The saddest part of the Rohingya crisis is that no one is focusing on the repatriation of the Rohingyas to Myanmar. Why the whole world is mum over this matter? Why are we all putting pressure on Bangladesh to resettle these refugees in an unsafe and vulnerable island? It seems Bangladesh has accepted the responsibility of relocating the Rohingyas and looking for their future settlement. Precisely, they all must be sent back to Myanmar as early as possible
Today the Rohingya Muslims are nowhere. More than one million of them left their homeland of Rakhine Province, Myanmar, in 2017 after their ethnic cleansing at the hands of Myanmar Army.
Most of them descended in the neighbouring Bangladesh and stayed in makeshift camps in the Cox Bazar, a coastal town located near the Bangladesh-Myanmar border area of the country all these years.
Many of them have crossed the turbulent sea to get into other South East Asian nations such as Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand.
Their future hangs on international intervention from nations concerned and human rights agencies. Despite an urgent urge from the UN and the case being heard in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hague (Netherlands), they continue to languish in the ill-managed refugee camps in Bangladesh. But recently Dhaka took a decision to shift a large number of the Rohingya refugees to an island named Bhasan Char, in a phased manner. However, the spread of the news in the beginning of this month among the distraught Rohingyas evoked mixed feelings — many of them are quite excited to go to their new abode, thinking this could be a better place, while others are worried about their permanent dislocation from the current camps.
To unearth the root cause of the Rohingya exodus in 2017 from Rakhine to Bangladesh, we need to focus on the recent political happenings in Myanmar. The UN says the Myanmar Army demonstrated “genocidal intent” while conducting operations against the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) in 2017.
According to the authorities, this operation targeted to flush out the Islamists and to bring back law and order in the Rakhine Province. But the central issue is that Myanmar does not want to recognise the Rohingyas as citizens and it sees them as illegal migrants from Bangladesh. That is why the Burmans, the major ethnic group of the country, consisting of the Army, the rest of administrative ranks and the leadership, simply do not want the Rohingyas to stay in the country.
Much before 2017, the clashes used to break out between the majority Burmans and the local Rohingyas. But in that year, the ARSA killed nearly 20 police officers and security forces of the Myanmar Army. And on August 25, the ARSA, previously known as the Harakah al-Yakin, immediately provoked a counter-insurgency operation from the federal Army of Myanmar in Rakhine Province. The Government says the ARSA is a terrorist organisation. Its leader Ata Ullah was born in Pakistan and raised mostly in Saudi Arabia. The group also released a report in 2016 according to which it is led by Rohingyas living in Saudi Arabia.
However, the concern is that striking at the ARSA is not going to solve the core issue i.e. denying citizenship to the Rohingyas. For decades, the Rohingyas have been residing in Arakan known as the Rakhine Province. Interestingly, earlier, they were given the right to vote. But with the coming of the Tatmadaw to power, gradually the basic political rights and freedoms of the Rohingyas were curtailed. Thus, the Rohingya anger has grown against the Myanmarese State fully controlled by the majority Burmans.
Many security experts opine that the ARSA may have received backing from jihadists who have fought in battlegrounds of Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, etc. The main purpose of the ARSA is to defend, salvage and protect the Rohingyas from the State repression in the line with the principle of self-defence. But the official view from Naypyidaw is that the Army operation in the province was against the terrorists, and to restore law and order in that area. Even the locals and various newspapers in the regions emphasise more on the terror attacks and the plight of the others who had to flee the area because of the clash between the Army and the Rohingyas.
It is very clear that the majority Burmans have a long-held prejudice against the Rohingya Muslims, who are not regarded as the citizens of the country. These Rohingyas are called as “Bengalis”. And most of the nationalist groups view them as a threat to their country. This is the background of the harrowing conditions of the Rohingyas that has sparked a bitter debate between Bangladesh and Myanmar, but without any credible outcome.
And anytime in future, the global jehadi groups such as the Islamic State and al-Qaeda might plant their agents to sponsor full-time Islamic terror movements in Myanmar. The Tatmadaw must be ready to face such an onslaught from these global monsters and accordingly should keep a close watch on the activities of the ARSA in the region.
The root of the plight behind the current Rohingya crisis lies in Myanmar itself. It can well be regarded as a systematic and forced migration of these people from their home province. And it is the Tatmadaw i.e. the Myanmar Army that has led a vicious and brutal campaign against the hapless Rohingyas over the years. It all started in 1978 when then Burmese Army carried out an operation called “Operation Ngamin” to drive out the Rohingyas from Rakhine.
Again, in 1982, a new law was passed by Myanmar to deny citizenship right to the Rohingya Muslims. And finally, they were excluded from the list of the country’s 135 ethnic groups. For years, Myanmar has pursued institutionalised discrimination policies like these and cornered the poor and minority Muslim Rohingyas to a point of no return to the mainstream of country.
The role of Nobel laureate and the present State Counsellor of Myanmar is highly questionable on the question of the repatriation of the Rohingyas. The suffering of the Rohingya itself is a tragedy. But the way it was carried out by the Tatmadaw had crossed all civilisational limits. Suu Kyi does not control the military and even if she wants she can’t do so. Also the military does not trust her at all.
It’s very simple because all her life she has fought against the repressive military and demanded to restore basic freedoms in the country. But today she has almost forgotten the very core of the basic freedoms for which she once bravely fought. It’s painful and sad. This time her party National League for Democracy won more seats than what they had won in the elections of 2015. But even if she could have condemned the actions of the Tatmadaw, it would not have gone to this extent.
The world knows very well what Suu Kyi said in the International Court of Justice at the Hague in December 2019. She bravely defended her country’s military against the allegations of genocide. These all have rightly signalled that she is a true politician and no more a votary of democratic rights.
The recently concluded parliamentary election has once again excluded the Rohingyas from the much awaited political process in the country. Further, because of the fighting between the Tatmadaw and the Arakan Army, the November Parliamentary Election had to be cancelled in the Rakhine Province.
The saddest part of the Rohingya crisis is that no one is focusing on the repatriation of the Rohingyas to Myanmar. Why the whole world is mum over this matter? Why are we all putting pressure on Bangladesh to resettle these refugees in an unsafe and vulnerable island? It seems Bangladesh has accepted the responsibility of relocating the Rohingyas and looking for their future settlement. Precisely, they all must be sent back to Myanmar i.e. Rakhine Province, as early as possible.
The UN, the UNHRC and various other global humanitarian agencies must build up enough pressure on Naypyidaw to take back all the Rohingyas. Now a new Joe Biden administration must devise a strategy to convince the Tatmadaw for the same. Else, the Generals back home in Myanmar will take it for granted that such heinous crimes could easily avoid international attention. Though Bangladesh is assuring the repatriation of the Rohingyas in the Bhasan Char, the international community must be aware that it is a very vulnerable area to shift millions of these refugees in the days to come.
