Thoughts on the eve of 147th birth anniversary of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan
Beyond the normal human equation, a metaphysical question arises as to what could be the mission behind the life and career of Mohammad Ali Jinnah. A former correspondent of the Pakistani daily Dawn who was stationed in Delhi, but now has settled in the UK, says: “Partition saved Hinduism”.
We say that without Jinnah, Partition was unlikely to have been possible. There was no other leader amongst the Muslims who could argue or negotiate with the British Viceroys and officials. Jinnah was the only Muslim who could argue and negotiate with the taller Congress leaders like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and Bhulabhai Desai and of course, Jawaharlal Nehru. Nor did any other Muslim Leaguer have an all-India stature. None else had shown acumen in a tactical scheme that could lead to Partition, such as the Direct Action of July-August 1946, which convinced the British as well as the Hindus that an undivided India would be a scabbard with two swords. Little wonder therefore, that Viceroy Mountbatten coming to Delhi was convinced that there was no alternative to Partitioning India before the British departed.
Jinnah was a second-generation Musalman. His grandfather was Poonjabhai Thakkar, a businessman, prominent in Dhoraji, not very far from Rajkot. Yet, as businesses do fluctuate in their fortunes, Poonjabhai’s happened to dip; he diversified into fish trading. This upset his vegetarian Lohana caste. Poonjabhai had no alternative for survival, except to stick to the trading of fish. The friction between the caste and its members led to Poonjabhai’s expulsion from the Lohana fold. On the rebound, Poonjabhai converted to an Ismaili Khoja, a follower of Sir Aga Khan. The post-conversion unease eventually led to the family’s migration to the port city of Karachi. His father Jinahbhai continued in his paternal trade, although he wanted his son to become a chartered accountant from London. Jinnah’s passport read “Mohammad Ali Jinabhai” and began to be known as such among his early acquaintances in London. “Jina” in Gujarati means tiny, and “bhai” means brother. Before long, he realized that accountancy was not his cup of tea. On the suggestion of his ‘dig’ or hostel mates he tried his hand at attending lectures and having dinners at the Lincoln’s Inn of law, which he liked. After he passed the Barrister-at-Law two years later, Jinnah learned that he was too young to be presented with his certificate. He had to wait till he was 21.
The other activity Jinnah pursued was attending sessions of the House of Commons whenever he could and also assisting politicians. He served as a secretary of Dadabhai Naoroji, who became a Liberal Member of Parliament representing the Finsbury constituency from 1892 to 1895. All in all, Jinnah enjoyed life in London and became a brown Englishman before he returned to India. There is little evidence of his having evinced any interest in religion or matters of spirituality. His legal career dazzled as he progressed at the Bombay High Court. Many of his friends were Hindu, and he particularly enjoyed the company of high-class Parsis. His brother Ahmed Ali told his friend and my grandfather Dharamdas Vora that “Culturally we brothers are Parsi. We did not pray nor did we have suitable clothes until Mohammed was made life president of the Muslim League”. Most Muslim Congressmen were members of the League, just as many Hindu Congressmen attended Hindu Mahasabha meetings. Until the Congress’ 1928 plenary session in Calcutta, Jinnah was a secular politician. The manner in which he was booed at the 1928 session left him sour and while leaving Calcutta, he told his friend Dewan Chaman Lal with tears in his eyes, “This is the parting of ways”. From Bombay, Jinnah migrated to London to pursue a full-time legal practice. He was already the highest-paid barrister in all of the British Empire.
While Jinnah led an upper-class life living in his own elegant house at Hampstead, he did miss his politics. In 1934, when Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan came to visit London, he had dinner with Jinnah to propose that the Qaid-e-Azam return to India to head the League and pump life into it.
Having ascertained that he was welcome, Jinnah returned to Bombay in 1935. Thereafter, the new president’s mind was focused on what aim and strategy thereof was needed for the League to be able to make its mark. The well-known Pakistan Resolution was passed in the open session of the League on March 23, 1940. The resolution said that “The Hindus and Muslims are, opposite communities and cannot coexist in the same country. The answer, therefore, was the partition of the country into Hindustan for the Hindus and & Pakistan for Muslims”.
Since Jinnah knew only English and some Gujarati, he addressed mass meetings in English, but yet set out to campaign for Partition. Partition, therefore, ended up becoming an event that was for the name and fame of Jinnah and his place in history as the founder of a nation.
(Prafull Goradia: The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal.)
