should happen in a country which has seen many tall women leaders helming parties and had a woman Prime Minister much ahead of its time despite a patriarchal society that is but expected to not yield space in the one place where its power is manifest — in politics, and by extension the law of the land. While women have been able to swell up an emergent tide to renegotiate their space in social, cultural and economic spheres, this is one area where even all-women’s parties have been seen more as an aberration than normal. This is because the women we have grown accustomed to in helming political leadership have almost always assumed that role out of dynastic entitlement and seen as a continuity of a male line rather than as an independent leader. Be it Indira Gandhi, who inherited much of the halo of her father, Sonia and Priyanka Gandhi, to Meira Kumar, who took over the legacy of Babu Jagjivan Ram, or even J Jayalalithaa, who inherited an ideology and was hand-held in her journey by M G Ramachandran, women leaders have been legacy-keepers than forgers. This tokenism and substitution have cost us. Grassroots leaders like Mayawati and Mamata may have bucked the trend and waged their battle ground up but in the process of establishing their credibility and acceptability, they followed the mainstream template set by male predecessors. Given their imperatives of wooing the backwards and minorities, they hardly addressed the women’s question as one meriting attention. To win a game, they played by the rules than bending them. Until now.
Truth is in any political discourse, women have always been looked upon as another votebank to be encashed than empowered. Campaign after campaign pitch talks about how women can change the verdict as they comprise 50 per cent of voters. Survey after survey has shown how women, who have outnumbered men in State poll turnouts, actually vote independently of their family choices and usually act practically, prioritising domestic budgets and the economy as their key concern, going for candidates who matter to their livelihood. But there is no concomitant campaign, not even a social service message, about fielding them as candidates.
Yet every party has schemes which hand out benefits as patronising doles. Apart from States, even the Modi government has factored in women as a constituency, be it through the Ujjwala scheme of distributing free LPG cylinders that revolutionised kitchens and the Uttar Pradesh Assembly verdict of 2017, the Beti Bachao Beti Padhao programme or even the toilet project as part of Swachch Bharat. In fact, this government has gone a few steps ahead of past regimes in prioritising women’s health and normalising taboos of menstrual hygiene in the public discourse. But empowerment figures are nothing to write home about. India’s female labour force participation rate is among the lowest in the south Asian region and if latest estimates are anything to go by, the rate is dropping, the reasons being attributed to supplementary family incomes and their prioritisation of maternal and care-giver roles. Equal opportunities for women could add as much as $770 billion to the country’s GDP, according to McKinsey. But women are still not seen as a productive human resource but an emergency reserve force. In the labour sector, they are seen as a floating rather than a guaranteed presence and schemes enhance their traditional gender roles rather than incentivising them in economic terms. Even “sensitive” steps like extension of maternity leave to 26 weeks from the previous 12 weeks have not worked for the women workforce, who have either been passed over for promotion, let go of projects or simply benched. Such benefits have deterred the new-age competitive sectors like start-ups and small businesses from hiring women. Wage and pay disparity, lack of social security of working women and the glass ceiling continue to be barriers in the face of a more equitable social contract. Violence against women is an ever-gathering brute force what with steady increase in sex-selective abortion, infanticide, sexual harassment and abuse and honour killings. There is no concrete plan or proposal in any manifesto yet to tackle widowhood, old age and disability among the disadvantaged and marginalised classes. And without an increase in health budgets, Indian women continue to be the most anaemic in the world and suffer severe malnutrition. The budget for midday meal schemes and anganwadis are actually down. While India has seen a significant reduction in maternal mortality in recent years, it still figures high on the global burden of maternal deaths with women still lacking access to quality maternity care. And though the allocation for girls’ education was announced at Rs 100 crore, with disparate States expected to share the financial burden, this has clearly floundered too.
The neo-age liberalism in slogans has only entrenched patriarchy and circumscribed all remedial action to the male gaze, which is exclusivist to its concerns. If we do not allow half the population the right to decide what is good for them or what they need, we will never figure respectably in the global polity despite our space age conquests. Yes, women have punched holes in ISRO, too, with their individual merits and ability. But where are the policy-makers and legislators who can raise their collective lot? This selective tagging of “women achievers” is no longer glorious but an easy advertisement. Can any political party afford half the electorate not voting for any of them? If there is a right to vote, give them the right to contest.
