With the J&K ceasefire, the question remains – should it be extended or have terrorists made it unfeasible?

As Eid approaches, the Government of India has to take a call on whether the ceasefire — or to be more precise the month-long suspension of proactive operations by the security forces while retaining the right to self-defence and/or armed intervention in a situation where civilians/innocents are in danger — in the Kashmir Valley announced on May 17 should be extended. The latest information from the ground, as reported in The Pioneer on Wednesday, is that infiltration has increased in a big way over the past three weeks. The Indian Army has eliminated 36 infiltrators in the period beginning May 17 till today, in comparison with only 56 of them being gunned down in the fourth months from January and May. Terrorists have also, in the ceasefire period, carried out 42 attacks while all through January-May the figure was 55 terror incidents.

Indeed, it appears that the worst fears of the security and intelligence establishment have been realized and the separatists have used the cessation of operations to regroup and replot to take advantage of the situation. The military domination established by the security forces ever since the launch of Operation All Out by the army, paramilitary, police and intelligence agencies in close coordination last year, may not yet have been lost but we seem perilously close to it. The sacrifices made on behalf of the nation by the men and women of our security forces to establish that domination on the ground, the Centre is aware, cannot be seen to be frittered away. The national mood will not countenance any step which seems to suggest that. At the same time, the tactical advantages of extending the ceasefire, as Jammu & Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti and other political forces at the national level even though they often advocatewhat is effectively a soft separatist agenda have been demanding, cannot be ignored completely. Not because the usual malcontents must be pacified or to throw the peace lobby a bone but if it makes sense in the national interest which includes the interests of the residents of the State of the Union under discussion too, naturally, but without a veto.

If the Centre’s strategic aim is, as it ought to be, peace in the Valley and a mainstreaming of Kashmir with rest of India, overwhelming military domination on the ground is an essential prerequisite, which Operation All Out has achieved very substantially if not wholly. The Government therefore needs to decide on two central issues. First, whether the domination established by the security forces could be fatally undermined if the cessation of operations/ceasefire is extended beyond Eid. If the answer is yes, then there is no question of an extension. If, however, the answer is in the negative, then an extension could certainly be considered. But even then attempts overt and covert must be made to ensure that less hawkish elements disassociate themselves from the narrative of violence, intimidation and Islamist terror that Pakistan is pushing and those simpatico in the Valley are amplifying for the extension to be meaningful.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Since the institution of Waqfs was came into existence in 1185 AD, no action has been taken to control its adverse effects. Contrary to this fact, the law was made in favor of the stakeholders

Whether the Uttar Pradesh Government can reclaim properties which stood on agricultural land or transfer them as Waqf assets by holders having no ownership is a topical question. It appears that the Allahabad High Court had asked the Government to reclaim them. However, the apex court has, on appeal, stayed the judgement. It would, therefore, be interesting as well as relevant to know how the institution of Waqf was established in India.   

The Muslim strategy, ardently supported by self-styled secularists, is to insist that the Babri is a disputed property which is best adjudged by a court of law. Since in our country justice is invariably delayed, the hope is that no decision is likely to be made in the foreseeable future. Thereafter, the scope for an appeal is enormous. To play on the soft sentiments of most Hindus may not be difficult, especially on the plea that a property when turned into a Waqf goes into the ownership of Allah, the merciful.

The Waqfs are the biggest urban landlords in India. Their origin dates back to the life and times of Prophet Muhammad. The institution began with a place called Khaybar in Arabia. It was the genius for turning a conquered property into an inalienable ownership. So is written by Asaf AA Fyzee in his book, Outlines of Muhammadan Law, Oxford University Press (OUP), Delhi, 1999.

Joseph Schacht, an international authority on Islamic law, in his book, originally published by OUP in 1964, said, “The Waqf has one of its roots in the contributions to the holy wars which Muhammad had incessantly demanded from his followers in Medina”. For one thing, a Waqf property is an outcome of conquest. If any further proof of expropriation was required in this context, the temple-turned-mosque provides it. The corollary of this development would be that the conflict over the temples should extend to question the validity of the institution of Waqf itself.

Uncannily, none other than the Caliph of all Sunni Islam and the Ottoman emperor thought it fit to abolish the institution in his empire in 1917. Thus, there are no Waqfs in Turkey, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Iraq. In 1956, on the morrow of Tunisian independence, President Habib Bourguiba abolished Waqfs.

Although every Waqif or donor claims that he has handed over the property to Allah, the merciful, Muslim leaders, ranging from the conservative Caliph to the modern Bourguiba, did not think so. Fyzee goes on to observe that the importance of the institution will be better understood if we take into consideration the enormous extent of Waqf land or the possessions of the Dead Hand in the various countries of Islam. In the Turkey of 1925, three-fourth of the arable land, valued at 50.000.000 Turkish pounds, was endowed as Waqf. At the end of the 19th century, one half of the cultivable land in Algiers was dedicated. Similarly, in Tunis, one-third; and in Egypt one-eighth of the cultivated soil was ‘in the ownership of God’. But it was already realised by the beginning of the 20th century, first by France and later in Turkey and Egypt, that the possession of the Dead Hand spelled ruin. The institution of Waqf was in some respects a handicap to the natural growth and development of a healthy economy.

In 1830, the French Government took over the habous or Waqf in Algiers, and later on in Morocco. Elsewhere, Government control was made more stringent. In 1924, the Turkish republic abolished the Ministry of Waqfs and it was taken over by a general directory, or by the secular state administration, as we would call it. In Egypt, it was Muhammad Ali who first confiscated all agricultural Waqfs and compensated the beneficiaries and in 1924, the Waqf Ministry came directly under the control of Parliament. Although in Russia, Waqfs existed in Muslim districts for centuries, soon after the revolution, such endowments were confiscated and declared state property.

The religious motive of Waqf is the origin of the legal fiction that Waqf property belongs to God; the economic ruin that it brings about is indicated by the significant phrase ‘The Dead Hand’. Waqf, to some extent ameliorates poverty, but it has a dark side too. When a father provides a certain income to his children and descendants, the impulse to seek education and the initiative to improve their lot gradually decreases. Charitable aid often keeps people away from industry, and lethargy breeds degeneration. Furthermore, some people, who desire fame by making endowments, obtain property by shady means, amounting to exploitation. Land deteriorates in the course of time; no one is concerned with keeping it in good trim; the yield lessens. In India, instances of mismanagement of Waqfs; of the in effectiveness of mutawallis (managers); and of the destruction of Waqf property have often come before the courts.