The story of Congress leader Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu, who took oath as the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh on Sunday, is in consonance with the contemporary anti-elitist narrative. The narrative has gained currency primarily because of the spectacular rise of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, also of humble origins, in the Bharatiya Janata Party. In a way, it is an eternally elevating story—a person without many means reaching the top using their skills and diligence only. ‘A self-made person is admired everywhere. Son of a bus driver, Sukhu sold milk in his earlier days. He eventually got a law degree. Along the way, he got active in student politics at Himachal Pradesh University, rising through the ranks in the Congress-affiliated National Students’ Union of India or NSUI and becoming the president of the student organisation. His elevation to the office of the Himachal Pradesh Youth Congress chief, where he remained for a decade, helped him grow as a state leader. He went on to head the Himachal Pradesh Congress from 2013 to 2019, which is a record. Victory from Nadaun in the Assembly election in 2003, his first, was another important point in the rising graph. Since then, he has won every Assembly election, save that of 2012. He can also boast of executive experience, as he served twice as the chief of the Shimla Municipal Corporation.
In his 40-year political career, Sukhu faced many challenges. As Shimla Municipal Corporation chief, he was often at odds with the late Virbhadra Singh, the party stalwart in the state who served as chief minister six times. His widow, Himachal Pradesh Congress Committee president Pratibha Singh, is still Sukhu’s rival. She reminded everyone after the party victory in the state that Virbhadra’s “legacy” could not be ignored. What was implied that she was the embodiment of that legacy? The Congress leadership, which was earlier worried about the poaching of its MLAs by the BJP, seems to have overcome that fear. It has tried to please all factions in the state’s party unit, with Pratibha Singh becoming its president and Mukesh Agnihotri, Deputy Chief Minister. Agnihotri, the journalist-turned-politician, is said to be a protégé of Virbhadra’s. Congress workers and supporters would hope that his arrangement works smoothly, but the party's top brass cannot afford to be complacent or laid back. It should not forget that a similar arrangement was made in Rajasthan four years ago but it came unstuck; there have been several flare-ups in the desert state, with neither of the two combatants, Chief Minister Ashok Gehlaut and former deputy chief minister Sachin Pilot, willing to yield an inch. While the Congress high command should be vigilant about any dissidence or friction, the newly Himachal Chief Minister will also have to walk a tightrope. He has to keep the interests and sensitivities of his rivals in mind without compromising development. Neither he nor the top Congress leaders would like to have a repeat of the desert storm.
Our Asian neighbour, riding on the might of its economic muscle, doesn’t mind being brazenly expansionist even at the cost of global peace
George Fernandes was perhaps the first Indian politician to call out the Chinese as ‘enemy number one’. It had raised hackles, piqued debate and seen as a tad bit alarmist and premature, as the hyphenated relation with Pakistan was still consuming emotions. However, it didn’t take long for the neologism of Zhongguo shiji or Chinese Century, to confirm George Fernandes’s forewarning. The advent of Xi Jinping as the President of China in 2013 accelerated the portents of an expansionist and authoritarian Dragon that would threaten the peace of established global order.
Back in the United States, the erstwhile Soviet Union was the centrepiece of its military strategy till its implosion with the Revolutions of 1989. A brief run of the US as the solo hegemonic power in the 90s ensued. However, it was the George Bush administration which recognised the emerging realities with the Pacific Ocean emerging as the theatre of tensions and focus of deployment in Cold War 1.0.2, with China having supplanted the Soviet Union/Russia, as the primary enemy. Given the physical distance between the mainland of US and China, constraints of a viable and sustainable ‘long-range power projection’ became inevitable, and therefore the urgency for establishing credible and strategic partnerships in the Indo-Pacific realm. This doctrinal evolution was the progenitor to the strategic conceptualisation of Sino-centric ‘blocs’ like QUAD (Quadrilateral – Japan, India, Australia and US) and AUKUS (Australia, UK and US), as indeed the ‘Pivot to Asia’ policy by the subsequent Obama Administration. Barack Obama was believed to have been sworn into the Oval Office as the ‘first Pacific President’. But it was Donald Trump who transformed the US-China narrative into open hostility – Trump spoke of Chinese expansionism in the geopolitical and geo-economic realm that needed to be checked, bluntly. From personally calling Xi an ‘enemy’, escalating trade wars, threatening Chinese allies like Pakistan and North Korea to even calling the Covid-19 virus as ‘Chinese Virus’, Trump opened the floodgates to China.