(The writer is Associate Editor, The Pioneer)
Writer: Rinku Ghosh
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Many people dismiss Congress president Rahul Gandhi as a complete Pappu who is incapable of leading the country. While the perception may be grounded in the perceptions of his personality, it has no place in serious political analysis. Rahul, as an individual, may not be what people would expect the Congress president to be, but what is relevant is that he happens to be the head, some would say owner, of a political party that, despite its diminishing popularity over the years, is still a notable social and political force. The party has a huge network and regardless of the leadership attributes of its President, must be assessed in terms of its larger relevance as the principal-but by no means the only-Opposition to the BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
That the importance of the Congress extends well beyond the 44 Lok Sabha seats it won in 2014 is obvious. A few months ago the Congress won three important State Assembly elections in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. Additionally, it controls the State Government in Punjab and is the mainstay of the coalition Government in Karnataka. More important, however, is the influence the Congress exercises over an important and influential section of the Establishment in India. There is, for example, a section of the bureaucracy that is inherently comfortable with the Congress. Likewise, a significant section of the intelligentsia, particularly those that have links with the State, are more at ease with the Congress than with, say, the BJP. This is also true for that section of Indian business that values the use of discretionary powers of the Government to advance its prospects. Patronage politics is central to the Congress, and the influence its exercises as a consequence of this hasn’t died out with its electoral misfortune.
This election has witnessed a momentary revival of the Congress ecosystem. This didn’t happen because Rahul took over the mantle of the party from his mother. The leadership change was incidental to the process. It happened because the outcome of the three Assembly elections and the electoral alliance of the Samajwadi Party and the Bahujan Samaj Party conveyed an impression, at least at the beginning of 2019, that the BJP and Modi would find it very difficult to repeat its 2014 performance in 2019. Regardless of whether or not such an assessment was accurate, it was very real and was reflected in the chatter that another UPA-style Government was imminent. It was also felt that circumstances would propel Rahul to the Prime Minister’s post.
This may explain two developments. First, the exodus of politicians whose main motivation for being in politics is to exercise power away from the Congress was temporarily halted. Many Congress leaders, intensely disheartened by the loss of power, felt that maybe the party was headed for better days and that it was preferable to remain in the party rather than forge new relationships. Within the Congress there is a feeling, based on the experiences with Indira Gandhi, that the first family has enormous resilience and is capable of leading the party back to relevance, overcoming setbacks.
Secondly, many notables who were dissatisfied with Modi’s style of functioning and who were anxious to regain their lost prominence felt that some association with the Congress would be beneficial. This included individuals who, while alarmed by Modi’s ‘idea of India’, always stopped shy of actually endorsing the Congress. By early-2019 more and more individuals emerged from hibernation to discover the virtues of Rahul’s leadership. These included economists who found fault with demonetisation, former diplomats who were opposed to facets of foreign policy and public intellectuals that rued their own loss of relevance in the Modi dispensation.
This is not to imply that the Congress was merely reverting to its original role as a pillar of the Old Establishment. Of course, to some extent it was. But there was an additional dimension. One of the big changes brought about by Sonia Gandhi was the injection of the NGOs into the Congress ecosystem. To this was added the extraordinary cosiness that developed between the Left and the Congress, particularly after Sitaram Yechuri became General Secretary of the CPI(M). Under Rahul, this NAC-isation of the Congress has continued without interruption.
The Congress manifesto reveals the sharp Left turn of a party that was once associated with the Establishment. It has combined profligate welfarism and fiscal recklessness with a socio-political orientation that includes accommodation of the ultra-Left. The demand for the dilution of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act, an open door policy on asylum seekers that will transform the demographic balance in the North-East and the scrapping of sedition laws are aimed at ingratiating the Congress with the political fringe and even using it politically. This is combined with an enthusiastic endorsement of minority communities. Rahul’s decision to contest from Wayanad in Kerala is an example of this, not least of which was the ostentatious presence of the Muslim League at his nomination rally.
At the same time, the Congress appears to be anxious to keep an arm’s length distance from the middle class values that are at the heart of the BJP. Despite feeble assertions by the likes of P Chidambaram and even Rahul himself, there are indications that any Congress-led Government would lead to income tax hike and higher inflation. The Congress appears to have concluded that the middle classes have been too ensnared by the BJP to be worth wooing and that it is preferable to focus on other sections particularly its traditional vote bank of the poor and minorities. The only difference is that this is coupled with a strong Left-liberal roofing.
Rahul’s own understanding of politics may well be wanting but this does not mean the Congress isn’t working to a plan — the restoration of dynastic hegemony at all costs.