(The writer is an expert on international affairs)
Investors who want to build a good portfolio over the long term, should use opportunities like the present one, to invest in the financial markets
The Coronavirus pandemic has stalled international trade and created heightened volatility in the financial markets. It has impacted many businesses and the finances of individuals. People are revisiting their financial plans in order to sustain their savings for as long as possible. Those who have been playing the financial markets for long, know that such downturns are a great opportunity to rebalance their investment portfolios. Many research houses have come up with data points on how the recovery of the markets has been, post a catastrophic event that has sent the markets into a tailspin. In most of the cases it has been found that after a downward trend, the markets get back to their original level within two years. Hence, investors who are not looking to time the market and want to build a good portfolio over the long term, should use opportunities like the present one, to invest in the financial markets and reap benefits.
Many investment firms have gone the extra mile to support their stakeholders during these uncertain times. Webinars were conducted on financial health that focussed on effective fiscal management during the lockdown and the turbulent phase that the economy is going through. These firms facilitated a goal-based approach, risk profile analysis and rebalancing of strategies which helped the millennials with their future investment plans by tailoring them to their specific requirements.
A plunge in March, followed by a gradual recovery, has created a volatile situation in the financial markets that has lured many people to dabble in the stock market. At the same time, many existing investors who barely traded, have now started doing so. Retail participation saw a record high, while many inactive clients re-entered the market and there was a sharp rise in the number of new clients in the industry. Despite volatility, many investors were able to generate good returns with the help of financial advisors who adopted various strategies, the most popular being buying at the dip and multi-asset class investing. Buying at the dip is a market timing strategy and more often than not, investors do not get the timing right. The potential problem with this approach is that you may end up catching a falling knife. Investors should choose companies that fundamentally have good businesses and sufficient cash flows to withstand a potential downturn. It is beneficial to create a well-diversified portfolio by investing in multiple asset classes that give a balanced risk exposure over various macroeconomic conditions.
For investors focussed on companies with sustainable competitive advantages and long-term secular trends, it’s important to prioritise a far-horizon investment outlook over knee-jerk modifications. While investors who focus on short-term stock market momentum may have rebalanced portfolios during the period, staying the course can potentially be beneficial. Sticking to a long-term investing strategy can serve as a guiding principle through swings on a monthly or quarterly basis. Research companies guide investors with rebalancing techniques as they tend to improve risk-adjusted returns over time, as long as it doesn’t generate excessive tax and transaction costs by reducing portfolio sensitivity to the timing of volatile markets. It also gels with the markets’ natural tendency to revert to the mean. Many a time, people do not understand and focus on rebalancing, however, this is one of the most important steps to get a consistent return. Rebalancing the portfolio normalises it for one’s age, revised objectives, current market conditions and so on. For instance, if one has invested `1 crore with 70 per cent in equity and 30 per cent in debt and after a sudden fall in the market, the portfolio composition changes to 60 per cent equity and 40 per cent debt, it is the right time to shift some amount from debt to equity, which will bring the portfolio composition back to 70:30. This way, one will always benefit from any market condition and the portfolio, too, will be aligned with long-term objectives.
Investors have been encouraged by improvements in manufacturing and metals, better-than-expected second-quarter earnings, hopes of a potential vaccine and extremely low interest rates. Mostly, investors seem to be looking past the pandemic to the recovery expected in 2021. Due to the expectations of an additional US Government stimulus, the ongoing global recovery and an expected rebound in cyclical sectors, the world is likely to see a V-shaped economic rebound. If the RBI continues the low interest rate regime for the next one year or so, the yields on Fixed Deposits and other fixed income instruments are going to be very low. Plus, if we include the impact of income tax the returns from these instruments are not going to beat inflation and one is going to get a negative real rate of return. All these put together, provide a great opportunity for investors to participate in the markets and build a portfolio with a long-term objective.
As the overall structure of the market remains positive, participation by retail investors will increase consistently. With economic activity recovering fast, more upgrades in earnings cannot be ruled out. Strong global markets in the future can keep the liquidity abundant in the system, thus providing support to the overall market.
(The writer is CEO, CapitalVia Global Research Limited.)
There is a requirement to have a re-look into the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance
The Governor of Uttar Pradesh (UP) recently promulgated an Ordinance called the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Ordinance, 2020. It has been promulgated to provide for prohibition of unlawful conversions from one religion to another by misrepresentation, force, undue influence, coercion, allurement, by any fraudulent means or by marriage. The emphasis in the Ordinance is on the prohibition of “unlawful conversion.” A conversion is considered unlawful if it is due to allurement, coercion and so on and also by marriage. An “unlawful conversion” is defined as one that is not in accordance with the law of the land.
According to the new law, a wo/man intending to convert to another religion needs to inform the District Magistrate or Additional District Magistrate at least 60 days in advance and give a declaration that the decision is free from any pressure or allurement and is being done by one’s free choice. Yet, another declaration needs to be submitted within 60 days once the conversion takes place. Only then will the person be able to attain a confirmation certificate that the conversion is lawful. The District Magistrate’s Office has to exhibit a copy of the declarations on the notice board of the office till the date of confirmation of conversion.
However, the UP Ordinance is silent with regard to the nature of the law governing conversions. It does not provide any explanation and contemplates that whoever is involved in the said unlawful conversion shall be punished with an imprisonment of not less than one year, which may extend to five years. The accused person is also liable to pay a fine. Though the punishment is one year to five years, the Ordinance makes the offence cognisable and non-bailable and triable by the court of sessions.
Generally, in criminal cases the burden of proof lies with the prosecution but the Ordinance imposes this burden upon the person who allegedly caused the conversion. And wherever the conversion has been facilitated by any other person, the burden of proof is on them too. It also contemplates that any marriage, which was entered into for the sole purpose of unlawful conversion by a man of one religion with a woman of another religion or vice-versa, either by converting himself/herself before or after marriage or by converting the wo/man before or after marriage, shall be declared void by the family court.
In case, the couple is in an area where the family court is not established, the civil court having jurisdiction in the area can try the case and declare the marriage null and void. There need not be any independent adjudication with regard to a declaration of any marriage as void as per any other law. However, the fact remains that unless a nexus is established between a marriage and unlawful conversion, Section six of the Ordinance, which contemplates marriage to be declared as void by the courts, is not applicable.
The meaning of conversion by marriage is also not explained in the Ordinance and it contemplates conversion by marriage per-se unlawful. Generally two persons belonging to different faiths can get married under the provisions of Special Marriage Act. However, in some cases unless there is a conversion and both, the bride and the bridegroom belong to the same faith, the marriage would not be performed. Conversion would be a prerequisite in such cases. It cannot be said that it is a conversion by marriage. The Ordinance also contemplates that once the person who intends to change his/her religion has made the declaration before the District Magistrate, an inquiry would be conducted by the police with regard to “such an intention of a person to convert.” The report of the police would be a major factor in deciding whether a person can change their religion or not. It would also be instrumental in concluding whether the conversion is illegal and thus, void.