Incumbent Joe Biden administration has stayed the course on China and Biden himself described his conversation with Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Group 20 summit at Bali as, ‘very blunt with one another’. Even though it is the traditional cold war nemesis i.e., Russia, which is in a bloody conflict with the US-supported Ukraine, and is doing so in the midst of the earlier imagined theatre of Eastern Europe – US remains firm in holding the strategic view that it is China and not Russia (hence, Indo-Pacific theatre and not the European or the Middle Eastern region) that is going to be the ‘enemy number one’, going forward. Even the recently released 2022 China Military Power Report by the US Defense Department confirms China as, ‘the most consequential and systemic challenge to the US national security and a free and open international system’. It went on to add that Beijing was, ‘the only competitor with the intent, and increasingly, the capacity to shape the international order’. The dragon’s intent is underscored by the fact that despite the crippling financial implications of the Covid pandemic, China has managed to double its nuclear arsenal to 400 from 200 warheads in 2020. Even their ballistic missile testing in 2021 has been more than the sum total testing done by the rest of the world!
Months earlier, the US Defense Department had released the 2022 National Defense Strategy where it had explicitly noted, ‘The most comprehensive and serious challenge to US national security is the PRC's coercive and increasingly aggressive endeavor to refashion the Indo-Pacific region to suit its interests and authoritarian preferences.’ Importantly for India, it had specifically covered the Indian concerns as the conflict on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in the Summer of 2020 was one of the three specifically mentioned regions of concern, ‘a broader pattern of destabilizing and coercive PRC behavior that stretches across the East China Sea, the South China Sea, and along the Line of Actual Control.
Today, the haunting commonality of China underwrites the brewing Indo-US equation, and they feel mutually comfortable and impelled enough to do joint Military Exercise a la Yudh Abhyas (literally, War Practice) in the near vicinity of the exact flashpoints which were wounded in the Indo-Chinese standoff, recently. Even differing responses on Ukraine, Pakistan or even unsettled trade issues between US and India have not stopped Joe Biden from describing India as ‘indispensable partners’ – and the indispensability of the said relationship is essentially cemented and predicated on the perceived threat perception from China. Towards the same, leniency of overlooking Delhi’s legacy purchase of arms and oil from Russia, is par for course. Russia is a pale shadow of its past and China is the proverbial Dragon in the room for both Delhi and Washington DC to tame.
(Courtesy - The Pioneer: The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Puducherry. The views expressed are personal.)
Independent India’s first President stood for values and ideals for our contemporary politicians have little regard, a tribute on his 138th birth anniversary!
The illiterate and casteist political leadership has ruined the future of over 11 crore Biharis. The Bihari pride is severely dented by the few family-centric, feudal political parties claiming to be the champions of social justice. The state produced the legendary Dr Rajendra Prasad, a role model for the political class and common people alike, but alas, few received inspiration from him. Instead, we have seen the most pathetic leadership in the state.
Rajendra Babu was born in a village in Bihar, but his hard work and brilliance overcame the boundaries of his village. He was a brilliant student, getting his legal degree and later a Doctorate in Law from Calcutta University. He was very successful and had a lucrative legal practice at the Calcutta and Patna High Courts. In his own words “I had a very rich background and belonged to a scholarly family.”
He was drawn early into the non-cooperation movement, became a comrade of Mahatma Gandhi, and was imprisoned for a number of years during the freedom movement. He was President of the Indian National Congress in 1934, 1935, and 1939. A devout person, he had great respect for the ethos and traditions of Hinduism.
Rajendra Babu was a fiercely independent and strong-willed leader. It led to clashes with Pt Nehru on several occasions. The differences started even before the birth of the Indian Republic, with the Hindu Code Bill. Bhimrao Ambedkar presented the draft in October 1947 in the Constituent Assembly and Nehru strongly supported the Bill. They wanted this Bill to be part of the Constitution. Under this, a code for all Hindus was to be created. As the President of the Constituent Assembly, Prasad intervened. He believed religion in society is equally important as anything else and wanted to have a Uniform Civil Code for all Indians.
For the first Presidential election, Patel and the Congress party wanted Rajendra Prasad to be the President. Nehru, at that time, favoured the then Governor General Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari to be the first President of the nation. Rajagopalachari had not participated in the Quit India Movement and hence was not popular with the Congress Party cadre. Patel and Prasad had a strong hold on the organisation, even more than Nehru. The Congress chose Rajendra Prasad as the President of India. The Constituent Assembly elected him as the first President of India unanimously.
In yet another disagreement over the then President of India, Prasad, being invited to inaugurate the Somnath temple, Nehru advised the President “against participating in a significant function which unfortunately has a number of implications.” Prasad ignored Nehru’s advice and added, “I would do the same with a mosque or a church if I were invited.”
The first President’s contributions to the freedom movement and the stabilisation of Indian Democracy were immense. He steered the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly sagaciously and helped the unanimous adoption of the Indian Constitution. Prasad established good democratic traditions during the twelve long years he occupied the Rashtrapati Bhavan. He was a simple, elegant, unostentatious person and conducted himself with humility and dignity. Dr. Rajendra Prasad turned out to be perhaps India’s Great President.