Writer: Swapan Dasgupta
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Salamullah Tipu, an extremist organization founded by Al Zulfikar who hijacked a PIA aircraft, is a living example of how the young and naive in Pakistan are manipulated and exploited by the powerful
Exactly 38 years ago, in March 1981, a group of young men hijacked a PIA plane from the Karachi Airport and forced it to land in Kabul and then Damascus. The plane, bound for Peshawar, was hijacked on March 2, 1981, by three men, who claimed to belong to an obscure Left-wing urban guerrilla outfit, the Al-Zulfiqar Organisation (AZO).
The hijacking lasted 13 days. According to Raja Anwar, an author, journalist and former advisor in the ZA Bhutto regime (1971-77), the AZO was formed by Bhutto’s sons, Murtaza and Shahnawaz, in 1979. Anwar joined the outfit in 1980. In his 1997 book on the AZO, Anwar wrote that being young, the two brothers decided to instigate a revolutionary movement against Gen Zia’s dictatorship, which had sent their father to the gallows in 1979 through a controversial trial.
On March 24 this year, as a response to Bilawal Bhutto’s allegations that some of the ruling party members had links with militant Islamic outfits, a prominent leader of Prime Minister Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) tweeted a newspaper image of the 1981 hijackers, making victory signs and holding AK-47s. Obviously, the gentleman was pointing out the irony of Bilawal, condemning the alleged links between certain PTI Ministers and Islamic militants, when two of his own maternal uncles were involved in masterminding a hijacking.
On the surface, this was a clever tweet, until some respondents correctly pointed out that Murtaza Bhutto, the chief of AZO, was the father of the now famous novelist, Fatima Bhutto, who was apparently approached last year by PTI to join the party.
Second, Bilawal’s mother, the late Benazir Bhutto, had been under arrest in Pakistan at the time of the hijacking. She was about to lead a protest movement against the Zia regime when the hijacking took place. According to Anwar, Benazir was livid. In her 1988 biography, Daughter of the East, Benazir described the hijacking as a misadventure, which gave Zia the opportunity to come down hard against his political opponents. When she became the Prime Minister for the first time in 1988, Benazir had a falling out with Murtaza. Many believe that the roots of this can be found in her disapproval of her brothers’ tactics vis-à-vis the AZO.
In her 2010 book, Songs of Blood and Sword, Fatima Bhutto more than alluded that the hijacking might have been the work of the Zia regime. She claimed that her father, Murtaza, was convinced that one of the hijackers was being manipulated by the dictatorship. Anwar, who met with the main hijacker, Salamullah Tipu, wrote that the AZO was a badly organised operation led by two angry sons out to avenge their father’s execution, and dozens of young men escaping the oppression of the dictatorship. Tipu was one such man.
Tipu has become an enigma since. Was he really manipulated by the Zia dictatorship or was he simply a reckless youth, hungry for revolutionary notoriety? The following profile of Tipu has been woven together by accounts of him in Anwar’s book, French academic Laurent Gayer’s tome Karachi: Ordered Disorder and my 2010 talk on the subject in London with former student activist and Tipu’s university friend, Akram Qaimkhani.
Tipu was born in 1954 into a lower-middle-class Urdu-speaking family in Karachi. His grandfather had been hanged by the British colonialists in the 1920s. A mischievous teen, his father made Tipu join the military. However, he was soon let go for misconduct. He joined a college in 1972 and immediately became a member of the Islami Jamiat Tulaba (IJT), the student-wing of the Right-wing Jamaat-i-Islami. However, inspired by the “socialist” rhetoric of the then Prime Minister ZA Bhutto, Tipu quit the IJT and joined the Left-wing National Students Front (NSF). In 1976, aged 22, he eventually joined the student wing of Bhutto’s PPP.
Not much is known of his activities between 1976 and 1979. The Bhutto regime was toppled in a coup by Zia in 1977. According to Anwar, Tipu next entered the picture when he was made the president of the People’s Student Federation’s Karachi chapter in 1979. Gayer and Qaimkhani spoke of a “daring raid” in 1980 led by Tipu on a van driven by two IJT activists. The van was full of weapons, which Tipu nicked.
In February 1981, Tipu got into a vicious gunfight at Karachi University against the IJT. An IJT member was killed. Tipu escaped to Kabul, which was, at the time, under the Soviet-backed Afghan regime. And here is where the AZO was also headquartered. Anwar wrote that initial funding for the outfit came from Colonel Qaddafi’s Libya and Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO). Anwar wrote that India refused to have anything to do with it and the Soviet KGB handed the AZO’s operations to the Afghan intelligence agency KHAD.
