India is insisting only on e-visas for Afghans who wish to travel abroad to flee the Taliban
The Government has decided to issue only e-visas to Afghan nationals wanting to evacuate to India. This is to prevent mercenaries and terrorists using the chaotic conditions at the Kabul airport to slip into India or any other country as evacuees. For good measure, the Union Home Ministry has also invalidated all visas issued to Afghan nations currently not in India. That resulted in a woman member of the Afghan Parliament being deported from New Delhi where she had landed from Istanbul. The Government move is necessary and comes after reports that an agency in Kabul was attacked and a bunch of Afghan passports with stamped Indian visas taken away. With all visas now invalid, Afghans will have to apply for e-visas for travelling to India. The Indian Government’s decision is a practical one, considering that global intelligence agencies, including from the US and the UK, have already alerted their Governments about plans by the Afghanistan-based terror groups to use the opportunity of a hurried evacuation from Kabul to slip in insurgents, fighters, terrorists and sleeper cell members to various countries for future use. The alarm was originally raised by the Pentagon in the United States that terrorists may have successfully infiltrated the thousands of evacuees from Kabul and some of them may have boarded aircraft for Europe, the US and other countries. Even President Joe Biden on Sunday warned that “terrorists may seek to exploit the situation”.
The western media is reporting that close to 100 evacuees could be on intelligence watchlists as persons of interest or persons suspected of links with terror groups like the IS. American and European evacuation flights have begun to stop at the military bases in the Middle East or specific European airports for extensive intelligence checks on the evacuees. The screenings proved successful a few days ago when an evacuee was detained at an airport on the suspicion that he is linked to the Islamic State of Afghanistan. The western media, based on Pentagon briefings, is claiming that nearly 100 evacuees could be on intelligence watchlists as suspected terrorists, with possible ties to the ISIS terrorist group. The British also found six people deemed a “direct threat” to the UK among the evacuees. All these countries now insist on Special Immigrant Visas available only online for those flying out of Kabul. In India’s case, the extra caution is more than warranted. In recent times, it has become difficult for trained fighters of mercenary groups or Islamist terror groups to cross over into India to carry out destabilising and violence acts. Security along the borders in Kashmir, Gujarat and Rajasthan has been tightened and modernised. The recent incidents of drone attacks in Jammu have led to a heightened state of alert. The reports of growing instability in Afghanistan in the last few months have alerted intelligence agencies to be prepared for terrorists entering India in the garb of Afghans fleeing the Taliban.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
With the Supreme Court allowing women to take the NDA exam, their induction gets closer to reality and will add value to the military
On August 18, 2021, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices SK Kaul and Hrishikesh Mukherjee passed an interim order allowing women candidates to sit for the National Defence Academy (NDA) entrance exam to be held in the first week of September. They further stated that the “policy decision to bar women from admission to the NDA is based on gender discrimination”. This ruling follows the earlier one by the Bench of Justices Chandrachud and Rastogi directing the Government to ensure women Short Service Officers are given permanent commissions in Army, including command postings.
Indeed, while women constitute 48 per cent of our population, their representation in the military is just 0.56 per cent, 1.06 per cent and 6.5 per cent in the Army, Air Force and Navy, respectively. It clearly reflects a patriarchal mindset which, by any standards, is unacceptable in this day and age in a democracy such as ours. In fact, it makes little sense to restrict women’s entry mainly to the officer cadre and must indeed be extended to cover Personnel Below Officer Ranks (PBOR) as well.
While the Supreme Court must be commended for its progressive approach, one hopes that our lordships’ approach towards the issue spills over to the judiciary as well. After all, it is indeed reprehensible that even after seven decades of Independence, a mere three per cent of our judges in the Supreme Court have been women and we are unlikely to see our first woman Chief Justice till the latter part of this decade, if at all.
Over the past few decades, given that we live in a nuclear armed neighbourhood, the very nature of warfare has undergone a transformation and conflicts rarely cross the threshold into a no-holds-barred conventional war. In such an environment, “Grey Zone” tactics or “Hybrid Warfare” is the norm, creating its own set of complications and challenges. Countering these tactics requires a nuanced approach, which is where gender diversity within the military will give additional flexibility and options to surmount the challenges it faces, especially in large urban settings.
It is a rather sorry reflection on the state of the military leadership, especially of the Army, that continues to remain hidebound and conservative. Its emphasis has been on stalling women’s entry into its ranks instead of concentrating on formulating a viable HRD strategy that allows their induction to add value to the organisation. If they had been proactive, they would not have found themselves in this difficult position, browbeaten into adopting shortsighted ad hoc measures that will have serious repercussions.
The Army leadership has aggravated the problem by diluting standards that women candidates have to meet to successfully graduate from the Officers Training Academy. As former military veteran and colleague Shivaji Ranjan Ghosh writes in a viral social media post: “There are no gender-neutral battlefields.” He adds: “The battlefield is an unforgiving place. It does not understand decency and civilised behaviour, and it does not give consideration to physical or physiological differences. Mountains do not get any less steep, nor does the enemy stop firing because the adversary is not a male like him. Simply because the female soldier underwent diluted standards of physical fitness does not give her the right to slow down her comrades nor compromise their safety because she cannot keep pace with them. It does not give her the right to seek privileges or special dispensations on account of her gender, because she has already demanded and been given equality when she demanded her right to enter the battlefield.”