For India, there are several other arguments that support the abolition of Waqfs. The dispute over a Waqf in the late 19th century eventually went up to the highest court of appeal, namely the Privy Council in London. The four British judges described the Waqf as “a perpetuity of the worst and the most pernicious kind” and declared it to be invalid. In the Privy Council, the judges were Lord Watson, Lord Hobhouse, Lord Shand and Sir Richard Couch.

A gift may be illusory whether from its small amount or from the uncertainty. If a man were to settle a crore of rupees, and provide ten for the poor, that would be at once recognised as illusory. It is equally illusory to make a provision for the poor under which they are not entitled to receive a rupee till after the total extinction of a family; possibly not for hundreds of years; possibly not until the property had vanished away under the wasting agencies of litigation or malfeasance or misfortune; certainly not as long as there exists on the earth one of those objects whom the donor’s really cared to maintain in a high position. Their Lordships agree that the poor have been put into this settlement merely to give it a colour of piety, and so to legalise arrangements meant to serve for the aggrandisement of a family.

Fyzee has deeply regretted that the Privy Council judgement did not prevail in India. The Mussalman Wakf Validating Act, 1913, proved to be the saviour of this institution. No attempt has since been made to either abolish or curb the adverse effects of Waqf. On the contrary, the law was made more favourable to the Muslims as a result of the Act of 1995. To quote Fyzee:

Speaking for myself, and in the light of actual experience, it is unfortunate that the opinion of Lord Hobhouse in Abul Fata’s case did not prevail in India.

Nevertheless, Waqfs in India date back almost to the beginning of the Sultanat of Delhi. S Athar Husain and S Khalid Rashid, in their work, Waqf Laws and Administration in India, Eastern Book Company, Lucknow,1968, have traced their history. According to them, Sultan Muizuddin Sam Ghaor dedicated two villages in favour of the Jama Masjid of Multan and handed its administration to Shaikhul Islam.

Another commentator, Ahmedullah Khan has recalled several properties which were brought under Waqf much earlier. For example, the dargah of Moinuddin Chishti at Ajmer Sharief as well as Nagaur in Rajputana, Hansi and Ajodhan in Punjab, the dargah-i-Sabiri at Kalyar and the dargah of Shaykh Ahmed’ Abdal Haqq at Rudauli. The Government of independent India found it expedient not to interfere with the operation of the Waqf laws. Political expediency dictated this unfortunate approach just as Article 44 of the Constitution with regard to the personal law of the Muslims has remained a pious lip-service.

(The writer is a well-known columnist and an author)

Writer: Prafull Goradia

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Aminul Haque Laskar, Assam’s sole Muslim BJP legislator, has received a letter threatening him with dire consequences unless he resigns from the party in 15 days, police said on Tuesday.

A lesser known organisation, named Save Secure and Development Protection Force of Muslim has sent a letter with two bullets pasted on it to BJP legislator of Sonai constituency, Aminul Haque Laskar to quit from the BJP within 15 days time or face death.

“You are a devout Muslim. So why are you going against the Muslim by becoming member of a anti-Muslim and Hindu fundamentalist organisation like the BJP? You have also jeopardising the fate of many Muslim youths by forcing them to join BJP. Consider this as a diktat to quit the party within 15 days time or get ready to face dire consequences like death,” said the letter which was delivered to Laskar by India Post.

The letter written in Bengali and signed by one Haider Hussain Khan, self styled Vice chairman of the organisation also threatened to attack his family members and destroy his residential building.  “We have also noticed that you are maintaining a relationship with the RSS,” the letter said.

The letter mentioned that the two personal security officers (PSOs) provided by the Assam Police to the legislator will not be in a position to protect him from the organization. “You are neither safe in Barak Valley nor in Brahmaputra Valley,” the letter said.

Meanwhile, Laskar had already lodged an FIR with the police in this regard and said that he is not scared of any such diktat. “Our Government since assuming power in Dispur had stopped many illegal activities like syndication of coal, urea, drugs paddling and many other evils. I have been against these kinds of evils for a long time. The steps taken by the Government and by me as a local MLA must have affected the interests of some section. However, this cannot deter me from doing my job,” said Laskar.

It may be mentioned here that the Police have registered a case in this regard and started investigation. The Police have also reviewed the security arrangements of Aminul Haque Laskar and increased the number of his PSO.

Writer: Anup Sharma

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Former President Pranab Mukherjee addresses RSS function in Nagpur, proclaims, India originates her strength from tolerance and respect for diversity and pluralism, stresses on requirement for discussion to balance competing interests.

The reverberations of former President Pranab Mukherjee’s address at the valedictory session of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s (RSS) Tritiya Varsh Varg (Third Year Course) in Nagpur will doubtless resonate for a long time. Whatever one’s ideological persuasion, there is no denying that Pranabda has made a significant intervention in our political discourse.

After running around like headless chickens in the run-up to the function, Congress leaders heaved a sigh of relief at the largely bland presentation and skirted the potentially explosive bits. The former President had ruffled feathers the previous day by writing in the visitor’s book at Dr KB Hedgewar’s birthplace, ‘Today I came here to pay my respect and homage to a great son of Mother India’. ‘Respect’ is a formal term, ‘homage’ goes deeper; the words are broadly synonymous, the devil is in the context.

Pranabda nixed decades of calumny heaped upon the RSS and subtly included it among the venerable national institutions. This could, but need not, hamper efforts to forge opposition unity against the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the run-up to the Parliamentary elections. But Pranabda, reputedly in the thick of the exercise, will now be excused. It would be unfair to say that he has “positioned” himself as a possible candidate for Prime Ministership if BJP’s tally falls below 200, as some suggest. But he has gently stirred the political cauldron and we can only wait to see the broth.