Tipu was impressed by the notorious South American Left-wing terrorist “Carlos the Jackal” — who was also known as the “playboy terrorist.” Thinking himself as an “Asian Carlos,” Tipu returned to Karachi in March 1981 and hijacked a PIA plane with two accomplices. Both are still in exile. Anwar quoted Tipu as saying that he planned the hijacking on his own and that Murtaza only took credit for it. After the hijacking, a power struggle erupted between Murtaza and Tipu. Anwar wrote that Tipu told KHAD that he was the real Marxist and Murtaza was just a feudal.
However, after often being apprehended for driving fast while drunk and harassing bystanders on Kabul roads, KHAD arrested Tipu for the murder of an Afghan national. Tipu insisted the murder was instigated by Murtaza. But in 1984, Tipu was executed by the Afghan regime. He was buried in an unmarked grave in Kabul. His parents never got to see him again. Bilawal Bhutto’s accusations and the PTI’s counter-accusations trivialise a bigger issue: How the emotions and naiveté of young people are manipulated by those playing cynical power games. In the process, not only are young lives destroyed, but their whole families continue to suffer.
Social anthologist, Nichola Khan’s Violence, Anti-Convention and Desires — which chronicles the rise of the destructive impulse injected into the psyche of young men associated with the MQM in the 1980s and 1990s — and security analyst M Amir Rana’s Militant Ideologies and Radicalism in Pakistan — which reproduces interviews with young men radicalised by jihadist outfits — are harrowing reminders of just how much Pakistan’s youth are still vulnerable to cynical ideological exploitation that destroy not only them but also their families.
(Courtesy: The Dawn)
Writer: Nadeem Paracha
Courtesy: The Pioneer
The safety of manned space missions came under focus following India’s anti-satellite test. India aims to send its first astronauts, or antrishkyaanis, into space in the next decade. This will be the cherry on the top of India’s extremely successful space programme, which recently demonstrated its skills once again not just by launching a record number of micro-satellites into orbit but successfully putting three large satellites into different orbits. But the big news was India’s dramatic Anti-Satellite test (ASAT) that destroyed an old Indian satellite thus joining the US, Russia and China in being capable of knocking a satellite out of orbit. Of course, this generated a lot of controversy. First, the timing of the test, which took place after the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) for the General Elections had started. There was much consternation about Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s televised address to the nation to announce this feat. The second issue was whether an earlier test conducted in early-March before the MCC had failed, which frankly was not a big deal given that this is a fairly advanced technology and trials and errors are common.
The third and most relevant criticism against the test was made by other space agencies, including the United States’ NASA, which said that the ASAT test would litter low earth orbit with more space debris. While India countered that we conducted a responsible test at a very low earth orbit unlike the Chinese and that much of the debris from this test would burn up in the earth’s atmosphere, it is reasonable for the rest of the world to be slightly upset. Other than the manned space flights to the Moon, which took place 50 years ago, most of mankind’s space journeys have been in the relatively low earth orbit. On a clear night, the International Space Station (ISS) is just about visible to the naked eye and orbits around 120-150 kilometres above the surface. While India’s test was ostensibly below that orbit, space debris is a problem for all manned space flights and ironically might impact India’s future manned missions too. The fact is that even a grain of sand might cause damage to a space mission because in orbit, everything is moving at several thousand kilometres per hour and even low-mass objects carry significant momentum. At the same time, the hundreds of micro-satellites being released on recent missions, while making space research accessible to many less-developed nations and college students, also pose a debris problem. NASA and the Russians have to realise that they started the problem and while India should work towards solving it in a global partnership, criticism from NASA and its patronising attitude are unwarranted since the Americans were the first to carry out ASAT tests.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
The blog written by the veteran on BJP’s Foundation DDa is a conscience call and warns the party against its hubris. They say old generals don’t die, they just wither away. But the founder-member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its second president, LK Advani, who was quite unceremoniously retired by its present leadership, decided not to fade away but like a burning flame on a shrivelling wick, waged his last fight of principles. In a blog post, he graciously defended his vision of what the party should be and warned against what it had become. Not exactly a rebellion but a conscience call that hubris shouldn’t rule if you want to serve the “nation first.” That egoism wouldn’t win the game unless you put the “self last.” Particularly, the blog was seen as a comment on the aggressive militarism, monolithic impositions and the politics of hate and division that the present dispensation has come to embody. Advani clarified that the BJP may be a rightist party but “in our conception of Indian nationalism we have never regarded those who disagree with us politically as anti-national. The essence of Indian democracy is respect for diversity and freedom of expression. Right from its inception, the BJP has never regarded those who disagree with us politically as our ‘enemies’, but only as our adversaries.” The implications were not lost on anybody at a time when in speech after fiery speech, the present leadership questions the credentials of Opposition parties or liberal thought as “anti-national” and forcibly circumscribes any diversity within the umbrella narrative of national security and patriotism. By emphasising democracy and protection of independent institutions, highlighting the fairness of the media, he clearly critiqued the present leadership, which is seen as not only playing the big brother watchdog but bending rules to suit its imperatives. The coercion of the media and using it for propaganda is an open secret. He invoked his fight to uphold principles during the Emergency, saying elections were an occasion for “honest introspection by all stakeholders in Indian democracy.” And this last was the most definitive arrow at a party, which he believes had overreached itself and betrayed its core ethos.