The rise of OBC politics caused the decay of Prasad’s vision of a prosperous Bihar. Lalu Yadav, Nitish Kumar, and a host of caste-based leaders have systematically destroyed Prasad’s state. The false promise of development supplemented with social justice fueled the aspirations of backward classes, and merit was sacrificed which led to the total collapse of the system in the state.
Caste politics created several Robin Hoods of different castes in several districts of Bihar, leading to the largest migration seen in recent times from Bihar to other states. Employment opportunities vanished and the Bihari pride had to take shelter outside the range of the hinterland. It is a different matter that a large portion of Bihari has made success in India and even outside India but the pain of leaving the motherland is felt even today.
The golden age of Bihar was led by Shri Krishna Sinha, also known as Shri Babu, the first chief minister of Bihar (1946-61). Along with Prasad, Sinha is also among the 'Architects of Modern Bihar'. He was known as Bihar Kesari for his lion-like roars when he rose to address the masses.
However, in the Hindi heartland, people do not cast their vote but vote for their caste. Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar is no stranger to this brand of politics. Coming from the lineage of Ram Manohar Lohia, he too has once been a flag-bearer of Mandal. A Kurmi by caste, he stands on the second rung of the OBC ladder. During his previous tenure, he worked strenuously towards empowering the lower classes and appealing to socially privileged voters through his Vikas Purush persona.
The Mandal Commission polarised OBCs; they united politically to achieve their rights. It was in this era that Lalu Prasad Yadav turned into a political hero in Bihar. This became the watershed moment for Bihar. According to Lohia, in India, the basic unit of stratification is caste and not the class. This perverted philosophy crippled Bihar society, with caste trumping merit and a comprehensive institutional collapse of the state’s politics, bureaucracy, judiciary and media. The institutions were poisoned by the caste opium. On top of that, the JP Movement destroyed the education system of Bihar. JP targeted universities and colleges; youngsters disregarded education and indulged in reckless, hoodlum politics.
From an empirical perspective, the condition of backward groups, except for a few political families, has not improved. The bureaucracy opened up for those who were not socially privileged or came from humble backgrounds due to their position in the caste hierarchy. However, according to the bureaucratic representation report released in November 2014; the SCs, STs and OBCs account for less than 10 percent of the Central higher bureaucracy.
But things have improved from a psychological perspective in the political sphere. In the first four to five decades after Independence, the backward classes had little say in the system; the Mandal movement changed that at every level—from the local bodies to state Assemblies and Parliament. However, caste-based policies have had an adverse effect on the quality of governance.
With someone from their own community safeguarding their interests, psychological empowerment was achieved to an extent. But the merit in governance became the causality, an epidemic that ruined the state of Bihar permanently. Here it is important to mention that everyone must get the right to prosper in a flourishing democracy, the poorest of the poor must be given an equal platform by the state to compete in a dignified life.
In Prasad’s words, “In attaining our ideals, our means should be as pure as the end.” So the current generation of native Biharis must have taken a tough call—to imbibe the ideals preached by Prasad. The alternatives are non-meritorious, casteist, corrupt, mafia, and selfish leadership. Now is the time for the people living in Bihar to do serious soul searching whether they want to endure the status quo or opt for change. Rajendra Babu’s legacy can be of great help.
Mohan Bhagwat’s definition of a Hindu may not go down well with many
RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat has reiterated that all people living in India were by definition Hindus. He further added that anybody who agrees to sing Sanskrit verses in praise of Bharat Mata and is committed to the preservation of the culture of the land is a Hindu. Bhagwat said this while addressing RSS workers before concluding his four-day tour of Bihar. While his stand is welcome in that he sees Hindus in a larger context and does not limit his definition of a Hindu to a religious identity but on the other hand it is an unnecessary classification that is neither required nor warranted. True, Arabs gave this name to all people residing across Hindukush Mountain and it meant a geopolitical identity rather than a religious one but that time has long gone and now a Hindu is a religious identity, legally. Moreover, calling everyone Hindu without their consent is not a bright idea. Labeling anyone as per your convenience is fraught with dangers. Many religious groups would have reservations about being called Hindu. “Hindu” does not denote Indian and that is a fact. There is a difference between ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hindustani’, ( of course the word Hindustani is now obsolete). And we are not even talking about ‘Hindutva’ which has political connotations.