The Ordinance also contemplates a post-conversion procedure. It states that a converted individual shall send a declaration to the District Magistrate and appear for 21 days thereafter before him/her till the objections, if any, received are decided by the District Magistrate. It also contemplates that if the procedure is not followed the conversion becomes illegal and void.
Though the Ordinance protects people from getting converted due to allurement, coercion and so on, there is a scope for abusing the provisions by relying upon the police enquiry report. The Ordinance is silent with regard to the action of the District Magistrate vis-a-vis the police inquiry report. There is a requirement to have a re-look into the provisions of the Ordinance for the purpose of incorporating necessary checks and balances instead of placing more reliance upon a police enquiry report.
However, the UP Government’s anti-conversion move is not unique. In the past too, several States in the country have passed what are referred to as Freedom of Religion Acts or “anti-conversion laws”. These are mostly State-level laws that are aimed to regulate involuntary religious conversions. Odisha was the first State to pass such a law in 1967 and the most recent legislation was passed in Jharkhand and Uttarakhand in 2017. Chhattisgarh, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh passed their “Freedom of Religion Act” in 2000, 2003 and 2006 respectively. Taking a cue from the others, Rajasthan too passed a similar Bill in 2006. Arunachal Pradesh had already enacted one in 1979 and in 2002 Tamil Nadu passed the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Forceful Conversion Act. The Supreme Court in the Reverend. Stainislaus Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh case upheld the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh and Orissa Act. Significantly, Madhya Pradesh enacted the Madhya Pradesh Dharma Swatantraya Adhinayam Act way back in 1968 and Odisha enacted the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act in 1967.
The provisions of both the Acts relating to prohibition of forcible conversion and punishment were challenged before the respective High Courts and were carried to the Apex Court. The Supreme Court had held that the freedom of religion enshrined in Article 25 of the Constitution is not guaranteed in respect of one religion only but covers all religions alike and it can be properly enjoyed by a person if s/he exercises her/his right in a manner commensurate with freedom of persons following other religions. It was further held that freedom for one is freedom for the other, in equal measure, and there can therefore be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion. The Apex Court upheld the provisions which prohibit forceful conversion in the background of maintenance of “public order.” The Supreme Court also held that if an attempt is made to raise communal passions, e.g. on the ground that someone has been “forcibly” converted to another religion, it would in all probability, give rise to apprehension of breach of public order, affecting the community at large. However, the present Ordinance incorporates a new concept of conversion by marriage. It presumes that every religious conversion is illegal unless the procedure that has been laid down is followed. The term “love jihad” has not been referred to in the Ordinance and its perusal shows that the same is applicable to all religions. The word “allurement” has been defined widely, which may ultimately be a playing field for the police during its enquiry.
Article 25 of the Constitution of India contemplates that all people are equally entitled to freedom of conscience, the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion. It means that the Constitution guarantees the right to practice, propagate a religion and in the process a person may impress upon the other to get converted or herself/himself change their religion.
The Ordinance comes into play when such a conversion occurs due to the factors like allurement, coercion and so on. It is inoperative while exercising freedom of conscience. The question is whether the police are equipped sufficiently to conduct an enquiry into these aspects or not, so as to come to a conclusion that the choice of conversion has been made freely without any other factors. There would be a possibility of abuse of processes and filing of criminal cases against those persons who propagate their faith, on the ground that they have instigated the thought of conversion in a person. However, a mere thought of conversion to another religion cannot be made an offence unless it manifests into action.
(The writer is an Advocate in the Andhra Pradesh and Telangana High Courts)
2020 is that in more ways than one, it appears, as dictionaries unanimously vote for word of the year
While there might be some lingering doubts about Time magazine’s selection of US President-elect Joseph R Biden and his Vice-President Kamala Harris as “Persons of the Year,” we, along with many others, feel that the “people of the year” are the frontline medical workers risking their lives for the sake of others. But there is little doubt about the “word of the year,” which both Dictionary.Com and Merriam-Webster have awarded to the “pandemic.” And that is appropriate because how many people used or knew of that term unless they were Hollywood screen writers until the Coronavirus upended everyone’s lives in 2020? Even as the news of advancement in the trial of vaccines brings some cheer across the world, we are still far away from vanquishing the virus that has permanently changed the lives of us all. And there is no guarantee that “vaccination” will be the word of the year in 2021. We are still a long way from having a significant number of people being vaccinated against the virus for it to be effective among a large population and the world has learnt a lesson about the need for hygiene in all our lives.
But how else will 2020 be remembered decades from today? Will we talk about this being the year where “social distancing” became the norm and online education really took off? Or will we remember 2020 as the year that several social constructs broke down once and for all and set the ball rolling on the path to revolution across many nations? Will 2020 be the year where we reset everything altogether, everything becomes “Before Pandemic” (BP) and “After Pandemic” (AP)? We will have to wait and watch but make no mistake, 2020 will be the most memorable year of our lives even if it was a year in which we all did almost nothing. Of course, it allowed us buffer time to re-orient ourselves, evolve and survive in new contexts and circumstances. Maybe 2021 will offer us some hope and we can break out of the thesaurus and learn some new words for hope and expectations. It can’t be this bad again next year? Or can it?
The pre-poll discourse in the State is rarely ideological but about intimidatory heft. Both the TMC and BJP can't ignore it
The BJP’s desperation to succeed in Mission Bengal by toppling its arch-enemy and Trinamool Congress (TMC) chief Mamata Banerjee and the latter’s spirited fight to hold on to her turf, if only to challenge the BJP’s formulaic invasion of Opposition-ruled States, will inevitably spill over into clashes and violence. The latest flashpoint was around an attack on the convoy of party president JP Nadda, with the BJP blaming TMC cadres and the latter claiming it was staged to implicate them. In the process, both camps are caught in issuing threats and counter-threats that in no way tests the capability of each in ensuring good governance or the promised land. While the BJP’s hunger to chase its electoral goal and the concomitant rhetoric and war cry are understandable, does it have to plummet to the depths of threatening counter-violence? Or is it a ruse to build a case for total breakdown of law and order and ensure a high-security election for the Assembly, which would be, by implication, one conducted under Central scrutiny? That’s what is apparent with Bengal Governor Jagdeep Dhankar sending a report to the Centre, saying the security arrangement was inadequate for Nadda’s convoy and asking Mamata to watch out as the State was not her fiefdom. That’s what State BJP chief Dilip Ghosh recklessly seemed to suggest a few days ago with his crass remark that those opposing a fair verdict or intimidating voters would find themselves either with broken bones or at the crematorium. As for the TMC, it has been hardened by the politics of violence and agitations. Coercion, violence or booth management, which the Left parties in Bengal had perfected into what is called “scientific rigging”, became part of a machinery that no party in Bengal has been immune to but that in no way could effect a tidal change. One must remember that Mamata uprooted the Left giants operating within that hostile system. She stood up to them but having arrived, built her political stock on her personal charisma, cause-based activism and grassroots connect. The BJP itself, while promising change, has been charged with getting men from Bihar and Jharkhand into Bengal for “electoral management.”