As the tallest leader of the BJP, who crafted its national identity with a definitive alternative ideology, Advani has clearly exercised his right as a margdarshak to be voluble. So while opinion swelled in his favour, with Opposition parties lauding him, some even wondered why he did not question the present establishment earlier and instead expose himself to the criticism that he was hitting back for being denied the Gandhinagar seat, which he has been winning since 1998. It wasn’t that he was keen to fight but he wanted to announce an exit on his own terms, one which he was clearly refused. Never a shrill man, he has attempted a course-correction by appealing to the party rank and file on the BJP’s Foundation Day but sidelined by those he created and groomed, his words are just like the Directive Principles of State policy, good to hear but lacking in the will to implement. The other BJP veteran, Murli Manohar Joshi, denied a ticket to contest, has been in talks with a lot of Opposition parties and also wants to address crony capitalism openly. The two elders have nothing to lose. And they know that whatever they say now may not impact the BJP’s electoral prospects at all. But both have and can cause huge public embarrassment to a party that self-professedly upholds the Hindu dharma or a way of life. Insulting and hurting elders is anathema to the doctrine of the Hindu Parivar and the present leadership would seem guilty of that in this context. Advani and his long-time co-traveller Atal Bihari Vajpayee have shown how goodwill is earned, not manufactured. Now both Advani and Joshi have laid bare why propriety, respect and wisdom can never have an expiry date even if they do. They may be the last men standing yet, revered but not feared.
Writer & Courtesy: The Pioneer
In a stark case of sharp contrasts, the Congress’ manifesto could never be more different to that of the BJP. Congress brings the belief that diversity is better than rigid uniformity. The Congress released its manifesto this week. After months of hard work by the research team, it pleases me a great deal to say that the party has a document that it can be proud of. A glance at the comments and feedback received on social media and my interaction with people on the ground prove that many in the country are of a similar view. The manifesto generated such a buzz that the party’s website, where it was uploaded, actually crashed due to heavy traffic.
The manifesto embodies the ethos of the Congress, which is to “create wealth and guarantee welfare.” It not only provides details of the Congress’ Nyuntam Aay Yojana (NYAY) scheme, but also details other promises that are relatively path-breaking. Of course, the pessimist (BJP), would say that these are mere promises but by putting such ideas down on paper and making it part of the manifesto, the Congress has shown that it is not going to shy away from taking responsibility and holding itself accountable. This, on its own, would be a marked shift from the attitude of the present BJP Government that has blamed everything and everyone for its governance failures.
While I would encourage everyone to read the manifesto themselves, I understand that this may not be possible for everyone of you. So in this week’s article, I will highlight certain features of the manifesto and also briefly deal with the rattled reaction of the BJP.
A separate ‘kisan’ budget: It will not be an exaggeration to say that perhaps no group of people has suffered from the BJP’s policies as much as the farmers have. An indicator of the distress caused to this community due to the BJP Government’s insensitive policies are the many protests that have been held by farmers all over the country. It has become increasingly clear over the past few years that the issues that plague the farmers are unique and, therefore, require a more focussed examination. The Congress in its manifesto has, therefore, proposed a separate budget for the kisan, where such issues can be dealt with in a specialised manner.
In the same vein as the presentation of a separate railway budget, the kisan budget, coupled with a national commission for farmers, will enable the Congress Government to devote time and resources to an area that may not be fashionable enough for the BJP but is, in fact, the engine which can drive the country’s growth.