Besides, even many Hindus would have objections to somebody branding them and giving them a certificate of being a Hindu. There must be millions of people who call themselves Hindus but cannot recite a single verse in Sanskrit so it is utterly insolent to test people for their identity on the basis of your own preconceived notions. Though his statement deserves merit when he says that identities have been made possible because of the Hindu ethos of acceptance. India has been an assimilating culture and its mighty diversity is living proof of it. Categorizing it and labeling it kills every nuance of Indian culture which made India that is Bharat what it is today - a bouquet of different identities, religions, languages, and creeds living as neighbours and working shoulder to shoulder to build a country that has seen some worst periods in history but with its resilience came over it. The contention that those whose ancestors happened to be Hindus is debatable. There may be people who had the same ancestors but now they have branched out as different groups and we should respect their divergences, no matter what.
Courtesy: The Pioneer
Indians' concept of religious tolerance does not necessarily involve mixing religious communities.
For quite some time, opinion makers from different quarters have been asking the Narendra Modi government to scrap the Ministry of Minority Affairs and replace it with a new Ministry of Religious affairs. There is a great deal of justification for such a demand. India is a growing international power, and its identity of India can be secured globally by presenting its culture and religion from a global perspective. The proposed Ministry of Religious affairs could be headed by a practicing spiritual leader to propagate the face of India's spiritual strength.
India has all along respected all religions, but major religious groups see little in common with Hinduism and want to live separately. A learned spiritual leader at the head of the proposed ministry could bridge this gap and integrate the communities together.
In the West, some people could argue that Hinduism is an old-styled religion with huge baggage to reconcile with the contemporary world. Modernity, which emphasises the relegation of religion firmly to an individual's private life, is a challenging idea for any culture. In India, it faces a particularly unusual problem: the persistence of numerous traditional and religious practices means that religion and modernity have to cohabit here in a complex, plural, transient, and historically evolving relationship.
The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) has already passed a resolution seeking an "immediate scrapping of both the Minority Commission and the Minority Affairs Ministry" as the “very idea” of these institutions "gives credence to a separatist mindset."
The resolution noted that “the Jehadis and Missionaries are not the persecuted but the persecutors,” and “with the help of the Minority Commission, separate Ministry, they gather sympathy and carry out their anti-Hindu and anti-national activities." It said that the National Human Rights Commission is "more than enough to take care of the rights of all citizens of the country.”
It contended that “the Minority Commission creates a false feeling that the Muslim and Christian communities are being persecuted,” whereas “the reality is that it is they who are responsible for the persecution of not only Hindus but on other minority communities like the Sikhs and the Buddhists.”
The main functions of the Ministry of Religious Affairs should be:
a) Extending overall co-operation in implementing development activities, providing grants, taking initiatives for resource mobilization, introducing online registration, and utmost use of ICT in religious affairs management;
b) Assisting research and publications in the field of religion, and providing cooperation in the management of charitable institutions;
c) Arranging and participating in international conferences, seminars and dialogues on matters relating to religions and religious affairs and establishing connections and improving relations, and signing contracts, agreements, conventions with different countries and international organizations/ institutions;
d) Conducting various programmes in the religious and educational institutions for social development, conducting research and strengthening anti-terrorism campaigns, religious values, integrity, brotherhood, and communal harmony;
d) Providing grants-in-aid including reforms of different religious organisations and institutions, matters relating to moon sightings and celebration of important religious festivals; and supporting the destitute people for their rehabilitation with financial assistance.
More than 70 years after India became free from colonial rule, Indians generally feel their country has lived up to one of its post-Independence ideals: a society where followers of many religions can live and practice freely. India's massive population is diverse as well as devout. Not only do most of the world's Hindus, Jains and Sikhs live in India, but it also is home to one of the world's largest Muslim populations and to millions of Christians and Buddhists.
Indians see religious tolerance as central to who they are as a nation. Across the major religious groups, most people say it is very important to respect all religions to be “truly Indian.” And tolerance is a religious as well as a civic value: Indians are united in the view that respecting other religions is a very important part of what it means to be a member of their own religious community.
These shared values are accompanied by a number of beliefs that cross religious lines. Not only do a majority of Hindus in India (77%) believe in karma, but an identical percentage of Muslims do, too. A third of Christians in India (32%) - together with 81% of Hindus - say they believe in the purifying power of the Ganges River, a central belief in Hinduism. In Northern India, 12% of Hindus and 10% of Sikhs, along with 37% of Muslims, identify with Sufism, a mystical tradition most closely associated with Islam. And the vast majority of Indians of all major religious backgrounds say that respecting elders is very important to their faith.