This is a reflection of the true state of affairs and not an attempt to belittle women or cast doubts on their courage or capabilities. Throughout our history, there have been innumerable women who have shown courage, resolve and leadership in equal measure. The exploits of Rani Abbaka Chowta of Ullal, who defeated the Portuguese in three major battles before being vanquished, along with the legendary Rani Lakshmibai of Jhansi, Rani Rudramma Devi of Warangal, Rani Chenamma of Kittur and hundreds of women who served in the Rani of Jhansi Regiment of the Azad Hind Fauj (INA) come to mind.
The Army leadership now faces a couple of stark choices. If women are to form an integral part of the organisation with similar career prospects as available to men, including command of units, then all personnel must be judged from their training onwards by universally applicable criteria with regard to physical standards and service profile, regardless of gender. It then does not matter which training establishment they have graduated from, be it the NDA, IMA or the OTA.
If it is not found to be feasible, then it may be appropriate to raise a women’s corps on the lines of the Rani of Jhansi Regiment or the Military Nursing Service, which will have its command, staff and supervisory appointments held by women from within their cadre. Their utilisation, whether in combat, combat support, logistics or administrative role will have to be specifically identified along with career progression avenues, as well as opportunities to be selected for the “General Cadre”, if deemed suitable. One thing is clear, status quo is not an option.
(The writer is a military veteran, who is a Visiting Fellow with the Observer Research Foundation and Senior Visiting Fellow with The Peninsula Foundation, Chennai. The views expressed are personal.)
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
The bottom line is: If you are not gender responsive, you are definitely gender oppressive
Simplistically, by virtue of the decree of Restitution of Conjugal Rights (RCR), a civil court has the power to compel a recalcitrant partner to cohabit with their spouse, without their consent. But this provision of the Hindu Marriage Act is more than just morally displeasing. It is a contradiction in terms of the strides India has made in its pursuit of gender justice.
Looking at the wording of the provision, I realise that the one thread that links this colonial-era law with the present is that gender remains a post-facto thought for our legislators and the State. Until we mainstream gender into the design of things, we cannot sufficiently rectify the current gender inequity.
The pro-RCR argument is that it is a legal remedy available to both aggrieved spouses and is in fact gender-neutral. Today, as we stand at the cusp of a new decade, it is imperative we emphasise that anything within the spectrum of gender justice must necessarily be gender-responsive. Time and again our courts have decreed that RCR is an obsolete provision of our personal laws that are violative of citizens’ fundamental rights.
The Justice K. S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India judgment delineates the right to engage in sexual intercourse as an intrinsic part of the right to privacy. As a result, we are equipped to deduce that privacy is inexplicably intertwined with the right to bodily integrity, self-determination and sexual autonomy. And yet a decree of RCR infringes on all the aforementioned rights. If our ideal of privacy is the benchmark of individual autonomy that recognises the ability of an individual to control vital aspects of her life, vesting such a power in the hands of the State is meaningless. It then follows that privacy is a privilege forbidden for women considering how often they are coerced to cohabit with abusive and toxic husbands. This raises enough need to abolish it completely.
The selective use of ‘discretion’ by the State (in drafting) and the courts
(in decreeing) an RCR, is in direct contrast to the voice and choice framework. The reason I say the State is adopting a “pick and choose” policy concerning the institution of marriage is with reference to section 375 of the Indian Penal Code that offers a blanket of impunity to husbands perpetuating marital rape. We must reacquaint ourselves with an imperative for the State to not defend patriarchy. Our right to life dwells on the right to live with dignity and liberty to choose for ourselves. But far more important than this jurisprudential thematic is the freedom to exercise this right in the face of forced co-habitation in a patrilocal setup. It is important we view marriage by placing it in the ecosystem of socio-cultural patriarchy that operates all around us, often nearly indistinguishable and invisible. What, if any, is the role of the State in a marriage between two consenting adults? The Indian constitution, as per Article 38, recognizes the Government as a welfare State to the best of any jurisprudential extent. With the State constitutionally empowered to limit itself as a democratic country with a socialist vision, the legislative shift we are asking for requires a paradigm shift in the current jurisprudential discourse.
Gender-responsive and gender-neutral are two parts of the spectrum of change. I have often made the argument for why patriarchy is not to be mistaken as an island notion floating into oblivion; it is in fact the oldest surviving institution in the world, and any rattling of this institution is bound to create friction. The bottom line is - if you are not gender-responsive, you are definitely gender oppressive. But we must realize that there is no questioning patriarchy till the time we challenge the very institution of marriage, one that is based on a patrilocal system. Culture, cleverly cited in resistance to the empowerment of women and conveniently tailored to rule a woman's life since eternity, lingers as that one brushed aside aspect in all dialogue concerning women. While we actively encourage discourse on gender mainstreaming, culture should be brought to the forefront of our conversation as a means to channel the advancement of gender equality. And with reference to this instance, we must understand that culture and personal laws are in abject contrast to a progressive discourse on gender-responsive laws. Let me conclude by quoting Indian economist Devaki Jain, “this is a conversation we must have with caution, as culture may clash with the universality in women’s human rights, a battle that is hard-won”.
(The writer is a senior journalist. The views expressed are personal.)