Walk the talk on reforms: The BJP Government has indubitably failed to provide jobs and growth during its tenure. The Congress is clear that its goal of “guaranteeing welfare” will not be possible without growth. Often unfairly criticised for not being business-friendly, the Congress has actually detailed reforms that will help promote growth in the country and encourage entrepreneurship. These reforms include introducing a single rate Goods and Services Tax (GST) and fix some of the monumental errors of the BJP. While GST has the potential to promote growth by introducing efficiency, the faluda GST introduced by the BJP has actually hit growth negatively by creating different rates and ensuring that even those businesses, which never needed a professional chartered accountant, now find their services mandatory.
The Congress has instead proposed to simplify this entire process by introducing a single rate GST. In a rush to be the first one to criticise the manifesto, Union Finance Minister Arun Jaitley spoke about how this single slab would treat items of necessity the same way as luxury items, ignoring the fact that such necessities are proposed to be exempted. It’s not for the first time that Jaitley has succumbed to the social media practice of commenting before examining.
Other than GST, the Congress has also proposed tax reforms that will encourage entrepreneurship. These include abolishing angel tax and coming down hard on any harassment of new businesses by tax authorities. Another positive step is to do away with the requirement for approvals for a new business in its first three years so that they get a chance to flourish before being stomped out by the weight of regulation.
Electoral reforms: I have previously written on many occasions that the “electoral bonds scheme” introduced by this BJP is one of the most brazen instances of organised lobbying and corruption. Through the electoral bonds scheme, which is currently under jurisdiction before the Supreme Court, the BJP has made the process of electoral finance more opaque than it has ever been. It has used its majority in Government to amend all Acts that provided some scope for transparency, including the Income Tax Act, the Representation of People Act and the Companies Act. What is worst is that it pretends to have brought in the scheme in the name of “transparency.”
In an affidavit to the apex court, the Election Commission has stated that electoral bonds and the removal of cap on corporate funding would have “serious impact” on transparency of funding of political parties.
The Congress will roll back this scheme and has proposed to introduce a National Election Fund that anybody can contribute to so that the damage already done by the BJP can be minimised.
The reaction: While the response to the Congress’ manifesto has been extremely positive and encouraging, it wasn’t surprising that the BJP raised ridiculous objections to it. One such objection is how the manifesto will weaken India. In fact, the Finance Minister in his latest blog talked about how the manifesto will aid terrorists and destroy institutions. His suggestion would be laughable if it was not so disconnected from reality. While this BJP Government does have the expertise to talk about “destroying institutions” (Reserve Bank of India, Central Bureau of Investigation etc), such an allegation against the Congress is just opposing for the sake of it.
The second allegation about the document containing elements that would make India unsafe, too, is wholly without any reason or merit. The fact is that India has seen more attacks and casualties during the BJP’s tenure than during the UPA’s.
Confucius, the Chinese teacher, had said, “The strength of a nation derives from the integrity of the home.” However, when you hold a hammer, everything looks like a nail, even when you’re dealing with fellow citizens. The fact is that the oppressive policies of the BJP have increased anger and uncertainty at home. If the BJP was actually serious about tackling terrorism and ensuring that India is safe, it would have paid a little more attention to its home. That may be difficult, though, since every third word out of a BJP spokesperson’s mouth is Pakistan.
In summary, the Congress’ manifesto represents everything that the BJP is not. It was prepared using suggestions from people with expertise in their respective areas and drafted with the underlying belief that diversity is better than rigid uniformity. It counters the BJP’s language of hate with a patois of progress. The paranoid reaction of the BJP, then, is understandable and telling.
(The writer is Jharkhand PCC president, former MP and IPS officer. Views are personal)
Writer: Ajoy Kumar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
It goes without saying that electoral reforms are not a priority for political parties. The alternative, therefore, which seems to be amiss in the current state of affairs, is a vigil electorate with enough authority to compel them to behave ethically
“I pledge to contest these elections by honest means. I affirm that I shall seek votes only on the basis of ideas, plans, programmes and promises. I shall refrain from employing any illegal or unethical means like allurement, threat, coercion or violence targeted at the electorate or my fellow contestants. I vouch not to allow any illicit usage of money, alcohol or muscle power in my campaign. I pledge to keep these elections clean in letter and spirit.”
The 17th general elections, accompanied by polls to legislative Assemblies in four States, are round the corner. Imagine every candidate taking a pledge similar to the aforementioned one in order to keep the elections clean and ethical. It can be described as a “swachhata oath” for the elections. Let every candidate take it publicly at several places in his/her constituency and subsequently post it on his/her social media accounts. Let this be an individual enterprise to begin with. If it gains traction with the masses, then those candidates avoiding it stand the risk of getting ostracised. One can definitely lie under an oath but it’s price can be heavy if it is an awakened electorate.