Mukherjee said India was always an open and globally connected society; he mentioned the Silk and Spice Routes. Scholars now increasingly talk of the Cotton/Linen Route and the Manuscript Route by which Buddhist pilgrims took scriptures back to their own lands. Indian merchants and sages took Indian goods and knowledge abroad; goods were in high demand in West Asia and Europe; culture, knowledge and faith in Central Asia, China and Southeast Asia. Alexander’s ambitions created some of the earliest foreign accounts of ancient India; later Fa Hien and Hiuen Tsang wrote about the efficient administrative systems, planned settlements, good infrastructure, and famed universities. Mukherjee’s reference to Arthashastra could be a hint to look at native wisdom and traditions of governance.

Pranabda punched a hole in the Westphalian model of nationhood, asserting that India was a state long before the European Nation State rose after 1648, based on the notion of a defined territory, single language, shared religion and a common enemy. Indian nationhood rests on the universal philosophy of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (world is family) and Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah, Sarve Santu Niramayah (may all be healthy and happy). We may highlight here the difference between Indian and Western notions of ‘universal’. The Hindu meaning is that which is applicable or can be adopted voluntarily by all (e.g. Yoga, mutual coexistence without strife, etc). The monotheist concept is that which should be imposed upon all (religion, culture, thinking, et al).

Simply put, Hindus celebrate multiplicity in culture, faith, language, everything. In fact, contrary to the popular slogan, we do not believe in ‘unity in diversity’ as that intrinsically suggests potential strife. We believe in ‘Diversity in Unity’, because everything emerges from Oneness. Indian pluralism, or ‘sarv dharma sambhav’ (all faiths are harmonious) and ‘ekam sat, vipra bahuda vadanti’ (truth is one, the wise call it by many names) is rooted in this awareness. Mukherjee cited Vincent Smith, “India beyond all doubt possesses a deep underlying fundamental unity, far more profound than that produced either by geographical isolation or by political superiority. That unity transcends the innumerable diversities of blood, colour, language, dress, manners, and sect”.

It must have riled the Marxists and secular fundamentalists that the former president observed that large parts of India fell to Muslim invaders from the twelfth century onwards, till the East India Company won the Battle of Plassey in 1757 and quickly brought large tracts under its control; the British Crown took charge in 1858. Throughout this political and cultural upheaval, however, India’s “civilisational continuity remained unbroken”. To Indians of my generation, this is probably the first time such an exalted public figure has openly stated that Delhi was captured by Muslim invaders. It could pave the way for a more honest articulation of historical facts and their cultural impact, in future.

British rule compelled Indian nationalists to articulate the concept of the Modern Indian State; all Congress Presidents upheld a Nation comprising the territorial areas of British India and the territories of 565 princely states. When Bal Gangadhar Tilak said, “Swaraj is my Birthright and I shall have it”, he meant the Indian People, encompassing various castes, creeds, and religions, across British India and the Princely States. Pranabda made special mention of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel’s statesmanship in securing the merger of the Princely States and thus ensuring the consolidation of India. Is there an unstated admonition regarding the continuing problems in Jammu & Kashmir?

Mani Shankar Aiyar has lamented that Pranabda had lent respectability to the RSS, which represents the anti-thesis of the Indian tradition of “welcoming to new ideas and thoughts, absorbing, assimilating and synthesizing what comes our way, whatever its provenance and however associated in historical memory with assault, invasion and political turbulence”. This is preposterous. It bears stating that Mukherjee did not exonerate any ‘assault’ related with ‘invasion’; he would be aware of contemporary realities in Assam, West Bengal, and many other Indian States. Nor did he touch upon “Islam and evangelical Christianity”. Readers may note that Aiyar emphasised ‘evangelical Christianity’, indicating overt support for the conversion agenda. Obviously, he regards Hindus who resent or resist as intolerant.

Critics have rightly concluded that the former President’s presence (and the rage of the all-India Lutyens Brigade) catapulted a routine function into “a national event and the message of the Sangh reached all corners of India thanks to our curiosity over what India’s former president was going to do there”. Some have noted the Sarsanghachalak’s assertion that the RSS works for the whole society (often first responder during natural calamities), but resented his contention that “Hindus are answerable to questions about India’s fortunes” (uttardayi).

This is a fundamental truth, underlined by Mukherjee’s reference to foreign invasions. Non-Hindus should explain why they cannot accept the nation’s civilisational and foundational ethos. A political party and an intelligentsia that do not blink when a former Vice President of India attends a function of the terror-linked Popular Front of India cannot baulk at Hindus who are comfortable in their own skins.

(The writer is Senior Fellow, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library; the views expressed are personal)

Writer: Sandhya Jain

Courtesy: The Pioneer

Chief Minister Mr. Trivendra Singh Rawat and Union Agriculture Minister Mr. Radha Mohan Singh, under the ‘Rashtriya Gokul Mission’ Yojana inaugurated the Sex Sorted Semen laboratory at Deep Frozen Semen Production Centre Shyampur, Rishikesh.

This would ensure that the cows inseminated with ‘sexed semen’  give birth only to female calves. Sexed semen technology is a breeding technology about preselecting the sex of offspring by sorting or separating the X-sperms from Y-sperms. This will help to produce more cows than bulls.

“In normal breeding, there are 50-50 chances that, we either get a bull or a cow. With sexed semen, in majority cases one gets a female progeny,” said officials of Agriculture Ministry. Union Agriculture Minister Radha Mohan Singh has laid the foundation of the country’s first sex semen production centre at Rishikesh. The Centre is being set up as part of the Rashtriya Gokul Mission.

“The Centre has planned to set up 10 more such sorted semen centre across the country and global tender has been floated to this effect,” Singh said. According to officials, the technology is being adopted for this centre, was developed by the United States, to produce more cows than bulls. The project is being undertaken to increase milk productivity and the cow population.

Officials said that in sex sorted semen technology, the fractions of X-bearing (female) and Y-bearing (male) sperm are modified from the natural mix through sorting and selection. The new semen mix, which is formed, when impregnated will only yield female calves in almost 90% of the cases. The sorting process basically involves exploiting the differences in deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) content between X-chromosome-bearing and Y-chromosome-bearing sperms. The former contains slightly more DNA, with the difference ranging from 3.6% to 4.2%, depending upon the breed of the cattle or buffalo. The process of sorting is done either by passing the sperm cells through a laser beam or by staining sperm with a DNA-binding fluorescent dye.