Yet, despite sharing certain values and religious beliefs - as well as living in the same country, under the same constitution - members of India's major religious communities often don't feel they have much in common with one another. The majority of Hindus see themselves as very different from Muslims (66%), and most Muslims return the sentiment, saying they are very different from Hindus (64%). There are a few exceptions: Two-thirds of Jains and about half of Sikhs say they have a lot in common with Hindus. But generally, people in major religious communities see themselves as different from others.
Moreover, Indians generally stick to their own religious group when it comes to their friends. Hindus overwhelmingly say that most or all of their close friends are also Hindu. Of course, Hindus make up the majority of the population, and as a result of sheer numbers, may be more likely to interact with fellow Hindus than with people of other religions. But even among Sikhs and Jains, who each form a sliver of the national population, a large majority say their friends come mainly or entirely from their small religious community.
Indians, then, simultaneously express enthusiasm for religious tolerance and a consistent preference for keeping their religious communities in segregated spheres - they live together separately. These two sentiments may seem paradoxical, but for many Indians, they are not. Indeed, many take both positions, saying it is important to be tolerant of others and express a desire to limit personal connections across religious lines. Indians who favor a religiously segregated society also overwhelmingly emphasize religious tolerance as a core value.
In other words, Indians’ concept of religious tolerance does not necessarily involve mixing religious communities. While people in some countries may aspire to create a “melting pot” of different religious identities, many Indians seem to prefer a country more like a patchwork fabric, with clear lines between groups. Most Hindus in India say being Hindu, and being able to speak Hindi are very important to be ‘truly’ Indian.
Against this backdrop, the time has come to scrap the Ministry of Minority of Affairs without any further delay and create a unifying Ministry of Religious affairs.
Reportedly, there are some 50 petitions pending in the country’s courts protesting the demonetization of currency notes that was implemented on November 8, 2016; we just passed its eighth anniversary. Understandably, this move by the Narendra Modi government continues to generate much talk. In all, I have witnessed three demonetizations and therefore feel qualified to comment on the subject. In 1946, the old 1000-rupee note was demonetized. In 1978, high denomination notes were rendered invalid. We are today debating the 2016 decision.
In the pre-Modi era, it was widely believed that approximately 50 per cent of the Indian economy generated in the country could not be tapped at all for purposes of development. The black money had to be spent in less productive activities like land deals, property transactions and what not. Such money had to be spent quickly in order to keep it away from thieves and from income tax vigilance; its mention in any legal document was not possible. The tax-evaded money could neither be legally invested nor safely saved for even one’s children, not to speak of national development. In brief, black was money only for the time being, in contrast to bankable money, which was actual wealth.
What was unusual about Indian black money was that it was reported to be manufactured in our neighbouring countries. For example, superannuated Bihari cows used to have a ready market at fancy prices. West Bengal traders used to buy our toothbrushes readily; more especially if one did not write a bill and accepted cash. In the event the notes paid happened to be jaali (counterfeit) one would had been informed at which shop one could change it back to a valid note. When the thunderbolt of the 2016 demonetization burst upon India, everyone up to the upper middle class was able to change their cash. Those who were hit were the people who had hoarded large sums of black money and could not change their notes. On the morrow of the occasion, many an economist or an intellectual began using the term “informal economy” for the black economy, because it is inappropriate for a respectable person to plead for something illegal.
The result of the action was to get rid of the hoarded cash lying wastefully. However, its greatest service was to interrupt for a long time, if not forever, the printing of Indian currency notes in neighbouring countries. Simultaneously, the smuggling of goods was significantly reduced. Nevertheless, demonetization would have been a fleeting event, had it not been followed by the introduction of the Goods & Services Tax (GST).
I would like to bring in a personal experience in this particular regard. The sale of our toothbrushes increased within a fortnight. It was indeed a welcome surprise. Upon thinking further, we realized that quite a few of our competitors might not have maintained systematic records. Some of them were making brushes by simply sticking nylon into the plastic handles; they had brought these in on a friendly basis from, say, China. The history behind all this was that toothbrush manufacturing was for decades, reserved for the small scale sector. In short, overnight, an informal activity turned into a formal sector one. Apart from sales tax, the additional fear was that the GST website and the income tax department could also monitor how much of what product was being sold by whom.
An incidental but substantial advantage that emerged from the introduction of the GST was the drastic reduction in lorry transport time. Post-GST, an interstate lorry no longer has to stop at every state border. The lorry’s photograph and registration are recorded by CCTV. Earlier, the vehicle had to queue up at the state border to obtain clearance from the state's sales tax authorities. Up to 40 per cent travelling time has thus been saved.