Malpractices are commonplace in elections. No wonder, the British enacted the Indian Elections Offences and Inquiries Act, 1920 as direct elections were introduced on a miniscule scale in India as a result of the Government of India Act, 1919 (Montagu-Chelmsford Reform). The reason was not because the British entertained a low opinion about the Indian character but because they were wiser by a long experience of conducting elections in Britain.
The onus of keeping the polls clean majorly lies with the political parties. They are the ones who stand to win authority and power. They are “the lifeblood of the entire constitutional system” as a Central Information Commission (CIC) decision in Subhash Chandra Agarwal v/s Indian National Congress and Others described it in 2013.
But how seriously have the political parties taken their responsibility? The answer is to be found in the pages of the Law Commission Reports No: 244 (February 2014) and No: 255 (March 2015). The Law Commission Report No: 244 titled, ‘Electoral Disqualification’, was actually an interim statement requested by the Supreme Court, which was hearing the Public Interest Foundation & Others V/s Govt of India case. At that time, the 20th Law Commission was already working on its main report on ‘Electoral Reforms’ in response to a request made by the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India, in January 2013. That report was ultimately published as Report No: 255.
In January 2013, the 20th Law Commission, chaired by Justice (Retd) DK Jain, studying the subject of ‘Electoral Reforms’, prepared a consultation paper that was widely circulated among political parties, elected representatives of Parliament and State legislatures, High Court Bar Association, the Election Commission of India, other national commissions, civil society organisations, jurists and eminent spirited people for their feedback.
The paper listed eight major issues for consideration like de-criminalisation of politics and disqualification of candidates; need to strengthen provisions related to disqualification; false affidavits; state funding of election expenses and donations to political parties; adjudication of election disputes; enhancement of punishment for electoral offences; issues pertaining to the role of electronic and print media and so on.
But how was the josh? The Law Commission received 157 responses, most of them being from individuals and civil society organisations. The Election Commission of India was the only body that sent its response. Of the political parties, the lesser said the better. One national political party viz, the Indian National Congress, and one registered party viz, the Welfare Party of India, sent their feedback. Only eight sitting Members of Parliament responded to the consultation paper, four each from the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha.
A national consultation, widely advertised in the Press and media, was organised in New Delhi on February 1, 2014. Invitations were sent by post and email to various political parties. There were only eight parties who cared to send in their representatives — All India NR Congress (Puducherry), All Jharkhand Students Union (Jharkhand), Biju Janata Dal, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Nationalist Congress Party, Jammu and Kashmir National Panthers Party, Rashtriya Lok Dal and Telangana Rashtra Samithi. Most national and regional parties did not attend. The Election Commission of India was the only one to send its delegation. Former Chief Election Commissioner SY Quraishi also participated.
This illustrates the commitment of political parties, rather the absence of it, towards clean elections. This is least surprising because election funding (call it financing) is still an opaque territory. No political party would like to demystify it even while accusing others of corrupt practices.
The growing nexus between political parties and moneybags was anticipated quite early by C Rajagopalachari. The use of illicit money, Rajaji argued, was undermining the very foundations of India’s hard-won freedom and democracy. He called for a set of electoral reforms in a series of scathing articles he wrote for Swarajya, a magazine founded by him, and the Illustrated Weekly between 1957 and 1970.
The most radical reform he suggested for the pre-EVM era was reversing the voting process. Instead of voters queuing up at the polling booths, the ballot box should be taken door-to-door by the administration (candidates and polling agents would accompany) with proper security on the pattern of decennial census. The step, he felt, would obviate the need for expensive campaigns by political parties to bring voters to the ballot boxes while ensuring nearly universal voting.
There seems to be no action taken by the Government on the Law Commission of India’s reports No: 244 and 255 over the last five years. It was to the credit of the Supreme Court to disqualify convicted candidates/legislators for life time. The only important proposal by the Government ie, exploring the possibility of simultaneous elections to Lok Sabha and State legislative Assemblies, was examined by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice for its 79th Report (December , 2015). Its recommendations are now pending with the Law Commission of India where it has been referred to “work out a practicable road map and framework” (vide Lok Sabha starred question No: 219, dated August 1, 2018). We are going round and round the mulberry bushes. The last amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, had come in 2004.
The alternative to formulating new laws by Parliament is voluntary ethical behaviour by parties and contestants. There is still another alternative where a conscious and conscientious electorate compels the contestants to behave ethically. The electorate oath suggested above is only a step in that direction.