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
The Taliban exploit Afghan farmers' distress to their end the quick rise to power of the Taliban, the most feared and
globally loathed mercenary force, in Afghanistan had the unlikeliest ally - climate change. Climate change combined with political and social unrest is increasingly becoming a deciding factor in that nation’s future. Rural Afghanistan has been at the receiving end of climate change as the past three decades have brought drought and floods alternately, causing massive crop failures. The Taliban cultivated the pain of the people with the promise of prosperity which promptly resulted in the swelling of ranks of the mercenary group. The worsening agricultural conditions in Afghanistan are not a sudden development. A joint study by World Food Program, the UN Environment Program (UNEP) and Afghanistan's National Environment Protection Agency revealed that 80 per cent of the nation’s disputes and unrest were linked to natural resources or calamities. Sixty per cent of Afghans are dependent on agriculture. As the nation’s agriculture approached terminal failure, climate change conditions became worse. The 2019 Germanwatch Global Climate Risk Index put Afghanistan in 6th position globally as a country most impacted by climate change. At the core of the problem is the farmer whose crops ravaged by sudden floods and drought struggles to survive by borrowing funds to a keep productive farm and healthy livestock. But when the farmer is unable to pay off the debt, the Taliban steps in and capitalizes on the agricultural stress, by sowing seeds of dissension against the Government and offering lucrative bailout packages to the farmers in exchange for their participation in the armed campaigns of the mercenary group. Faced with an offer of $5 to $10 per day, the farmers capitulate and join the Taliban for speedy financial gains. This has become worse after Taliban began inducing the farmers to grow poppy seeds which is a part of lucrative opium trade. This is an unfortunate example of how climate change can become an asset for terrorism and a curse for genuine hard-working farmers.
The instance of terror groups leveraging consequences of climate change for realizing their violent agenda is not limited to Afghanistan. Boko Haram gripped water-scarce Central Africa in 2017 and gained footholds along the Lake Chad Basin. Similarly, ISIS has taken advantage of agrarian communities suffering from extreme drought in Iraq and Syria. Had these regions somehow succeeded in keeping the impacts of climate change at bay, they would have never fell victim to the vagaries posed by the terror groups. However, this is easier said than done as multiple factors, both socio-economic and environmental, are at play in these impoverished regions where political instability and resultant violence are the order of the day. The reality of terror partnering with climate change must not be taken lightly by India as well which is facing the malicious teaming up of Pakistan and China whose disruptive actions will only be strengthened by the arrival of Taliban. The failing monsoons and extreme weather events are already wreaking havoc on the farming community and dependent sectors. The people are already debt-ridden and frustrated which extremist groups operating from across the border must not be allowed to exploit. To avoid providing extremists a “climate change foothold” India must focus on reducing the impacts of environmental deterioration on key economic sectors by providing immediate relief on the one hand, and enabling greater climate change adaption strategies on the other. By itself climate change is enough to create untold miseries for humanity. The addition of a terror angle can spell disaster to say the least. The world in general, and India in particular, must make all possible efforts to stop this partnership dead in its tracks.
(The writer is an environmental journalist. The views expressed are personal.)
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Currently, Kalyan Singh's ‘Mandal-Kamandal’ image can come to the BJP’s rescue once again when the backwards are politically in demand in UP
The BJP leaders bid a tearful adieu to Kalyan Singh, the former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh who was projected as the Hindu mascot by the saffron party during the Ram Janmabhoomi campaign. From Prime Minister Narendra Modi to Union Home Minister Amit Shah and from Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh to National BJP president J P Nadda, all flew down to Lucknow or Aligarh pay their last respects to Kalyan Singh. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath accompanied the mortal remains of Kalyan Singh to Aligarh and even went to Narora where the last rites were performed.
Kalyan Singh, the first BJP Chief Minister in UP, deserved the respect. But the way in which senior leaders made a beeline for darshan and news channels beamed the program for three days, BJP has succeeded in sending a subtle message balancing the complex Mandal and Kamandal issues. Caste and religion are bound to play an important role in the coming assembly elections in Uttar Pradesh.
Probably, this was the reason as why Samajwadi Party leaders stayed away from paying tributes to Kalyan Singh as there was a fear that this might antagonize Muslims and harm SP in assembly elections. It is no secret that Kalyan Singh had blow-hot-blow-cold relations with BJP. Twice he left the party and once he even joined hands with Mulayam Singh Yadav. In 2003, when Mulayam Singh Yadav became Chief Minister, Kalyan Singh’s son Rajveer Singh became Health Minister in his Government and continued to hold the post till 2007. In this scenario, Akhilesh and Mulayam skipping Kalyan’s funeral raised many eyebrows. Though Akhilesh has condoled the death through a tweet calling Kalyan Singh a great administrator.
BJP state president Swatantra Dev Singh took a dig at Akhilesh Yadav when he tweeted: “…. Whether love for Muslim votes prevented Akhilesh from paying homage to the biggest backward caste leader.”
Kalyan Singh, a Lodh, played an instrumental role in balancing Mandal and Kamandal issues. This was in the 80s when BJP’s aggressive Hindutva was challenged by the rising tide of backward caste politics. The onerous task before the BJP was how to propel Hindutva amid rising caste politics. The brilliant answer was Kalyan Singh - the backward caste leader from the Lodh community. His era became the starting point of BJP’s caste calculations and broadening of the Hindutva base across the caste fault lines.