Each political party has institutionalised muscle power and mischief-making recruits have been changing camps according to the trade winds. Crossovers in Bengal politics are rarely ideological but solely about intimidatory heft. Sadly, that has set the terms of the discourse instead of issues, becoming an obnoxious scare tactic for every voter, decided or undecided, that they should weigh in with the strongest side. Little wonder then that the BJP has allowed rabble-rousing ways of its State leaders to negate Mamata’s stature, considering she still has an emotional hold on the people. This is why BJP is having to work the ground despite a favourable tide in the Lok Sabha polls. And by claiming victimhood in a “reign of terror” early on in the campaign, it is justifying the need for violence as defence as part of its propaganda. For its house is not quite in order. That’s why Home Minister Amit Shah has made Bengal his focus. He has to take care of internal dissension between the original BJP cadres and TMC rebel imports over the quantum of importance that each should get. While the original party workers are gung-ho about a Centrist push to the campaign, the turncoats are wary of Bengal’s anti-Right ethos and are not being able to commit to the party’s hegemonic planks. The BJP is pitching its campaign on the TMC’s “politicisation of institutions”, particularly the police, but that is yet to cut ice given the record of its own autocratic methods in States it already governs. Its minority appeasement plank against Mamata or her COVID management have been blunted by the Bengal leader’s new-found maturity in matters religious, her smooth conduct of the Durga puja and arresting the pandemic spiral better than the projected scenarios. Besides, after years of nurturing and solidifying its vote base in North Bengal, and investing its lot with the Gorkhaland movement, the BJP’s key man and Gorkha Janmukti Morcha (GJM) leader Bimal Gurung jumped ship and declared support to Mamata. With such hurdles cropping up just six months before the elections, Shah, therefore, has come down to mathematical certainty like working on consolidating the tribal and Dalit vote in the State. And he is chipping away the Trinamool’s strengths, like weaning away Suvendu Adhikari and other disgruntled leaders who are not happy with Mamata’s blind reliance on her nephew Abhishek Banerjee and election strategy advisor Prashant Kishor. Shah had poached Mukul Roy, closest to Mamata at one time, to get a sense of her winning strategy. Now he has Adhikari, a popular grassroots leader, an organiser and mobiliser for issues like Nandigram. Both are not exactly clean, with ED cases against them, but the BJP is willing to manipulate their weakness to its own strength. The party is desperate about Bengal for more than one reason. First, it sees it as a liberal and intellectual outpost that has been its ideological polarity, and having made inroads in the last Lok Sabha election, it now wants the glory of a conquest. Second, along with Odisha, Bengal has been a vanguard of the East that has held out against its juggernaut. Third, the BJP wants to prove that poll arithmetic can override cultural opposition to it. Of course, Mamata is used to taking several punches and emerging stronger in the end. And instead of getting increasingly caught up in a reactive game with the BJP, she is now focussing on her “doorstep” appeal, launching new and highlighting existing welfarist schemes. In fact, only she can break the vicious cycle of violence, drive home the message of development and hold the BJP to account on its real specific plans for “poriborton.” As for the BJP, it needs an equally charismatic face. Will cricket icon Sourav Ganguly agree to be Shah’s man for the job?
The long haul ahead to bridging the emissions gap doesn’t present a rosy picture but there are encouraging signs, too
Every year, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) releases an Emissions Gap Report showing the difference between estimated current greenhouse gas emission levels and the target prescribed by the Paris Agreement on Climate Change signed on December 12, 2015. The latter calls for holding the increase in global average temperature in this century to well below 2 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial-revolution level, and for trying to limit it to 1.5 degree Celsius above it.
Each report not only dwells on the gap but provides a comprehensive account of the situation and developments on the environment front during the year, what needs to be done to combat climate change, and the prospects ahead for the world. The current report, 11th in the series titled Emissions Gap Report 2020, released on December 9, 2020, presents, like its predecessors, an alarming picture. It says that the year 2020 is likely to be the warmest on record, with wildfires, droughts, storms and glacier-melting intensifying.
If one were to identify its most terrifying prognosis, it would be that the world is hurtling towards a temperature increase of over 3 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. And this would be despite a predicted fall of 7 per cent in carbon dioxide emissions as a result of the economic slowdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The decline, however, would translate to only 0.01 degree reduction in global warming by 2050, because the emissions would rise again — and become even higher — as economies bounce back.
What all this means begins to become clear on recalling that according to the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (The Special Report), released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on October 7, 2018, the adverse effects of climate change would not be reduced even if the increase is limited to 1.5 degree Celsius. Sea levels will continue to rise beyond 2100, threatening coastal ecosystems and infrastructure. Flooding, drought and extreme weather events will wreak havoc around the world. Many species will continue to be driven towards extinction and marine ecosystems could face “irreversible loss.” What is particularly alarming, this level, according to the report, is likely to be reached sometime between 2030 and 2052. Fourteen per cent of the world’s population would be exposed to severe heat waves at least once in five years at the 1.5 degree Celsius warming level. The percentage would rise to 37 if the level rises to 2 degrees Celsius. Christopher Flavelle’s report, titled Climate Change Threatens the World’s Food Supply, United Nations Warns, in the New York Times of August 8, 2019, quotes Edouard Davin, a researcher at ETH Zurich and an author of the report, as saying by email, “Above 2 degrees of global warming, there could be an increase of 100 million or more of the population at risk of hunger,” and adding, “We need to act quickly.” A three-degree Celsius increase in temperature, according to a report by Louise Boyle, datelined December 9, 2020, in the Independent of the UK, would cause mass extinctions and leave “swathes of planet uninhabitable.” It cites the non-profit organisation, Climate Central, as saying that 275 million people would be at risk in areas flooded by seal-level rise.
It is a grim scenario on almost every front. A 65-page “Summary for Policymakers” of another IPCC special report of 2019 stated that a food crisis loomed large, especially in tropical and sub-tropical regions, if carbon dioxide emissions continued unchecked. It added that besides significantly reducing crop yields, rising temperatures may also bring down the nutritional value of crops. Floods, droughts, storms and other forms of extreme weather conditions threatened to disrupt and, over time, reduce the world’s food supply.