(The writer is an independent researcher based in New Delhi; views expressed herein are his personal)
Writer: Priyadarshi Dutta
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Andhra Pradesh, with 25 Lok Sabha seats, is an important State that can play a key role in swinging the narrative of the upcoming General Assembly elections. It isn’t, however, going to be a cakewalk for parties as they are already trying too hard to grab the voter’s attention
With 25 Lok Sabha seats, Andhra Pradesh can become an important player in the event of a hung Parliament after the Lok Sabha polls. The State will also hold simultaneous Assembly elections for the first time ever since its bifurcation in 2014.
Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N Chandrababu Naidu is fighting the elections with his back to the wall. In 2014, the ruling Telugu Desam Party (TDP) got 15 seats, YSR Congress Party eight and the BJP two; while the Congress drew a nil. Back then, the TDP and the BJP were allies but this time, both parties will contest elections separately after Naidu severed ties with the NDA last March on the issue of the Centre not giving special status to to the State. After 2004, this will be the first time the TDP will fight without any pre-poll alliance.
Though the contest will by and large be triangular — between TDP, the Congress and YSR Congress Party of YS Jaganmohan Reddy — the BJP and movie star Pawan Kalyan’s Jana Sena are also trying to make their presence felt. All parties are contesting without an ally and are contesting all seats. While the Jana Sena is strong in the coastal Godavari region and Guntur, YSR Congress has performed exceedingly well in the Rayalaseema region. The TDP is strong in coastal Andhra. The Congress and the BJP are just minor players.
Naidu is fighting hard to defend his throne while challenger Jaganmohan Reddy is inching towards power. Reddy has money, workers and age on his side. He has undertaken a Praja Sankalpa Yatra since 2017, covering the entire State to woo the voters. He has the backing of the influential Reddy community, which is pitted against Naidu’s powerful Kamma community.
In 2014, Naidu gained from the Modi wave, which helped him beat Jaganmohan Reddy to the chief ministerial chair. Kalyan also supported him. As against a vote share of 32.5 per cent of TDP, YSR Congress Party got 32.1 per cent vote that resulted in the former bagging 103 seats in the Assembly election as against 70 of the latter. The TDP got 15 Lok Sabha seats and the YSR Congress Party, eight seats.
Clearly, Naidu is facing the toughest challenge in his four-decade long political career. Fighting anti-incumbency and also charges from his critics that he could not get Andhra special status from the Centre, he continues to believe that Modi-bashing will help him get votes. A major worry for the TDP is which side the 17 per cent Kapu community will vote this time. In 2014, they favoured the TDP due to Kalyan’s influence. However this time, Kalyan’s party may end up splitting the votes. This will potentially harm the TDP.
For optics, Naidu has mobilised support of other regional satraps like Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, former Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Farooq Abdullah, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee and former Prime Minister Deve Gowda to campaign for him. He believes that his raised national profile will impress the voters.
On the other hand, Jagan has promised to implement the ‘Navaratnalu’ or nine welfare schemes. The scheme includes Rs 50,000 per annum to farmers, fee reimbursement to all students, Rs 15,000 to women to encourage them to send their children to school, waiver of all loans taken by women from cooperative societies, ban on alcohol, construction of 25 lakhs houses and reduction of pension age from 65 to 60 among others. Jagan thinks that these liberal doles might help him capture the throne.
However, Kalyan is the ‘X’ factor in these elections. A Kapu by caste, his party has influence in the coastal districts in over 50 Assembly seats. While chances are less for a win, he can damage Naidu’s prospects. Kalyan has tied up with the BSP and Left parties, who have a vote share of about two per cent. He has promised clean politics and also to bring the Chief Minister under the Lokayukta.
While the ruling TDP is depending on welfare schemes, Opposition parties are depending on anti-incumbency factor. The TDP will bank on a split in the Opposition vote. While Naidu is seen as a capable administrator, the Opposition plays up on his failure to keep promises of 2014. The world-class capital Naidu promised to build at Amravati has barely taken off.
The BJP is depending on Jagan to come to its rescue in a post-poll scenario, if required. Reddy can hardly afford to have a pre-poll pact with the BJP, given his strong support base among Christians and Muslims. However, there is some tacit understanding between the two parties to support each other secretly wherever possible. Andhra Pradesh continues to remain relevant in the national scenario. Ultimately, even Naidu can go back to the NDA as he has been doing in the past.
(The writer is a senior political commentator and syndicated columnist)
Writer: Kalyani Shankar
Courtesy: The Pioneer
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month