Singh’s emergence gave BJP the leverage to call itself a ‘sarv-hara’ because, with one brilliant stroke, the saffron politics, till then largely seen to be aligned with the Hindu upper castes, was redefined. “For the Sangh and the BJP, which have not mustered much around the caste dynamics, the necessity to counter the rising tide of Mandal politics was making it imperative to look towards their own leaders for an answer to the new challenge. Singh a prominent OBC face was best suited. He was the personified synthesis of Kamandal and Mandal,” said Pranshu Mishra, a political commentator.
In the present-day scenario, Kalyan Singh’s caste and Hindutva image can come to the rescue of BJP once again when the backwards are much in demand politically. It is believed that in the Yogi regime, backwards are feeling alienated. This led to the murmur of even projecting Keshav Prasad Maurya, Deputy Chief Minister in the present political dispensation, as next Chief Minister. In the recent expansion carried out in the Modi cabinet, four out of seven ministers from UP are from backward castes.
In UP politics Yadavs are the dominant backward caste. As it forms the bulwark of Samajwadi Party’s support base, the other political parties are locked in an intense race to woo non-dominant or non-Yadav, other backward castes (OBCs), who constitute about 40 percent of the population. The ruling BJP got a good share of OBC votes in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, 2017 UP Assembly election, and 2019 Lok Sabha polls.
Castes like Sahus, Kashyaps, Sainis, Kushwahas, Mauryas, Shakyas, Pals, Dhangars, Gaderiyas, Kumhars, Nishads, and Mallas are much in demand. The BJP in 2017 had also expanded its reach among OBCs by allying with Om Prakash Rajbhar’s Suheldev Bhartiya Samaj Party (SBSP) and the Nishad Party in 2019. The SBSP, however, broke off ties after the 2019 Lok Sabha elections despite Rajbhar being made a Cabinet minister in the Yogi Government and his son and other supporters given chairmanships of state-run corporations. The break-up with Rajbhar has hit the BJP and therefore it is trying desperately to woo Nishad and other non-dominant OBCs.
The Nirbal Indian Shoshit Hamara Aam Dal (NISHAD) Party’s President Sanjay Nishad has asked for 70 seats and ministerial posts in the coming assembly elections. In the meeting of the party’s national president JP Nadda, Home Minister Amit Shah, state organization general secretary Sunil Bansal along with the state Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath in Delhi last week made it clear that if BJP wants their support it will have to ensure a respectable share in power. The BJP has agreed to give a vacant seat of the nominated quota of the Legislative Council to Sanjay Nishad but is so far non-committal about seat-sharing for the assembly elections.At present Nishad Party does not have a member in either House of legislature. Sanjay Nishad’s son Praveen Nishad is MP from Sant Kabir Nagar.
So, with the death of Kalyan Singh, BJP ensured that the right signal should go among the backwards. That is why on August 22 Prime Minister paid tributes while the next day the Union Home Minister flew down to Aligarh. On both days, Kalyan Singh and BJP remained in the limelight. Secondly, Keshav Prasad Maurya, the PWD minister, proposed that the road leading to Ram Temple in Ayodhya will be called Kalyan Singh Road. He also announced roads in Aligarh, Bulandshahr, and other parts of the state would be named after Kalyan Singh, whose Lodh community has a sizeable presence in over two dozen assembly seats in central and western UP.
Singh rose to power riding the Ram Temple movement of which he was one of the main crusaders. But it is ironic that he wanted to attend the foundation laying ceremony of the Ram temple held on August 5, 2020, but could not do so due to his health problem.
The year 2020 was a landmark year for Kalyan Singh. After Babri Mosque was demolished on December 6, 1992, he resigned taking moral responsibility. Cases were filed against him by the CBI, which was probing the demolition case. A total of 49 cases were filed in 1992 and in the second case FIR number 198 his name along with, LK Advani, Murali Manohar Joshi, and Uma Bharati were named for promoting religious enmity and instigating riots. On September 13,2020, after 28 years, the Special CBI Court in Lucknow acquitted all the 32 accused in the Babri Masjid demolition case including Kalyan Singh.
After the acquittal Kalyan Singh told the waiting media: “Now I can die in peace.”
(The writer is Political Editor, The Pioneer, Lucknow Edition. The views expressed are personal.)
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
How free would women be under Sharia? Are the Taliban speaking in a forked tongue?
Amid emerging but unconfirmed reports that the Taliban have established Sharia law in Afghanistan, there is a great deal of confusion in the minds of people, especially the womenfolk. Grown accustomed to living harmoniously in a democratic set-up in the last two decades, and rather quite liberally in the 1950s, ’60s and early ’70s, an unknown but palpable fear gnaws at their hearts. In the 1950s and 1960s, Afghan women’s rights were on a par with their counterparts in western countries. The 1960s saw women in politics; Anahita Ratebzad was among the first women to enter Parliament in 1965. Afghan women won the right to vote in 1919, just a year after women in the UK. By the 1970s, over 60 per cent of women made up the student population in the Kabul University. There were no restrictions on women’s education, mobility, movement or clothing. Subsequently, tourism picked up as the country was known for its gardens, mountains, architecture and, best of all, friendly locals. However, the era of progress came to an abrupt halt in the 1970s following bloody coups and invasions reversing all steps towards modernisation. Afghans often refer to 1963-1973 as their country’s “Golden Age”.