Data from the 19th livestock census shows that while the cattle population has dipped by 4.1 per cent in 2012 from 2007 (previous census period), the buffalo population has grown by 3.19 per cent during the same period. Further, the study notes that the percentage changes in milch buffalo population during the period 2003-07 and 2007-12 has increased by 46 per cent in rural areas.

“Cow is a better animal than buffalo to increase the farmers’ income. Cow can give you a better jump in milk yield and is more amenable to upgrading in breeding than a buffalo,” officials said.

Writer: Rajesh Kumar

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The Railways deciding to enforce excess luggage rules stating that passengers have to pay up to six times the stipulated penalty if they caught travelling with overweight baggage.

In a controversial move the Indian Railways has decided to target passengers who carry far above and beyond their allotted luggage capacity. One of the reasons many passengers choose to use the Railways is because of the large amount of personal luggage they can carry. However, the Railway authorities have a point when they say that this move is to go after those individuals who abuse the system by carrying far more than they are allowed to. Incidentally, passengers on board trains can legally carry only between 35-70 kilograms depending on the class of travel. The Railways have also decided to act against those who carry large cartons and oversize luggage by stipulating that the maximum dimensions for a piece of luggage will be equivalent to a regular trunk.

There is a genuine concern by some passengers though, there sra espace hoarders, travellers whose luggage use up the entire underfloor space for luggage and whose oversize luggage often end up blocking corridors. This is not only an inconvenience to other passengers but also a safety hazard as well as symptomatic of the overall selfish behaviour of many Indians when they travel.

However, the railways cannot just stipulate this without making it easier for passengers to load their luggage in the luggage van, especially as they have limited space and many intermediate halts that Express trains make are usually far too short for luggage to be loaded and unloaded quickly.

And even though the luggage booking charges can be considered minimal, a charge of Rs 109 for booking 40kgs within 500 kilometers, it can be a huge hit to the many lower-income people who travel by train. It is one thing for airlines to charge for excess luggage, especially at these times of higher fuel costs where every additional kilogram on a plane can make a world of difference, on a train weighing thousands of tons, a few extra kilograms will make no difference to the operating costs of the train and this initiative by the railways will only generate needless controversy instead of much additional income. This follows a series of questionable decisions by the Indian Railways, including the move to differential fares in Rajdhani and Shatabdi trains, which ended up alienating passengers forcing some into the hands of India’s low-cost carriers. It might have made more sense for the Railways to begin a consumer education campaign on the risks of too much luggage before starting the fines. This might end up angering many travellers, particularly those who have no option but to travel by train.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

The Railways deciding to enforce excess luggage rules stating that passengers have to pay up to six times the stipulated penalty if they caught travelling with overweight baggage.

In a controversial move the Indian Railways has decided to target passengers who carry far above and beyond their allotted luggage capacity. One of the reasons many passengers choose to use the Railways is because of the large amount of personal luggage they can carry. However, the Railway authorities have a point when they say that this move is to go after those individuals who abuse the system by carrying far more than they are allowed to. Incidentally, passengers on board trains can legally carry only between 35-70 kilograms depending on the class of travel. The Railways have also decided to act against those who carry large cartons and oversize luggage by stipulating that the maximum dimensions for a piece of luggage will be equivalent to a regular trunk.

There is a genuine concern by some passengers though, there sra espace hoarders, travellers whose luggage use up the entire underfloor space for luggage and whose oversize luggage often end up blocking corridors. This is not only an inconvenience to other passengers but also a safety hazard as well as symptomatic of the overall selfish behaviour of many Indians when they travel.

However, the railways cannot just stipulate this without making it easier for passengers to load their luggage in the luggage van, especially as they have limited space and many intermediate halts that Express trains make are usually far too short for luggage to be loaded and unloaded quickly.

And even though the luggage booking charges can be considered minimal, a charge of Rs 109 for booking 40kgs within 500 kilometers, it can be a huge hit to the many lower-income people who travel by train. It is one thing for airlines to charge for excess luggage, especially at these times of higher fuel costs where every additional kilogram on a plane can make a world of difference, on a train weighing thousands of tons, a few extra kilograms will make no difference to the operating costs of the train and this initiative by the railways will only generate needless controversy instead of much additional income. This follows a series of questionable decisions by the Indian Railways, including the move to differential fares in Rajdhani and Shatabdi trains, which ended up alienating passengers forcing some into the hands of India’s low-cost carriers. It might have made more sense for the Railways to begin a consumer education campaign on the risks of too much luggage before starting the fines. This might end up angering many travellers, particularly those who have no option but to travel by train.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

One of the most peaceful and pleasant cities of India, Shillong, has been caught up in sectarian violence. After three days of unrest, Shillong had a few peaceful hours on Sunday — only to be disturbed by violence that erupted again in defiance of the curfew in the evening.

India with her diverse cultures has always been a melting pot of multiple languages, traditions, foods and much else. This is what makes India by far and away the most unique nation-state on the planet; her natural diversity and the fact that for the most part tensions between communities have been kept to a minimum. But, unfortunately they often do tend to flare up. And in Shillong, the capital of Meghalaya, over the past few days the simmering tension between locals and Sikh immigrants from Punjab has boiled over into uncontrolled rioting catching a young and inexperienced Chief Minister unawares and on the back foot.

Shillong has for many years been one of India’s most serene State capitals although in recent years it also has faced the challenges of modern life, namely traffic and pollution. Yet, the recent violence is not something out of the ordinary. In the past, anti-immigrant violence has been directed at Bengalis and the current violence which might have begun over a parking dispute was one that had been simmering for a while as the local Khasi community blamed outsiders for ‘stealing their jobs’ and felt they were a cultural risk. Chief Minister Conrad Sangma, educated in New Delhi and very much a modern politician, has rapidly deployed State and Central forces to keep the riots in check after they spiralled in the initial hours. However, more needs to be done to keep matters in control.