According to Stephen Leahy’s report, “World food crisis looms if carbon emissions go unchecked, UN says” in the National Geographic of August 8, 2019, already, more than 10 percent of the world’s population remained undernourished. It quoted Cynthia Rozenzweig, Coordinating Lead Author of the IPCC’s Special Report on Climate Change and Land, and a climatologist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, as saying that extreme weather events had already increased in size and intensity, and are playing a role in food price spikes.
It cited the examples of extensive spring floods in the US Midwest in 2019 leading to very late planting of corn and soy crops, reducing their potential yields. It also mentioned drought playing havoc with rice crops in Thailand and Indonesia and sugarcane and oilseeds produces in India in 2019 when record-breaking heat waves in Europe were feared to be causing a 13 per cent decline in French wine production. Apart from under-nourishment and hunger, food shortages could lead to an increase in cross-border migration, which is having an unfortunate impact on politics in North America and Europe.
The question arises: What are the chances of averting the dismal future that seems to face the world? There are some glimmers of hope. The Emissions Gap Report 2020 says that the predicted emission rates could be reduced by around 25 per cent if Governments commit to a path of “green recovery” from the pandemic’s disaster. This would give the world a fighting chance to keep global warming down to 2 degrees Celsius by the end of this century. Treading this path would require the provision or direct support to zero-emissions technologies and infrastructure, reducing fossil fuel subsidies, promoting measures like afforestation and avoiding deforestation. Trees are most important as they reduce the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by absorbing it.
Agricultural practices and global food supply systems account for one-third of the global carbon emissions. It is, therefore, important to orient them towards reducing carbon emissions. For example, steps like the draining of wetlands to make room for cultivation - as has happened in Indonesia and Malaysia to create palm oil plantations - should be avoided as that would release into the air the huge amounts of carbon dioxide gas trapped in these water bodies. Further, the Special Report on Climate Change and Land calls for institutional changes like providing farmers with better access to credit in developing countries and giving them stronger property rights. It further advocated utilisation of the skills and knowledge of indigenous and local people to devise agricultural practices aimed at promoting biodiversity conservation and combating desertification and land degradation.
Along with agriculture, the Emissions Gap Report 2020 emphasises the need for shipping and aviation industries, which account for five per cent of global emissions, to combine energy efficiency with a rapid transition away from fossil fuels.
Around two-thirds of global emissions being linked to private households, changes in consumption and behaviour patterns are required. Cycling, car-sharing, and more energy-efficient housing needs to be promoted. Travel by rail rather than air is recommended for short journeys. The wealthy, particularly, need to make significant changes in their lifestyles as the richest 1 per cent of the world’s population accounts for more than twice the combined share of the poorest 50 per cent. There is a special need to avoid food loss and wastage.
There are some encouraging signs. While President Donald Trump of the US walked out of the Paris Agreement and derided the idea of climate change, President-elect Joe Biden has not only decided to rejoin but has set a target for net-zero emissions no later than 2050. According to the Emissions Gap Report 2020, some 126 countries, covering 51 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, have so far, adopted, announced or are considering, a net zero pledge by 2050.
Nevertheless, optimism needs to be kept on a tight leash. Between promise and performance, and resolve and result, falls more than a shadow. In this case, the shadow will darken the future of the entire world.
(The author is Consulting Editor, The Pioneer)
It is a matter of debate whether our vaccination should be administered by the Govt or made broader with private sector participation
A fortnight ago, I was approached by the district authorities for a possible volunteer opportunity regarding the COVID-19 vaccine, once it becomes available in 2021. That to my mind is the beginning and perhaps end of an era and a change in mindset for a mass vaccination project, unseen and unattempted in human history. The challenge to provide an effective remedy for nearly one-fifth of the human population on planet Earth, in a country, which can be called a semi-continent. Till now, three companies have approached India’s regulatory body for emergency use authorisation of their vaccines: Pfizer-BioNTech, the Serum Institute of India with Oxford-AstraZeneca and the home-grown Bharat Biotech with an indigenous vaccine in collaboration with the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR). The Prime Minister has promised a vaccine availability in a few weeks, post regulatory approvals, and also indicated that there are about eight different vaccines under different phases of trial. Finally, the next two months are going to be crucial in India’s march towards a multi-trillion dollar economy, as it rapidly adjusts to the changing global and domestic discourse on the shot, while hoping for immunity for a critical mass of the 1.3 billion plus population.
That leads to a relatively young democracy like India, largely administered via 740 local district authorities and municipalities, to a new governance roadmap, where various models of vaccination have to be undertaken before it can be safe and available on demand across a chemist’s counter. A crucial aspect of this mass vaccination programme would, therefore, be Centre-State co-ordination, public-private partnership, engagement at the electoral booth level for personnel who work alongside healthcare professionals or vaccinators, a vaccine management central war room, with nodes spread right to the vaccinating spot in a far-flung district. When India went into one of the harshest lockdowns around the globe in March, it was an experience alien to all. Central Government departments, (for the time being we keep aside district and State-level authorities) that were bound by centuries of office protocols that required a physical signature by an authority before a regulation could be implemented, stretched broadband and hardware resources to facilitate seamless shift of work spaces (or laptops) to homes.
India managed four lockdowns, gradually opening up sector after sector, while ensuring a productive and record-breaking agriculture harvest and managing to avert any serious shortage of food and essentials. The mass movement of migrant labourers walking down streets of large cities or along railway tracks was perhaps the only major negative outcome of the pandemic (if we leave out the impact on an already ailing economy and the job losses). Yet, all of these had a common link in the way State Governments were coordinating with an evolving central leadership on all pandemic-related regulations and best practices. Hence, it would be good for the mass vaccination programme to keep the lessons of the lockdown handy. We must keep the hotlines of communication and supervision in top gear to achieve a healthy 2021 for all. Politicisation of the vaccine, making it an election issue for States going to polls in 2021 and spread of misinformation are all lethal for the nation’s vaccination goal. Plus, the Government has a wonderful opportunity of clubbing two initiatives of a high voter turnout and booth-level vaccination simultaneously for the five States that have elections looming on the horizon. Of course, it would require thorough coordination between various State and Central agencies, medico-legal backing and out-of-the-box thinking, to provide jabs to election duty personnel and the electorate at the booth level.