To be fair to them, though, the Taliban have said women will enjoy all basic rights under Sharia, including “the right to education and work”, but its actual meaning remains ambiguous. The Taliban officials remain vague on rules and restrictions, and how the ‘Islamic law’ will be implemented. They have their own interpretation of the Sharia based on “the Deobandi strand of Hanafi jurisprudence”. In a nutshell, and not erring on the side of caution, life for women in Afghanistan could just be a shade better than during the first Taliban rule (1996-2001), but worse than the liberal rights they have enjoyed in the past 20 years, as also in the preceding decades. Meanwhile, asserting their might, the Taliban have said that Afghan citizens will not be allowed to leave the country any more, and warned Washington to withdraw all troops and contractors before the August 31 deadline. US President Joe Biden has already said at the G7 that he aims to stick to the deadline for withdrawing troops as long as the Taliban do not disrupt ongoing evacuation operations or airport access. Now it remains to be seen which way the wind ultimately blows.
(Courtesy: IANS)
The Govt and vaccine manufacturers are in limbo over inoculating pre-teens and infants
The most difficult task in tackling the Coronavirus pandemic is vaccinating pre-teen children and infants. They are the most vulnerable section of the population after the aged and infirm. The Government’s responsibility is doubled because not only should it prioritise their vaccination, it should also ensure that they return to school as quickly as possible. Children are at home since educational institutions closed down early last year. For most of the time, they are confined to the four walls because of the fear of infection. Online education has benefited very few children overall. It is estimated that only 24 per cent of the children in the country have access to online learning. Over the last one year, many of the idle children may have lost touch with language and mathematics skills because they simply lost touch with schooling. Their parents losing jobs is impacting children negatively as well. In some cases, job loss is causing children to be shifted to Government schools from private ones. In the poorer segments of the society, children face malnutrition for want of a healthy diet. Instances of child labour have increased. The Unicef warns that vulnerable young girls are at an increased risk of child marriages because of job losses, parental deaths and economic deprivation. Schools have cautiously opened in a few States but attendance is far from normal. There is the additional fear among parents of children getting infected if they venture out.
The Covaxin trials on children are going on. The Drugs Controller General has given emergency approval to Zycov-D of Zydus Cadila, the first vaccine that can be administered to children above 12 as well as adults. However, there are reports from Mumbai that parents are not coming forward to enlist their children as volunteers, delaying the trials. Sputnik, just as Pfizer, is also in the child-trial phase. The American vaccine is conducting trials on children in the six months to 11 years age group. There was talk of vaccinations for children beginning in September but there is no clarity on how. The Moderna vaccine has been approved in the US for children in the age group of 12-17. There have been talks about bringing this vaccine to India after conducting trials on children here. Covovax for children is expected to be launched in India early next year. Children in the 12-18 age group may be the priority group for vaccination simply because vaccines for children under 12 will not be available immediately. Health officials calculate that India may need around 20 crore doses for the paediatric population. With the threat of a third phase looming, the Government will have to quickly come up with a phase-wise programme of child vaccination and consider the option of vaccinating in schools. However, the question remains: Should children under 12, who will not get vaccines for some months, be allowed to resume offline schooling until then? Will not the reopening of primary and middle schools increase the chances of infection?
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
Keenly convinced that Hindus and Muslims could not coexist in one country, Jinnah even unleashed ‘Direct Action' in Calcutta in 1946
With Independence Day just gone by, India has entered its 75th year as an independent nation after colonial rule. But as our Prime Minister also declared that August 14 — which is our neighbour Pakistan’s independence day — will be remembered as Partition Horrors Remembrance Day, it is apt to recall Partition. This human tragedy was set in motion by Mohammad Ali Jinnah formally on March 23, 1940, in the Muslim League’s plenum on the eve of passing a resolution to divide India. Excerpts from Jinnah’s speech the previous day make it evident that the Qaide-e-Azam was clear about what he was advocating.
“Muslims are not a minority; we are a nation,” Jinnah claimed. He further said: “Hindus and Muslims are distinct and separate civilisations, deriving their inspiration from different sources of history. They have different epics. Very often, the hero of one is a foe of the other and, likewise, their victories and defeats overlap. To yoke together two such nations under a single State must lead to growing discontent and the final destruction of the fabric. The history of 1,200 years has failed to achieve unity; India was always divided into Hindu India and Muslim India. Therefore, they must have their homeland, their territory and their State.” For Jinnah and his League, this was their inexorable logic.
Jinnah did not stop at mere rhetoric. To convince the British that the two communities could not coexist in one country, he unleashed the “Direct Action” in Calcutta on August 16, 1946. Riots erupted not only in Bengal but spread up to Bhagalpur in Bihar. For a man of the elite, who wore only Saville Row suits, did not wear pyjamas or sherwanis before embracing Muslim politics, couldn’t do a namaz and enjoyed his pork, this was a complete U-turn. The Qaid’s younger brother Ahmed Ali, also my maternal grandfather’s friend (they met frequently), told my grandpa that the brothers were culturally Parsi, and ate and drank what they liked. The elder Jinnah had married a beautiful Parsi girl, Ruttie Petit.