But this is not a problem that will be restricted to Shillong in the future — as jobs become difficult to come by, the battle between locals who feel deprived of opportunities and immigrants from other States will become a huge issue across India. Immigrants, even when they are domestic migrants, tend to work harder and in a situation where jobs are difficult to come by will happily move to where the opportunities are. Locals will feel that immigrants will not only steal their jobs but also impose their cultural values. The Shiv Sena in the 1960s introduced this nativist ‘cultural’ protection’ philosophy as agitprop and local politicians across States as diverse as Goa, Karnataka and Jammu and Kashmir have exacerbated the issue over the past decade, often adding a communal tinge to it as well. These challenges will only intensify going forward and a single Chief Minister cannot deal with it. This issue needs a national solution, where we should all be reminded that we are Indians first and foremost. That said, the tendency of communities to ghettoise must be countered because these tend to make matters even worse. There is, however, no quick-fix. An integrationist philosophy coupled with an emphasis on a quantum leap in economic opportunities is the only solution.

Writer: Pioneer

Courtesy: The Pioneer

After observing the below par performance of the candidates from Bengal in the National Eligibility and Medical Entrance Test, Mamata Banerjee has decided to come out of the NEET scheme if gross errors are not rectified with immediate effect. But before that the ruling Trinamool congress is also planning to raise the issue in parliament along with other like-minded parties, sources said.

The Chief Minister said on Tuesday that “we are offended, the way the NEET exams were conducted. There are many flaws in it.” She added in the current scheme of things the regional aspirations would be deprived and advantages would go to ‘outsiders’ and not the bhoomi putras (people of the soil).

“The language is a big barrier. If things are conducted the way they were this time then local students and will not get chance and medical profession in States will be filled by people who do not belong to the regions concerned. Since language is a big issue in treating patients it is necessary that it is taken care of,” Banerjee said.

The Chief Minister who had earlier written to Union Minister Prakash Javadekar drawing his attention over inadequate availability of Bengali

question papers and also inappropriate translation of English papers in to Bengali, on Tuesday iterated “we found translations of various types. In many cases question papers had not come in adequate numbers so as to compel the students write their papers with English or Hindi versions which is as good as disallowing them the advantage of mother language.” Sources in the Government also said the ruling party was pondering over whether the State could come out of the NEET scheme of things. The party was also planning to raise the issue in a big way in Parliament and was in touch with other parties like DMK so that a coordinated effort can be made. “Regional aspirations cannot be disregarded and ignored in a manner they have done this time. We will want them to rectify the gross errors immediately,” sources in the Education Department said.

Meanwhile, in a new development the Chief Minister has said that her Government was mulling ways to tax outsiders to fund free medical treatment to the people of the State.

She said there were lakhs of people from other States and even abroad who come to Bengal seeking medical services from the Government hospitals. “On humanitarian grounds we cannot deny treatment to them but we have every right to charge them so that we can provide relief to our own citizens,” Banerjee said.

Writer: Saugar Sengupta

Courtesy: The Pioneer

It was a landslide for BJP in 2014, but 2019 won’t be the same

In approximately less than twelve months, Indian voters from Kanyakumari to Kashmir will go to the polls to select their next parliament. The country’s 2019 general election—like previous contests—will be the largest democratic exercise in world history. More than 870 million voters will be eligible to help determine which political party or alliance will form the government and, in turn, who will serve as prime minister.

Electoral outcomes are notoriously difficult to predict in India’s fragmented, hypercompetitive democracy. But one need not go out on a limb to declare that the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Prime Minister Narendra Modi would be the front runner if the election were held today. Following the BJP’s decisive 2014 mandate, many analysts confidently proclaimed that Modi would remain in power for at least two, if not three, terms. Opinion polls reveal that Modi remains highly popular after four years in office, and the BJP has managed to methodically expand its national footprint in numerous state elections since 2014. The opposition, comprised of the once-dominant Indian National Congress and a plethora of regional parties, has struggled to counter the BJP onslaught.

Yet the election’s clear front-runner is far from invulnerable, despite anticipation of a BJP cakewalk in 2019. Although the intricacies of the upcoming race—such as the selection of candidates and the rhetoric of campaigns—remain unknown one year out, underlying structural conditions suggest far rockier terrain may lie ahead. In particular, four crucial objectives keep BJP strategists up at night: expanding beyond regional strongholds, recruiting new—and retaining old—coalition partners, withstanding a disappointing economic performance, and contending with fluctuations in voter mobilization. The party’s performance in the 2019 election will hinge largely on its ability to address these potential vulnerabilities and the opposition’s ability to exploit them.

2014 AND BEYOND

To understand the BJP’s position today, one must recall how unusual India’s 2014 election results were. Between 2004 and 2014, the Congress Party and its allies (known collectively as the United Progressive Alliance, or UPA) ran the central government in New Delhi. Although the UPA oversaw record economic growth during its first term, its second term was markedly less positive, as a slowing economy, doubts about its leadership, and an endless parade of corruption scandals badly dented the Congress-led alliance’s credibility.

In an era of fractured political mandates in New Delhi, the Modi-led BJP achieved what many analysts believed was unthinkable: it won a clear, singleparty majority in the lower house of the Indian parliament (the Lok Sabha) by capturing 282 of 543 seats (see figure 1). Its political allies—members of the
BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA)—netted another fifty-three seats. Although the BJP campaigned under the banner of “Mission 272” (a number that represents the threshold for a parliamentary majority), few Indians (even within the BJP itself) believed that the party was likely to meet, let alone surpass, this mark on its own.

The 2014 electoral outcome was historic. No party had obtained a clear majority of Lok Sabha seats on its own since 1984 when the Congress did so after the assassination of former prime minister Indira Gandhi. 2014 was the first time a non-Congress party had achieved an outright majority by itself without the need for a large, unwieldy coalition. Meanwhile, the Congress sank to its lowest total in history—a paltry forty-four seats. Prior to 2014, the fewest seats the Congress had won in a general election was 114 in 1999. In addition, the 2014 election saw record voter turnout: 66.4 percent of eligible voters (or roughly 554 million voters) cast ballots, a sharp uptick from the 58 percent recorded in the two previous elections.