Some of the firms who have applied for emergency application approvals in India have also indicated their willingness to make it available for paying private players besides the Government. National vaccination programmes so far have been tightly State-controlled and have proven to be an effective means of preventing once-deadly diseases and viruses. But they have always been used for a certain bracket of the population, never exceeding 30 million in one shot. It is a matter of public policy and debate whether India’s vaccination should be tightly-controlled and administered by the Government, or made broader, with private sector participation. Estimates suggest that if the Government, as the largest employer, manages to vaccinate all its employees, and larger private players, including those in the healthcare sector, administer shots to their employees and families, nearly 10-12 million people will get vaccinated quickly. That should leave many dosages for the poor and the elderly who should be in the second order of priority for vaccination. Of course, the question and debate over prioritisation, the cost of the shot, State subsidy vs over the counter market prices, are going to be in the headlines for the coming months. However, the Government should allow the private sector to participate with a light touch regulatory lease (at least for the initial six months) in the biggest vaccination project in human history. As we approach 2021, a new world of emerging opportunities and threats awaits India. A new decade of promise and prosperity for the billions of citizens of Naya Bharat may very well begin with an effective jab.
(The writer is a policy analyst)
It is argued that engagement in unpaid domestic and care work is one of the prime reasons for women’s low participation in economic activities
The Coronavirus pandemic is not showing any signs of abating and with the onset of winter, it is, in fact, spreading exponentially in India and globally too. In addition to the public health emergency, the economic and social disruption that the COVID-19 contagion has unleashed upon us threatens the long-term livelihoods and well-being of millions of people around the globe. Ironically, this year marked the 25th anniversary of the Beijing Platform for Action and it was meant to be a groundbreaking one for gender parity. Instead, with the spread of the Coronavirus, even the restricted gains made in the past are being lost.
The pandemic is not just exacerbating pre-existing gender inequalities within the workplace, it is also exposing the vulnerabilities in the world’s social and economic systems, which are successively amplifying the impact of the outbreak. Across every sector, from health to major industries to services, the multiple impacts of COVID-19 are cascading down on women workers just by virtue of their gender.
According to a recent McKinsey report, globally the job security and employment opportunities of women are 1.9 times more vulnerable to this crisis than that of men. Though women make up 39 per cent of the global employment, they account for 54 per cent of overall job losses. According to the Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS), 2018-19, women’s participation in employment in India is low and significantly less than that of their male counterparts. Women comprised a meagre 18 per cent of the workforce compared to 52 per cent of men before the pandemic. Even as it plunged nearly 30 per cent in the last 20 years, the COVID-19 crisis further accentuated this fall in the work participation rate of women in the country. McKinsey reported that women account for 23 per cent of the overall job losses recorded after the pandemic hit India.
It is argued that engagement in unpaid domestic and care work is one of the prime reasons for women’s low participation in economic activities. Women do an average of 75 per cent of the world’s total unpaid care work. This includes nurturing the children, caring for the elderly, looking after the differently-abled and domestic chores like cooking, cleaning, washing clothes and so on.
Women’s unpaid domestic work is often invisible but has immense value. According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) a whopping 16.4 billion hours are spent by women on unpaid care work daily. This is equivalent to two billion people working eight hours per day, without payment. The actual value of this work amounts to nine per cent of the global GDP, which is equivalent to $11 trillion. Significantly, women’s unpaid work is estimated to be valued at almost 40 per cent of India’s GDP.
Globally, more people are at home than ever, due to the pandemic-related social distancing measures that have been put in place. As a result of the emerging new norms of work from home, online education, the lack of domestic workers, the need to perform unpaid domestic chores has increased significantly. In India, owing to the existing gender-based division of labour and social norms, the time spent on unpaid activities by career women and home-makers alike has increased disproportionately.
These activities are time-consuming and physically tiring, and subject to “time poverty”, leaving little or no time in the day to undertake all the activities one is required to perform or desires to undertake, like education, job or leisure. In particular, the growing demands of unpaid work and a looming recession are increasingly reducing opportunities to participate in productive economic activities. Therefore, the implications of “time poverty” for women, in particular, are immense, because they are associated with the double burden of paid and unpaid work. Even though this “time poverty” is a global phenomenon, the problem is even starker in India as many of these unpaid activities simply cannot be outsourced because market substitutes or State provisions do not exist in adequate measure.
Covid-19 and time poverty: The time use survey conducted by the National Sample Survey Office (NSSO) in 2019 confirms a persistent pattern of “time poverty” suffered by women in India. The NSSO survey showed that women spent 84 per cent of their working hours on unpaid activities, while men spent 80 per cent of their working hours on paid work. Conversely, men spent a longer time in employment-related activities (459 minutes per day) than women (333 minutes per day). As per the UN Women global survey findings, since the spread of the Coronavirus, 28 per cent of women and 16 per cent of men say the intensity of their unpaid domestic work has gone up. The COVID-19 global crisis has exposed the fact that the world’s economies and our daily lives are made possible by the unpaid care work of women, which is often invisible and under-appreciated. The UN Women survey, that was conducted in 16 countries, reveals that before the pandemic, the average time spent on childcare by women was approximately 223 minutes per day. But since the crisis began, they spend approximately 266 minutes per day, with Indian women spending the maximum time in childcare among those surveyed from the other nations. Similarly, several estimates reveal that the pandemic has disproportionately increased women’s “time poverty” by up to 30 per cent in India.
Additionally, surveys conducted by Action-Aid (Delhi), Azim Premji University (Bengaluru) and the Institute of Social Studies Trust (ISST, Delhi) confirm that women were the hardest hit by the pandemic as a significant proportion of them lost their jobs and incomes. They also reported an increase in unpaid work at home and growing demands for domestic work, childcare and care of the elderly.
About 66 per cent of the working women surveyed in Delhi by the ISST reported an increase in household chores and 36 per cent stated an increased burden of child and elderly care work during the pandemic. They also said that closure of schools and day-care centres had put an additional burden on them. Plus, with most of the household members staying at home, it resulted in an increase in the volume of household work.
A Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) survey revealed that around 39 per cent of women lost their jobs during the ongoing pandemic due to several reasons, including an increasing demand for unpaid domestic work put on them by their families.
The way forward: It is argued that most people who are time-poor are also income-starved and suffer from multiple deprivations. Therefore, the strong message emerging is that policymakers and employers need to act fast to reduce “time poverty” among women and push for greater gender equality in the labour market. This includes reducing the gender imbalance at work through better recognition, plus rebalancing unpaid work and closing the gender gap in digital inclusion. This is especially important as remote work or work from home have become more prominent during the pandemic.
This flexibility of work allows women to combine their domestic duties and employment responsibilities seamlessly. Furthermore, such flexibility needs to be extended not only to women, but also to men to facilitate their contribution in the unpaid domestic work. More efforts are needed in this direction by engaging citizens and launching public campaigns to promote equitable distribution of care and domestic chores between men and women.
Since the pandemic, the Government of India has introduced many relief packages and schemes to get the economy and livelihoods of people back on track. India’s economic recovery must lead to a more equal world that is more resilient to future crises. Fiscal stimulus packages and emergency measures to address public health gaps have been put in place by the Centre to mitigate the negative effects of the pandemic. It is vital that the national response places the inclusion of women, their representation, rights and economic outcomes at the centre if it is to have the necessary impact. But more than anything else, this gender gap at the workplace can only be closed by changing mindsets.