A telling incident narrated by Pran Chopra, later the editor of The Statesman, as a reporter witnessing a Muslim League rally at Jalandhar in the campaigning during the 1945-46 elections reveals how Jinnah was the man of the moment for the country’s Muslims. He could address gatherings only in English; the only other language he knew was his native Gujarati; certainly not Urdu. In the middle of his speech, the call for azaan (Muslim prayer) was sounded. While the crowd trooped off to pray, Jinnah sat down on a chair to smoke a cigar, resuming his speech after the crowd had returned. No one minded. For them, he was the messiah who would deliver them what they ardently wanted — freedom from Hindu domination after the British quit. Cigar smoking and pork gorging were small details that didn’t matter.
Jinnah, the highest paid barrister in the British Empire, was a brilliant courtroom advocate but remained only that. To him, the Muslim League and his Muslim followers were clients; his final fee was a place in the hall of fame in history as the founder of a new country for his community. The Muslim desire for a separate homeland existed before Jinnah, but he was its effective articulator, winning it for them after unleashing violence on Hindus and convincing the British of the imperative for Partition. Jinnah talked to his Muslims only in English as he did with all his clients, except Gujaratis. Unlike Jawaharlal Nehru, Jinnah did not offer the Governor-Generalship to Lord Mountbatten for a year or so, but kept it for himself.
In the minds of the Muslim League leaders, on the eve of Partition, it was clear that all or most Muslims of India’s provinces must relocate to Pakistan. Through 1946 and early 1947, Jinnah and his senior colleagues demanded an exchange of population at Partition. His press appeal was published on November 26, 1946, on the front page of the Dawn which was still being published from Delhi. On December 19 the same year, Raja Ghazanfar Ali Khan stated in the Dawn that the population map of India must change. The League President of Punjab made a statement that such an exchange was good. The other leaders who publicly agreed were Sir Mohammed Ismail of Madras and Syed Ilahi Bux of Sind. They and others were of the view that if Hindus and Muslims could have coexisted, what was the need for Partition? Justice Gopal Das Khosla, ICS, and a member of the Punjab High Court, also held that an exchange of population was an integral part of Partition.
The view wasn’t confined to Jinnah and the leaders of the Muslim League. India’s first President Dr Rajendra Prasad propagated the same in his book, India Divided. He proposed that Muslims in India and Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan unable to migrate should be allowed to stay on with visas issued by New Delhi and Karachi. Qaid-e-Azam MA Jinnah had endorsed his proposal. But the Nehru regime, adamant on hoisting a rootlessness that would later come to be called “secularism”, sold the falsehood that Partition was a ‘territorial’ division and not a religious one, the consequences of which India continues to battle even today.
(The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal.)
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
The capital of the Aztec empire, Tenochtitlan, fell to the invaders after a long siege, and became Mexico City instead
Friday, 13 August, is the 500th anniversary of the Spanish conquest of Mexico. The capital of the Aztec empire, Tenochtitlan, fell to the invaders after a long siege, and became Mexico City instead. It was a major historical event, still mourned by millions and celebrated by millions more five centuries after it happened. But was it actually inevitable?
Laurent Binet doesn’t think so. The French writer’s novel ‘Civilisations’, which started winning prizes as soon as it was published in 2019, has now been translated into English and offers an alternate history in which the Incas and Aztecs conquered Europe. It’s fiction, of course, but it makes you think.
Binet starts 1,000 years ago with the Viking voyages to ‘Vinland’ (Newfoundland), an interesting historical fact that had no known impact on the rest of the world. But in Binet’s version a single band of Vikings sails all the way down the coast and up the Amazon River, finally conquering and intermarrying with a native Amerindian group.
This is the key plot device, because this stray Viking group not only gives the locals the technique for making iron tools and weapons. It also gives the native Americans all the Eurasian quick-killer diseases: smallpox, cholera, influenza, bubonic plague, typhoid, etc.
The first generations of local victims die in swathes, but by 500 years later their descendants have all the same immunities as Europeans. So, when Columbus shows up in the Caribbean in 1492, the local people are as well armed as his crew, they don’t fall ill, and they eat the European explorers for lunch (metaphorically, of course).
Then an exiled Inca ex-monarch in Cuba has his men reverse-engineer Columbus’s ships, builds some of his own, and sets out to Europe to see what he can conquer or steal. There follows a picaresque story in which a band of 300 Inca ‘conquistadors’ first overthrows the King of Spain and then, modestly reinforced by other Inca adventurers, takes over Italy, Germany and the Netherlands as well.
There’s plenty to amuse the casual reader. Francisco Pizarro, conqueror of Peru in fact, becomes the personal fixer of the Inca king Atahualpa, ruler of most of Europe. The Aztecs are horrified by the way that the Christians burn their human sacrifices (the heretics) alive rather than just cutting their hearts out like sensible people do. And so on.
The message seems to be that native Americans, given the opportunity, would have been slightly nicer and more enlightened imperialists than the Europeans who filled that role in the real history. Which may be true, but is not very relevant, since the whole scenario is entirely incredible.
Not much in history is inevitable, but the conquest of the Americas was. It might have been done by the Chinese or the Muslims rather than by the Europeans, but whichever of the older Eurasian civilisations reached the Americas first was bound to supplant the local, younger civilisations.