With each passing year, the national reach of the BJP has grown while the reach of the Congress has shrunk. The BJP and its allies now run twenty-one of India’s twenty-nine states—home to over 70 percent of the Indian population (see figure 2). Prior to Modi’s election, the NDA controlled just eight states. The BJP’s gains have largely come at the expense of the Congress; whereas the latter ran thirteen states prior to the last general election, today it governs in just four. Furthermore, only two of these (Karnataka and Punjab) have substantial populations (with roughly 90 million residents between them).
The lion’s share of the credit for the BJP’s resurgence belongs to Modi, who remains the most popular politician in India. In May 2014, 36 percent of Indians surveyed named him as their preferred candidate for prime minister, compared to just 14 percent for Congress President Rahul Gandhi. Although Modi’s rating might sound low from a comparative perspective, it is remarkably high for India’s fragmented political system in which 464 parties contested the 2014 general election. While Gandhi’s rating had risen to 20 percent by January 2018, Modi’s popularity has remained extremely stable throughout his four years in office (hovering around 37 percent). Historically, Gandhi’s rating has proven erratic, in part due to his twin struggles with consistency and effectiveness.

REIMAGINING THE MAP

Pulling off an encore performance of the BJP’s sweeping 2014 victory will be a tall order; to compensate for potential losses in its core areas, the party must venture into new territory. In 2014, the BJP virtually swept areas where it traditionally enjoys strong support in northern and western India (see figure 3). Just eight states—Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh—accounted for over 75 percent of the BJP’s tally in parliament. Collectively, these states account for 273 seats, of which the BJP won 216 (nearly 80 percent).

Running the table in two consecutive elections will be an uphill battle. Indian voters are legendary for their tendency to harbor anti-incumbency sentiments; research suggests that individual members of parliament (MPs) are just as likely to get thrown out of office at the end of their term as to get voted back in. There are also statelevel anti-incumbency effects that have negative spillovers on national politics. Parliamentary candidates representing a given state’s ruling party enjoy an electoral advantage in national elections, but only when national elections are held early in the state government’s term. Once this honeymoon period is over, holding power in India’s states becomes a liability in general elections. This poses a problem for the BJP, which serves as the ruling party in all eight of these core states; in five of them, its governments are nearing the ends of their terms.

Because Modi and BJP President Amit Shah—a longtime Modi aide and a savvy campaign strategist—know engineering another sweep of these eight core states will be difficult, they have placed great importance on expanding the BJP’s footprint into parts of the country where it traditionally has been weak. Hence, the BJP’s painstaking devotion to breaking into India’s northeast—long considered to be a bastion of the Congress and smaller regional parties. The northeast is often seen as inconsequential to the overall electoral picture given that it accounts for just 3.7 percent of India’s population. Yet the region boasts twenty-five parliamentary seats, a tempting prize for a party that covets new territory to compensate for losses likely to be sustained elsewhere. Thanks to a series of recent state-level victories, the BJP now sits in government in seven of these eight states and is building up organizational and alliance networks across the region; as a relatively new player in northeastern India, the BJP is less likely to fall prey to Indian voters’ antipathy for incumbents there than in the party’s traditional strongholds. Whereas the Congress retains the capacity to put up a good fight in the Hindi heartland, its stature in the northeast has rapidly diminished.

Having established a foothold in northeastern India, the BJP now aims to increase its strength along India’s eastern seaboard in major states such as Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, and West Bengal. In a fifth state, Andhra Pradesh, the BJP has worked primarily through a key alliance partner—the Telugu Desam Party (TDP). The four aforementioned states serve as a sort of firewall the BJP has struggled to penetrate in national elections. All told, these five states collectively account for 144 seats in the parliament. Each is home to one (or more) powerful parties with strong ties to linguistic, regional, and cultural identities the BJP currently lacks.

However, this firewall may be fracturing. In West Bengal, the BJP trails the ruling Trinamool Congress Party in terms of statewide appeal. But it views the demise of the two principal opposition forces—the Left (a coalition of left-leaning parties) and the Congress— as providing a crucial opening for it to emerge as the second-largest party. The ruling Biju Janata Dal of Odisha won twenty of twenty-one parliamentary seats in 2014, ceding just one to the BJP. But the latter won one-quarter of the vote and has subsequently performed well in municipal elections. In Tamil Nadu, the BJP is a bit player on its own but sees the potential to make inroads through alliances. Fissures within the state’s ruling party, the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, have given the BJP hope that the party system might be ripe for realignment.

COALITION DYNAMICS

Sustaining previous hard-won gains and breaking new ground in pockets of the country outside BJP strongholds, however, will require partners. On this score, the BJP’s prognosis is mixed.

On the one hand, thanks to the widespread sense that the BJP has the wind at its back, the party has become the central pole around which politics in India revolves. This distinguished position once belonged to the Congress, but its recent electoral stumbles and the BJP’s abundant successes have decisively changed the equation. In three recent state elections—in Goa, Manipur, and Meghalaya—the BJP failed to emerge as the single largest party. Nonetheless, thanks to its allure as an alliance partner, the BJP formed governments in all three states by winning over several smaller parties who decided to join a party gaining momentum rather than one appearing to lose it. Across states, the BJP, not the Congress, seems to be the default governing party.

Yet recent events suggest that the BJP’s electoral coalition is showing signs of strain. Existing BJP allies are voicing concerns about the party’s methods, raising the possibility that its electoral coalition could fracture. Two of the BJP’s biggest allies, the Shiv Sena in Maharashtra and the TDP in Andhra Pradesh, have recently put the BJP on notice that they are unhappy with its “arrogant” leadership style. The Shiv Sena announced in January 2018 that it would contest the 2019 elections alone, rather than with the BJP. In March, the TDP pulled its ministers
from the central cabinet in New Delhi to express disappointment with the Modi government’s failure to help Andhra Pradesh tap additional central government funds. When the BJP refused to budge, the TDP announced its decision to formally exit the alliance. These ruptures, while not fatal or irreversible, potentially complicate the BJP’s electoral arithmetic in 2019. If the BJP is successfully tarred as anti-Andhra, it would be difficult for the party to notch a pre-poll alliance with any of the major regional parties there, increasing the
likelihood that a sizeable chunk of the state’s twenty-five seats would be out of the BJP’s reach. In Maharashtra, provided the opposition coalition remains intact, the split with the Shiv Sena could create a three-way race.