Without the GST, the demonetization move of eight years ago would have been said, a birth without life to follow up. And without demonetization, the GST might have been a life without birth. Yet another advantage of GST has been the abolition of most other indirect taxes, starting from the excise duty. Imagine the expenditure saved to the taxpayer on the one hand and the governments, beginning with the Centre, and ending with the states, small and big. As a guess, at least one-third of India’s lorry time would have been saved. Above all, the tax has taken India towards its goal of one country one tax. Moreover, demonetization has helped India avoid its exploitation by its neighbours. The veteran political analyst and economist S. Gurumurthy has likened the 2016 demonetization to a “financial Pokharan”, i.e., a nuclear strike against not only black money but covert financial war against the nation.
Assuming that in the pre-Modi era, 50 per cent of India’s economy was black; at least half this amount is currently being ploughed back into the economy as white money. In that sense, India’s economy has become 25 per cent larger spontaneously. It is also a necessary step towards making India a more modern economy, which is the first necessary step, if we aspire to make the rupee into a convertible currency.
(Courtesy: The Pioneer - The writer is a well-known columnist, an author and a former member of the Rajya Sabha. The views expressed are personal)
Rahul Gandhi has finally entered the election battle, addressing a rally at Mahuva in Surat district, Gujarat. Even though it’s too late, it may encourage Congress cadres, as its campaign did not have many top leaders, whereas the arch-rival Bharatiya Janata Party is leaving no stone unturned. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union Home Minister Amit Shah are leading the battle. The Aam Aadmi Party is also trying hard, with its chief Arvind Kejriwal and other senior leaders canvassing for votes in the western state. Himachal Pradesh still remains neglected by the Congress top brass. Sonia Gandhi is not there because of health issues. Priyanka Vadra is campaigning but not as much as the state leaders want her to. A few weeks earlier, the BJP’s prospects in the hill state, which is known to change the government every five years, were dim. Apart from anti-incumbency, there is the problem of rebels. A video went viral showing PM Modi beseeching a rebel BJP leader to stand down. BJP detractors were gleeful, saying that the party was so desperate that the PM had to intervene. What they failed to notice was the steadfastness of the BJP: party cadres do get a fillip when they see that the country’s biggest leader is so serious about a state poll.
Compare and contrast this with the GOP top leadership’s approach to the state Assembly elections. The top leader, Rahul Gandhi, remains occupied with his Bharat Jodo Yatra. Then he rakes up an unnecessary controversy, on VD Savarkar, annoying his ally in Maharashtra, the Uddhav Shiv Sena. Soon after, Medha Patkar’s joining the yatra attracts criticism from the BJP. Without naming Rahul and Patkar, Modi attacked the Congress leader, questioning his (Rahul’s) proximity with “those who were against Narmada dam.” It seems that Rahul is trying to build a counter-narrative to that of the BJP’s hyper-nationalist, Hindu-centric one. Hence the name Bharat Jodo, and hence Patkar’s publicised presence at the yatra. The counter-narrative may be the thread that would help his party have some sort of understanding with NGOs and activists, most of whom are Left-leaning. It may be pointed out here that these activists had played a key role in discrediting the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government in 2004, which resulted in the return of the Congress to power after eight years in the wilderness. Therefore, Rahul’s wanderings may have a theme; there may be a long-term plan. But a political party cannot afford to ignore short- and medium-term matters; it must fight elections seriously; good intentions and noble sentiments must never be lost sight of; but realpolitik too cannot be ignored. And it is here that Rahul’s leadership has been lacking. What the country has witnessed in the last nine years is the unstoppable march of the Modi juggernaut and the concomitant diminishing of the Congress. Rahul and other Congress leaders like party president Mallikarjun Kharge must get serious about fighting elections and act accordingly.
Brexit has ushered in a period of political instability in the UK. During the last six years, as prime ministers came and went (David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and now Rishi Sunak), economic programs have been on the back burner and overseas investors on tenterhooks writes Gaurie Dwivedi.
Rishi Sunak, the fifth prime minister in the UK since 2016, has many firsts to his credit: he is the first Asian and first Indian-origin prime minister of the UK. But what remains to be seen is will the youngest PM of the UK become the first leader to arrest the biggest decline of the country since the 1930s. A sea of economic challenges besets the UK, and the task of tackling them is bigger than what many envisage since the problems have been growing for over a decade.
Earlier this week, the Bank of England raised alarm bells when it warned that the UK is likely to slip into a protracted recession. The UK's Central Bank has also cautioned that the economy is performing worse than the US and the Eurozone. Significantly, post-Covid shock all advanced economies have recovered and are now faring better than the UK. The British economy, meanwhile, is showing signs of collapsing under the weight of its systemic problems. The Bank of England also warned that the UK's recession may be its longest and unemployment figures could double in the next two years.