The problem was the sheer biological vulnerability of ‘New World’ populations to people coming from the ‘Old World’, and Binet’s device of having Greenland Vikings accidentally bestow immunity on the New Worlders 500 years before Columbus just doesn’t work. The then new Greenland settlements were so far from Europe, so small, and so rarely visited that they lacked lasting immunity themselves.
Moreover, their explorations in Newfoundland and around the Gulf of St. Lawrence were undertaken in the hope of finding some valuable resource that they could trade with Iceland and Norway in return for all the things they could not produce themselves.
As soon as the Greenland Vikings found something that filled the bill closer to home – walrus and narwhal ivory from Disko Bay on Greenland’s north-west coast – they shut the Newfoundland base down and stopped sailing westward. The idea that they could ever have reached the Caribbean, let alone the Amazon, is preposterous.
The New World’s population in 1500 was probably around 50 million people, mostly living in the big but relatively new mass civilisations. That population fell by about 90 per cent in the following century. So many farms were abandoned that the global temperature dropped (the ‘Little Ice Age’) as the forests grew back and absorbed enormous amounts of carbon dioxide.
What killed those 45 million missing people? Maybe one million died at the hands of the European invaders, but the vast majority fell victim to the Eurasian quick-killer diseases. If the Chinese had crossed the Pacific and reached the Americas first, the result would have been exactly the same. Those civilisations were doomed.
(Gwynne Dyer’s new book is ‘The Shortest History of War’. The views expressed are personal.)
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
The commitment to democratic values reflects India's pluralistic society and history of harmony
Democratic values and free citizenry bind India and the US together, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said in Delhi at the end of talks with External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar on July 29. The two sides discussed cooperation on a wide range of issues, including Afghanistan, countering Covid-19, the Indo-Pacific strategy, and the Quad. Blinken also met Prime Minister Narendra Modi, National Security Adviser Ajit Doval, members of civil society and a representative of the Dalai Lama.
Modi appreciated US President Joe Biden’s “strong commitment to strengthen the India-US strategic partnership that is anchored in both countries’ shared democratic values and is a force for global good”.
The relationship between the two countries is important because it is a relationship between two democracies. One of the elements that Americans admire most about India is the steadfast commitment of its people to democracy, pluralism, to human rights and fundamental freedoms. Blinken pointed to the free press and independent judiciary as part of the “self-correcting mechanism” that he said could repair challenges to any democracy.
Jaishankar said he had responded to the US concerns on certain issues, making it clear that the “quest” for a more perfect democracy applied to both the US and India. He said the Modi government’s policies “of the last few years” had been done to “right wrongs done historically”, and that while freedoms are important, they should not be “equated with the lack of governance”.
In response to international criticism of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the government’s moves on Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, the External Affairs Minister has in the past referred to the burden of “accumulated problems” of history, and has defended Internet restrictions as required for maintaining law and order.
On Afghanistan, Blinken and Jaishankar agreed that there was no “military solution” to the conflict, and that taking over the country by force would not help the Taliban gain the “international recognition” or “legitimacy” it desires, including the lifting of sanctions and travel bans against the Taliban leadership. In a reference to Pakistan, Jaishankar said one neighbour of Afghanistan was an “exception” to the consensus for a peaceful political settlement. An Afghanistan that did not respect the rights of its people, and an Afghanistan that committed atrocities against its own people would not be part of the global community, Blinken said.
Both the dignitaries also highlighted cooperation in the Indo-Pacific as part of the ‘Quad’ with Japan and Australia, which Blinken said was “not a military alliance” at all. The two sides also spoke about the Quad’s initiative to provide Indian-made vaccines in the Indo-Pacific region.
Unfortunately, China opposed contact between foreign officials and the Dalai Lama after Blinken met a Tibetan Buddhist monk during his India visit. Blinken met Geshe Dorji Damdul, current director of Tibet House in New Delhi, what was seen as a big political message to China. Damdul, the former interpreter of Tibetan spiritual leader Dalai Lama, was a part of a group of civil society leaders who met US Secretary. Damdul is a director of Tibet House, which was founded in 1965 by the Dalai Lama to preserve and disseminate the unique cultural heritage of Tibet
Meanwhile, Blinken after the meeting civil society leaders, including the Tibetan monk, said that US and India share a commitment to democratic values, which is the bedrock of their relationship and reflective of India's pluralistic society and history of harmony. Civil society helps advance these values," Blinken had tweeted.
(The writer is retired Senior Professor, International Trade and Member, Vivekananda International Foundation, New Delhi. The views expressed are personal.)
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
The overarching focus of the Government should be on giving relief to consumers sans subsidy as that will be in sync with fiscal consolidation
From June, 2020, the Union Government stopped depositing LPG subsidy in the accounts of eligible beneficiaries and the position continues till date. Even as the budget for 2021-22 has provided for Rs 14,000 crore under this head (down from Rs 36,000 crore during 2020-21), it is unlikely that any payments will be made during the current year. What has prompted this move? Was it orchestrated earlier but put into effect only now? To understand, let us reflect on some basic facts.
Since January 1, 2015, the Modi–government has been running a scheme for direct benefit transfer of LPG. Nicknamed PAHAL (Pratyaksha Hastaantarit Laabh), under it, three major oil marketing PSUs -- Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited and Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited -- deliver LPG to the target beneficiaries at full cost-based price which is arrived at by adding to the refinery-gate price freight, marketing costs, marketing margin, dealers’ commission and taxes and duties. They follow it up by depositing subsidy – as notified by the Union Government from time to time – in beneficiary accounts and claim reimbursement from the latter.