Luckily for the BJP, the opposition remains in disarray. The Congress has been slow to rectify the organizational and leadership deficiencies laid bare in 2014. As one senior party leader has mused, the Congress has faced electoral crises before, but what it faces today is an existential crisis. While it will likely gain seats in 2019, one Congress leader privately admitted that a triple-digit figure would be a stretch at present. Left parties have seen a precipitous decline nearly everywhere save for the state of Kerala, its last remaining stronghold. The upstart Aam Aadmi Party, which came to power in the Delhi state assembly by way of an assertive, agitational brand of politics, has struggled to extend its reach beyond the national capital. Moreover, parties opposed to the BJP have failed to coordinate and pool their votes so as to keep the BJP out of power.

There have been two notable exceptions where opposition parties have set aside their differences and forged a degree of bonhomie. The first was the 2015 state election in Bihar, where a socalled grand alliance of opposition parties joined hands to keep the BJP from winning power. The opposition alliance won a resounding victory, but this short-lived marriage of convenience ultimately ended when one party defected. More recently, in March 2018, two rival regional parties in Uttar Pradesh buried their long-standing differences to jointly defeat the BJP in a special by-election. Regional players could give the BJP a run for its money in their respective states, but doing so will require them to work cooperatively—something that does not come naturally to rivals who bitterly jostle for political space. The effects of the BJP’s own alliance drama will be mitigated if the opposition proves unable or unwilling to do business together in 2019.

ECONOMIC ANXIETY

But it is not only allies the BJP must worry about retaining; many voters who were swayed by Modi’s promise to usher in acche din (good times) by reenergizing the Indian economy have also grown restive. In 2014, India was plagued by slumping growth, ballooning deficits, stalled investments, and soaring inflation—offering the BJP untold opportunities to critique the Congress Party’s mismanagement of bread-andbutter issues. Although invocations of Hindu majoritarianism also populated the BJP’s entreaties, it was the BJP’s insistence that it would rectify the declining economy that resonated across the country. Yet as economic progress under Modi has fallen short of expectations, anxieties about the lack of job creation have led to massive popular protests in state after state. While the intensity and scope of voter disaffection with India’s economy is not certain, there are signs that disquiet is rising among rural voters who decisively backed the BJP four years ago. Given that farmers account for roughly half of India’s labor force, rural economic woes raise alarm bells for every incumbent politician.

BJP strategists once believed that economic revival would be the hallmark of the 2019 campaign. Unfortunately for them, the economy has not experienced a uniform revival. Growth, while high by international standards, remains well below the country’s potential. A failure to deal quickly with a systemic banking crisis has bogged down the domestic investment cycle. Inflation, which has fallen from the double-digit levels of the tenure of the Congress, remains a risk in an election year when the pressure to spend will be elevated. Furthermore, the Modi government’s decisions to abruptly remove high-value currency notes from circulation and enact the sweeping Goods and Services Tax reform have hurt short-term growth, irrespective of their longer-term merits. More importantly, for the average Indian, job growth has been anemic. According to the Reserve Bank of India, total employment actually shrank between 2014 and 2016. While it appears that nonfarm jobs grew over this period, farming jobs declined—perhaps as a result of successive droughts. The BJP is betting that its flagship welfare schemes might inoculate it against its patchy economic record. Criticized for having cozy links to corporate capital, Modi’s administration has doggedly tried to burnish its propoor credentials by doubling down on major welfare schemes—such as granting every household a bank account, initiating free cooking gas connections to families below the poverty line, and ensuring universal affordable housing.

These efforts notwithstanding, economic travails are especially apparent in rural India. Although once the bailiwick of the Congress, many rural voters in 2014 switched their allegiance to the BJP—a party that has historically performed better with city-dwellers. The rural shift toward the BJP could easily swing back to the Congress; for instance, available data suggests that support for the BJP alliance among farmers has declined over the past year. Indeed, recent distress in the farming sector is likely sending chills down the spines of BJP leaders. Despite Modi’s promises to double agrarian incomes by 2022, agriculture remains in a state of disrepair. While the causes of this distress are largely structural, proximate factors such as the decline in the prices of several agricultural commodities and shortfalls in farm production have stimulated outrage among many rural Indians.

A clear warning shot was fired in December 2017 during elections in Gujarat, a longtime BJP bastion. Although it retained its majority in the state assembly, the BJP encountered serious rural opposition—especially in the key region of Saurashtra—where the Congress prevailed by capitalizing on caste politics and the waning fortunes of farmers. In March 2018, as many as 50,000 farmers in Maharashtra descended on the state capital of Mumbai to demand the BJP state government move swiftly to aid them. How widespread this disaffection has spread is unclear. All eyes will be on upcoming state elections in Karnataka (in May 2018) and Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan (in December 2018) to discern whether this alleged drop-off in rural locales is sustained.

VOTER MOBILIZATION

A final concern for the BJP in 2019 is voter mobilization. In 2014, the party successfully channeled popular disaffection with the incumbent Congress Party into record voter turnout (66.4 percent). Voter turnout had previously peaked at 64 percent in 1984 and fell to between 56 and 62 percent in subsequent election cycles. As Neelanjan Sircar has pointed out, there was a strong association between the growth in voter turnout and the improved fortunes of the BJP in the 2014 election. A key source of strength came from young voters. Research has demonstrated that states with the largest increases in the share of young, first-time voters in
2014 also experienced the biggest gains in BJP vote share. With the novelty of Modi and BJP rule in New Delhi wearing thin, there is a risk that voter turnout will return to ordinary levels, reducing the BJP’s enthusiasm advantage.

One key demographic the BJP believes it can energize in 2019 is women. Although they do not vote as a bloc per se, the party believes several of its welfare schemes have special resonance with women and can influence their votes. This is significant because Indian females are voting in greater numbers than ever before. In 2014, women voted at higher rates than men in sixteen of India’s thirty-five states and union territories. At the state level, female turnout now regularly surpasses male turnout.

Looking ahead, the BJP’s predicament is how to mobilize voters as an incumbent party. One possibility is that the party will choose to invoke the Hindu nationalist card more expressly and more intensively to rile up its base. Such a move toward polarization would become even more likely if the opposition successfully bands together to forge a common anti-BJP front. Yet such a risky strategy could turn off as many (or more) voters as it galvanizes.