(Nidhi is Director at The Vision, Delhi and Balwant is Senior Faculty at IHD, Delhi)
Govt approves hotspots across cities and towns but there are concerns about security and data thefts
Accessing Wi-Fi anywhere in the country is expected to be an easy click with the Government giving permission to set up lakhs of public hotspots across the country. The plan includes remote areas and high-density areas in cities. Not only that, information consumption is expected to be easily snackable as connecting to a hotspot has been envisaged to be as easy as opening an app on your smartphone. The network is fairly open as anyone — be it a private individual in a residential area (with a commercial broadband connection), the neighbourhood shop or the vendor — can provide the facility. The Public Wi-Fi Access Network Interface (WANI) has been conceived to be as revolutionary as the PCO movement of the 1990s that enabled millions of Indians to make phone calls easily and at virtually no cost. The idea of setting up public Wi-Fi hotspots was recommended by the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) a few years ago to boost digital connectivity and encourage self-employment. Of course, data management is a humongous task and the Government has set up a tiered system, with Public Data Office Aggregators (PDOAs) at the top, who will then enlist the Public Data Offices or PDOs (operators). No licence fee will be required for providing broadband internet through public networks.
However, with so much data floating around and being easily accessible, there are undoubtedly questions about security risks, particularly in a country like India, which has millions of internet users. The multi-layered architecture that has been conceived by the Government is intended to filter such cyber threats and misuse of personal information but it is still leaky. Besides telecom companies see no business sense in public Wi-Fi, given the low data rates and security concerns. As it is, social media platforms have been wildly manipulated in this country by vested interests, and increased access to the internet does come with its attendant risks of data-mining and identity thefts. Of course, pandemic-appropriate behaviour now demands that there be increased digitisation and the Government has jumped at the opportunity to consolidate this space. India will soon have 700 million broadband users, which will only swell in years to come. Done with good intentions but is it practical to implement, considering connectivity continues to be denied to Kashmir on grounds of security threats?
The PM may have dedicated paeans to the concept while laying the foundation stone for a new Parliament but is his Govt honouring it?
Will a robust Parliament building, in keeping with the needs of the 21st century, also nurture the right spirit of the institution of democracy? Prime Minister Narendra Modi, while laying the foundation stone of a new Parliament building, sounded the right notes, saying the structure would be an amalgamation of the old and new. He consciously threaded the theme of continuity with the past, saying democracy had been inspired by our history, that it was our soul and that it “won’t be long before the world would say that India is the Mother of Democracy.” On the face of it, one could interpret the Prime Minister’s hyperbolic speech as well-meant but given the crackdown on dissent during his tenure, one cannot help but wonder if his speech was meant to obviate that criticism. Particularly when voices in the establishment have not exactly been supportive of the participatory and accommodative nature of democracy. Or respected the right to dissent, most often equating it with anti-nationalism. Just the other day Union Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad had to step in to neutralise Niti Aayog CEO Amitabh Kant’s observation about the perils of “too much democracy.” At a webinar, the senior official had said it was “tough” to push reforms in India because “we are too much of a democracy,” sounding unfortunately like Chinese observers, who believe that democracy in India is prohibitive. The import of Kant’s remarks was not lost considering the Government is besieged by farmers agitating over new laws that were pushed down their throats, ignoring consultative processes between stakeholders. The farmers are not so much against market economics as they are upset by the lack of explainers on how it would disadvantage them or not vis-a-vis the big food corporations and whether they would have price guarantees, considering the minimum support price (MSP) itself is unremunerative at the moment and would be impacted by open market operations. While the farm laws address the need for structural reform in the agriculture sector, in a pandemic-stressed economy, all that the farmers really want is that while fighting debts, they should not be cheated out or exploited further. Nobody is expecting the Government to be welfarist all the time but everybody is certainly expecting to trust it on its word. That has not happened. The Government could have empathetically hand-held them through the change rather than attributing destructive motives to them or demonising them.
The less said about the way the farm laws were pushed in Parliament the better. There was no all-party meeting or even talks with the farmers’ representatives. If the passing of the farm Bills by voice vote was any indication, then the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) has already become over-confident about subverting parliamentary fairplay and justifying its authoritative weight. Worse, it has even made Parliament a tool in its exercise of power, trampling any opposing view as redundant, even if well-argued. Controversial Bills in this country have always been open for discussion in the House, often moved to relevant parliamentary committees for careful perusal and closing deficiencies. But the use of a voice vote — which is nothing more than a shouting match of who gets heard louder and which is used to pass Bills that are consensual — in pushing the farm Bills changed all that. Though the Bills split the House down the middle, a “friendly” Chair ensured that the voice vote could be resorted to. The Government has enough numbers in the Lok Sabha to override dialogue and even if outnumbered in the Rajya Sabha, it knows it can hijack debate by provoking the Opposition enough and use a voice vote in the resultant din. Or simply take advantage of the latter’s boycott. Clearly, cooption is becoming more the rule than the exception. The dilution of Question Hour during the last Parliament session was another example of the Government limiting the scope for deliberation. It is the only time that allows the Opposition equal standing and allows it to keep a check and balance on the executive. Even Treasury Bench MPs can ask questions of a Minister for better clarity on policies. Dropping it means reducing the relevance of the MP. Just for comparison, the House of Commons even has a dedicated slot for “Prime Minister’s Questions”, where the Prime Minister personally answers or explains his Government’s functioning. That is unlikely here. How does all this mean “too much democracy” is, therefore, difficult to understand. Particularly, when the Prime Minister highlights the importance of every decision made in the august portals of Parliament as a building block of democracy. Besides monolithic power has not always guaranteed reforms. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime before 2014 did manage to push economic reforms and achieve growth indices despite the pulls and pressures of a coalition. The Government should in no way give credence to the theory that democracy decelerates progressive action or is anti-reformist. If anything it is an enabler. And it is only when its value gets eroded that people protest. That’s their last option to be counted and heard. Had the Government talked to all protesters with an open mind, listened to them and not made them believe that its last word was non-negotiable, protests and demonstrations would not have assumed the proportions they have. But perhaps the Government wants a polarity to justify its muscularity. And though it may believe that protesters are being misled by vested interests, the fact is it is disrespecting democracy by assuming that they can’t have a thinking mind of their own.