Even prior to this, the Union Government was giving subsidy on LPG but the manner of administration was different. For comprehension, that period can be bifurcated in two sub-periods -- prior to 2002-03 and between 2002-03 and 2014.
Prior to 2002-03, sale of LPG was subsidized under an administered pricing regime. Under the APR, oil marketing PSUs sold these products at a low price unrelated to the cost of supply which was higher. The shortfall was made up by higher prices charged on sale of products such as naphtha, ATF and fuel oil. This cross-subsidy was managed through the ‘Oil Pool Account’ maintained by the Oil Coordination Committee in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The system was prone to misuse as a lot of low priced products found their way to the market using modus operandi such as fake beneficiaries or diversion of stocks straight from the godowns.
In 2002-03, the then NDA - Government dismantled the APR and along with it the OPA. Yet, it decided to continue subsidy on LPG, diesel and kerosene but on a commitment that money would be paid ‘directly’ from the Budget. The idea was to make these subsidies ‘transparent’ and to eliminate over time. Brushing aside this major reform, in 2004, the UPA-government continued with sale of these products at subsidized price sans any support from the budget.
For funding the subsidy, it resorted to disingenuous means such as ordering upstream oil PSUs such as Oil and Natural Gas Corporation and Oil India Limited to supply crude oil to the refineries of IOCL, BPCL, HPCL at discounted price and issue of oil bonds to the latter. This dispensation continued till 2014-15, in the process, inflicting huge losses on the former (for instance, ONGC gave cumulative discount of over Rs 200,000 crore) besides imposing perpetual burden on the central exchequer towards servicing of oil bonds.
Meanwhile, the government deregulated and abolished subsidy on petrol in June 2010 and diesel in November 2014 whereas in case of LPG, it initiated switched over to DBT in mid–2012, a process that was consummated in January 2015.
After running the scheme for 6 years now if the government is saying good-bye, this was not unexpected. An indication was given in the 2002-03 decision of the then NDA–regime under Vajpayee. A decade later, the Kelkar Committee also recommended removal of 25 per cent of LPG subsidy in 2012-13 and 75 per cent in the following 2 years. As per this road-map, the subsidy should have ended by March 31, 2015; instead, the exit is coming with a delay of 6 years.
At the time of launch (January, 2015), the total number of beneficiary households under the scheme was around 185 million. Since then, about 45 million fake beneficiaries were eliminated, 10 million surrendered under Modi’s “give up” campaign and 15 million rendered ineligible because of annual income > Rs 10 lakh bringing down the total to 115 million. At the same time, about 80 million households (albeit poor) were added taking the total to around 200 million.
To assess whether the Government is justified in withdrawing subsidy, the Economic Survey (2015-16) offers some clues. According to it, only 0.07 per cent of LPG subsidy in rural areas went to the poorest 20 per cent households. In urban areas, the poorest 20 per cent got only 8.2 per cent of subsidies. One does not need any further proof to recognize that in rural areas, the poorest had no access to subsidy at all, whereas in urban, they got a miniscule portion of it.
True, between 2015-16 and 2019-20, there has been significant increase in the share of poor households in the beneficiary basket (savings of about Rs 70,000 crore due to elimination of fake stuff is bonus). Still, the better-off households continue to get a major portion of LPG subsidy. In this backdrop, exit from the scheme makes sense as this will help in getting rid of the non-deserving at one go. As for the poor and deserving, the government can explore some other option to support them.
At present, retailing of petroleum products is monopolized by oil PSUs. Together, they account for about 90 per cent of the total petrol pumps. A major reason behind this is routing of subsidies only through them which puts private firms to a serious disadvantage as without subsidy, they are unable to match the effective price (cost-based price minus subsidy) offered by PSUs. After subsidy is abolished, their disadvantage will go away and there will be increased competition leading to lower price.
Meanwhile, in 2019, the government had dispensed with the requirement of minimum investment of Rs 2,000 crore in oil or gas infrastructure — in hydrocarbon exploration and production, refining, import terminals, and transportation to grant a retail pump license. Henceforth, “the applicant needs to have minimum net-worth of Rs 250 crore and commit to invest in the marketing of at least one new generation alternate fuel such as CNG, LNG, biofuels and open 5 per cent of total outlets in rural areas”.
This was a good move to encourage private players enter the business. However, no less crucial is the need to ensure hassle free access to the supplies and infrastructure for storage, handling and distribution. To achieve this, the government should de-canalize POL imports and hive off the infrastructure to an independent entity which should make it accessible to all players on ‘common carrier’ principle in an ‘equitable’ and ‘non-discriminatory’ manner.
Above all, there is an urgent need to take measures for increasing domestic production of oil and gas (currently, India imports 85 per cent of its crude requirement; 55 per cent in case of LPG) to reduce dependence on import, prevent exploitation in international market and lowering the price to consumers. All POL products including LPG should be brought under GST as this will help in reducing their price.
While steering various measures, the overarching focus of the Government should be on giving relief to consumers sans subsidy as that will be in sync with fiscal consolidation.
(The writer is a policy analyst. The views expressed are personal.)
(Courtesy: The Pioneer)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month