CONCLUSION

One year in advance, many details of the 2019 race remain unknown, but its structural drivers are quickly coming into view. Modi and Shah are wasting no time in recalibrating their approach to mitigate the BJP’s unexpected challenges. For instance, the government’s most recent budget was packed with pro-poor rhetoric and numerous sops meant to allay rural anger. As existing allies are growing wary with the BJP’s modus operandi, the party’s high command has stepped up its outreach to smooth frayed relations. And, concerned about waning voter enthusiasm, Modi has directed the party’s elected representatives to redouble efforts to connect with constituents. In one instance, Modi is reported to have warned sitting BJP MPs that they must amass at least 300,000 followers on social media or risk losing their party tickets. The opposition is making adjustments as well. Gandhi and the once-dithering Congress appears more focused and consistent. The opposition, at least rhetorically, is embracing the need to forge a common anti-BJP front in 2019. Twelve months is an eternity in politics, but one thing has become evident: once thought to be a cakewalk for the BJP, the 2019 election is turning into a contest.

Courtesy Carnegie Foundation: The author is grateful to Matthew Lillehaugen for excellent research and editorial assistance and Ryan DeVries for thoughtful edits.

Winning the trust vote naturally involved dodgy moves. Yet, as Indira Gandhi often demonstrated, the electorate always nurtures a grudging respect for those who can beat the odds, ethics being no bar in war. If the battle, for the BJP, was all about defeating the Congress — and, by implication, the Old Establishment that is putting up a spirited resistance to Modi’s dominance of Indian politics — the challenge was always worth accepting.

Last Saturday, in a terrible anti-climax, the BJP leader B S Yeddyurappa opted out of the floor test and in effect handed over the mantle of chief ministership to the leader of the third party in the Karnataka Assembly. Yeddyurappa may well live to fight another day but, for the moment, H D Kumaraswamy is the new Chief Minister of Karnataka, courtesy the Congress. In normal circumstances, this post-election battle of numbers would have been viewed as yet another disagreeable muddle, the likes of which India has experienced on innumerable occasions. It would have been interesting but hardly worth the carpet bombing coverage the country has witnessed on the news channels.

The difference was on two counts. First, the Karnataka battle was transformed into a facet of national politics. There was a positioning game under way for the 2019 general election. The BJP was intent on demonstrating that its march through the whole of India is unstoppable. Having established a firm foothold in Assam and the rest of North-east India, an area where the saffron flag was a novelty in the past, the Narendra Modi-Amit Shah army was now intent on establishing its hold in southern India, Karnataka being the gateway. The Opposition, on the other hand, was anxious on two counts. First, the post-election combination of the third party and the second party is a possible template for what they hope will happen after 2019 — a grand combination of all anti-BJP forces, united by a common concern for secularism. Secondly, for the beleaguered Congress, the loss of Karnataka was too major a blow to countenance. Rather than risk being reduced to what Modi mocked as Punjab-Puducherry-Parivar and being resource-starved for 2019, the Congress would rather get a toehold at any cost, even if it involved participating in — what may turn out to be — an ATM government.

Now that the BJP failed to muster the numbers, there are bound to be questions raised. Should the party have staked a claim to form the government, knowing fully well that the other side had more MLAs? Should it not have taken the high moral ground and opted to sit in opposition, knowing fully well that the inverted pyramid model of government formation tends to be woefully short-lived? On the other hand, why concede the battle to the enemy without at least a fight?

These questions are not unique. In 1996, Atal Bihari vajpayee, as leader of the single largest party, was invited by the President to form a government. He accepted, despite knowing that he lacked the numbers. For a few days the BJP tried — rather amateurishly, I may add — to persuade other non-Congress parties to support Vajpayee. When it was clear it was a hopeless project, the party extracted full mileage through a dramatic resignation speech of Vajpayee, a speech that elevated his stature and was a factor in the BJP coming to power in 1998.

It is doubtful that Yeddyurappa’s speech had the same effect as vajpayee’s oratory. He will no doubt be seen as a martyr by his core Lingayat controversy. But overall, the projection will be that Modi and Shah were thwarted by a determined ‘secular’ opposition. The BJP’s defeat will become an occasion for ‘secular’ triumphalism, just as his victory would have generated the same elation among the Modi supporters. How last Saturday’s outcome of the confidence vote will influence political thinking in Karnataka in the next year will depend on two factors. First, how the new government will be able to cope with a fragile majority will set the tone. Secondly, much will depend on whether the BJP’s argument that it sought to abide by the spirit of the Assembly election mandate is more persuasive than the claim that the BJP has to be stopped from winning another state at all cost.

From the BJP’s perspective which option — being in government or opposition —was preferable? There are no clear cut answers. Winning the trust vote naturally involved dodgy moves. Yet, as Indira Gandhi often demonstrated, the electorate always nurtures a grudging respect for those who can beat the odds, ethics being no bar in war. If the battle, for the BJP, was all about defeating the Congress — and, by implication, the Old Establishment that is putting up a spirited resistance to Modi’s dominance of Indian politics — the challenge was always worth accepting. The real issue is how the BJP can put the Congress in the doghouse. That is where political communication becomes all-important. In the event the JD(S)-led government is established clumsily, the BJP will have to go to town with the message that the Congress is brazen, shameless and insatiably power hungry; that it has learnt absolutely nothing from the electoral drubbing it received; and that it is shameless enough to re-appoint former Chief Minister Siddaramaiah as Legislature Party leader. Just as much as the BJP needs to show how the spirit of the mandate for change was violated, it will have to direct its artillery fire against the Congress. The importance of the Congress lies not merely in its brand name but the fact that the party is still the rallying point for a very powerful section of the Old Establishment that wants Modi out as soon as possible. Weaken the Congress and the rest is a relative pushover.

There is little opprobrium likely to be attached to Kumaraswamy for settling for the best bargain. The JD(S) set about to win the day despite coming third and it has done so. There is little point targeting him, just as there was little point assaulting Madhu Koda, the one-man brigade who ended up as Chief Minister. The guilty party, as always, was the Congress. The Karnataka experience shows that nothing has changed. Power is the glue that keeps the Congress alive. Take it away and, hopefully, the Ganga and Cauvery will be cleaned.

(Swapan Dasgupta: Writer is a senior journalist and Member of Parliament, being a presidential nominee to the Rajya Sabha)