People are looking towards India to play a great role in peace, tranquility and cohesion. Every learner must internalise the strength of Indian culture and its inherent universality
At the mid-point of the 20th century, “growth, progress and development” emerged as the key drivers of policy formulations in most developing countries. Developed countries were too keen to offer “ideas, strategies and experts” in such initiatives, mostly for reasons that were no secret to anyone. All of this resulted in the Western psyche being sustained in the former colonies, clandestinely suppressing the emergence of ideas, imagination and endeavour that was rooted to the soil and tradition of knowledge quest in each of these nations. The only encouraging sign is the realisation of this quiet intrusion. So there is an emergence of initiatives that are “rooted to culture and committed to progress.” The most illustrative example is the formulation of the National Policy of Education (NEP), 2020.
In 1937, India had already prepared a well thought out plan on foundational learning or Buniyadi Talim. Proposed by Mahatma Gandhi, it was meant to replace the transplanted alien system. It preferred continuity. Its focus on drawing the best out of body, mind and spirit clearly links it to Indian culture and heritage and simultaneously takes note of international requirements and aspirations to ensure that young Indians are not deficient in any context. It is evident in the NEP that next generations have to play a far greater role not only within India but also on the global stage. People are looking towards India to play a great role in humanity’s march towards a world of peace, tranquility and cohesion. Towards this end, every learner must comprehend and internalise the strength of Indian culture and its inherent nature of universality.
The 17 Sustainable Development Goals or SDG-17 are the global expression of common concerns being faced by humanity. To be achieved by 2030, these include education as SDG-4, which aims to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.” One of the most challenging and an ambitious goal is the Target 4.7: “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for sustainable development and sustainable lifestyles, human rights, gender equality, promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity and of culture’s contribution to sustainable development.” To achieve this target, and every other contained in SDG-17, India, too, needs an education that acculturates. Even a cursory perusal of the NEP, 2020, would indicate that it comprehensively embraces all of these aspects and has persistent emphasis on acculturating its learners. It begins a with a comprehensive statement of the eternal goal of education and learning: “Education is fundamental for achieving full potential, developing an equitable and just society, and promoting national development.” This policy very clearly acknowledges the emerging role of India on the global stage and, at the same time, recognises the need to transform the existing systems of teaching and learning to ensure that it consistently, and in a dynamic manner, derives its nourishment and enrichment from the very soil of this land. Culture is a dynamic entity and only such cultures, which did not discard the assimilations necessitated by the changing times, have survived. It was very suitably stated by MK Gandhi in Harijan of May 9, 1936: “The Indian culture of our times is in the making. Many of us are striving to produce a blend of all the cultures, which seems today in clash with one another. No culture can live, if it attempts to be exclusive.” Accordingly, he had all the respect for European and Western culture, which was suitable in that context but was fully convinced that copying it would be ruinous to India. It would be interesting how Gandhi could foresee the future and write in 1931 that: “I make bold to say that Europeans themselves will have to remodel their outlook if they are not to perish under the weight of the comforts to which they are becoming slaves.”
Unfortunately, the glamour and glitz of materialistic pursuits gradually took precedence over spiritual quest and have landed the entire humanity in a badly wounded man-nature relationship. India’s destiny lies in its traditional ways of respect for nature, life and its acceptance of every conceivable diversity created by nature, Ekam Sat Viprah Bahudha Vadantih – Truth is one. In such a philosophical comprehension, there could be no place for disrespect to any culture, religion or faith. It was realised by luminaries who could take an unbiased and objective view on India, its culture and the tradition of knowledge quest. Great historian Arnold Toynbee is often quoted for having said that a chapter which had a Western beginning will have to have an Indian ending. This, he found, was necessary to prevent the self-destruction of the human race. Could there be a greater tribute to India and its heritage? Does it not astonish us that now scientists are calculating how long the planet Earth would survive? India has to write the chapter that would bring back the culture of acceptance of and respect for diversity, a tradition it has practised over thousands of years. When Mahatma Gandhi wrote that nature has sufficient resources to meet the need of everyone but not the greed of any one, he was echoing he eternal value of aparigrah or non-accumulation. Now the responsibility of India is to realise its global obligation to revive its own culture, live it and let the world learn from it.
Developments in science and technology have reduced physical distances and provided instantaneous global connectivity up to the last man in the line. So demographic variations became inevitable. Poverty, hunger, violence and terrorism have accentuated human migration. When people move in large numbers, they carry with them their religion, language, culture, traditions and practices. It has deep implications for mutual acceptance of diversity in every aspect of human life. These could lead to widespread differences and even to sporadic violent clashes. What happened recently – as well as in the past – in France is only one of such instances that indicate the gravity of the concern.
Things are particularly tough for nations which had the experience of one culture, one language and one religion. Over the last three decades, it is globally recognised that one of the most prominent challenges before humanity is “learning to live together.” The uninitiated are often amazed to witness the continuity of the Indian tradition of acceptance of diversity – particularly of faiths and religions – and tradition of mutual respect that existed all along, unless it was deliberately distorted and disturbed by external elements. Is it possible to ignore how Emperor Asoka transformed after the Kalinga War and consequent massacre and his acceptance of Buddhism? But it did not impact his reverence for other religions. His rock edicts clearly indicate the importance he attached to the “advancement of the essential doctrine of all sects.” His twelfth rock edict contains an eternal message that is universally applicable even today: “This progress of the essential doctrine takes many forms, but its basis is the control of one’s speech so as not to extol one’s own sect or disparage another’s on unsuitable occasions, or at least to do so mildly on certain occasions. On each occasion one should honour another man’s sect, for by doing so, one increases the influence of one’s own sect and benefits that of the other man’s, while by doing otherwise, one diminishes the influence of one’s own sect and harms the other man’s.” It’s very clear – if any clarity is needed – that Indians had learnt much ahead of others “to live together.”
At this juncture, human existence is at stake. There are several well-delineated factors – consequences of human follies – responsible for our sufferings. It must be acknowledged and accepted that misinterpreted religion is the easiest refuge of the rogue elements to create dissension. As the inheritors of the legacy of luminaries like Asoka, is it not obligatory on the part of India and Indians to practise this legacy?
The answer is simple. Each generation has to acquire, internalise and find its own “self-fulfillment” by “living up to its fundamental values afresh.” In his illustrious essay, Significance and Vitality of Culture, K.M. Munshi refers to this recapturing of the values of culture by each generation by a “subtle process of reinterpretation, reintegration and adaptation.” In his words, “When the culture is living, the promising young man and woman of the generation receive the impact of its fundamental values. The sensitive and the vigorous among them become each a human laboratory, which purifies the fundamental values relating them afresh to the central idea; stimulates them to meet the needs of the times; reintegrates the subsidiary values with fresh vigour of the new interpretation and shapes the traditions and institutions not only without impairing he strength of the collective will, but by giving it a new edge.” This articulates the challenges before the individual, family, society, education and institutions. They – and hence India – must rise to the occasion.
(The author works in education and social cohesion)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month