On its part, the Bank of England, like other central banks around the world, is resorting to the only tool in its arsenal: tightening the monetary policy. But it has its own peril. When banks hike rates to tame inflation, growth is adversely impacted. The Bank of England, in a bid to contain record high inflation, hiked interest rates by the biggest percentage since 1989. The aggressive increase has taken the base rate to 3 per cent. This is the highest level since the global financial crisis in 2008.
The rate hike will only compound Sunak’s problems as he tries to shore up confidence for his government, both among the British people and global investors. The sharp rise in rates will hit the poorest 10 percent of households very hard, since this segment spends twice as much of their budget on utilities and food, compared to the richest 10 percent. As per reports, for 8 million people who have fixed-rate mortgages, the rise in annual mortgage payments will kick in once their existing loan contracts expire. On average, this will be to the tune of 3000 pounds in additional pay. For more than 2 million households who are on variable-rate mortgages, the hit will be immediate.
Every politician worth his salt knows that rising mortgages are unpalatable, more so in an economy that is battling record-high inflation and unemployment. And Chancellor Jeremy Hunt acknowledged the pain that lies ahead when he said the rate rise was “going to be very tough for families with mortgages up and down the country.”
As Prime Minister Sunak and Chancellor Hunt work away in their next-door offices, they have just about a fortnight to deliver a statement that will repair trust in the UK economy. Or at least, avoid a political implosion that will make global investors even less wary of investing in the British economy. Sunak’s predecessor lost her job after investors began selling the pound against the dollar. Chancellor Hunt stressed this aspect of his job when he reiterated, “The most important thing the British government can do right now is to restore stability, sort out our public finances, and get debt falling so that interest rate rises are kept as low as possible.”
But rising interest rates will be just one of the many grievances that the MPs will have to address as they head back to their constituencies over the next few days. The economic situation for the average British is set to become tougher.
Both the Prime minister and his finance minister (officially referred to as the Chancellor of Exchequer) are preparing for tax rises and large public spending cuts. These are the textbook replies to international investors who are worried about the UK’s rising debt and its falling currency (which makes debt repayment more costly). But to voters, these are measures that will reinforce the recession and contract an economy that has been in a state of inertia and low growth for over a decade now.
Welfare cuts have become a part of British politics and economics since 2010 when the age of austerity was rushed in. During the tenure of former chancellor George Osborne, except for the National Health Service, schools, and aid spending; all government budgets were slashed. Public sector pay was also frozen and taxes rose. These measures were in line with the publicly declared commitment to lowering the UK's high budget deficit, which was next only to America.
Three years later, though the government came close to achieving its fiscal consolidation target, these measures planted the British economy on a path of consistent underperformance of productivity and real GDP. Long periods of low productivity suck demand out of the system, which in turn stifle investment. In 2015, UK productivity, as measured by GDP per hour worked, was lower than the remaining G7 countries by a whopping 18 percentage points. The same year, David Cameron won a general election that was contested on a promise to further cut public spending. And of course, the following year came Brexit, which was touted as the panacea for all the ills and worries of the British economy and its future. Except that it has not.
Since 2016, the UK's political leadership has been in a state of Brexit-induced flux. And since many of its economic problems predate Brexit, they are now systemic and run deep. The UK's productivity growth, since the financial crisis in 2008, has fallen behind other advanced economies like France, Germany, and the US. This has resulted in median incomes in the UK being lower than its neighbours. This scenario is likely to remain, at least in 2023 when the UK is set to fare worse than all G20 nations, barring Russia. As per the Office of Budget Responsibility, which is the nodal body of Government finances, Brexit would further reduce productivity and UK GDP by a massive 4 percent. These official figures indicate that there is no easy quick fix for Sunak, a passionate Brexitter.
Brexiteers like Johnson and Sunak had claimed that exiting the EU would deliver favourable trade deals for the UK. The UK has indeed signed 71 trade deals since exiting the common trading platform of the EU. But these deals are similar to earlier agreements under the EU. Considering this, it is estimated that the UK's GDP will increase by 0.08 percent by 2035 on the back of its trade pact with Australia. The UK has also signed trade pacts with Japan and New Zealand, but these are likely to yield similar results.
Brexit has ushered in a period of political instability. During the last six years, as prime ministers came and went (David Cameron, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, and now Rishi Sunak), economic programs have been on the back burner, and overseas investors on tenterhooks.
For the Tories, though, stability tantamounts to more cuts. It seems UK’s long-awaited infrastructure schemes like the HS2 high-speed rail line, which has been delayed by nearly 15 years, could be one such casualty to the upcoming tough economic calls by Sunak’s government. As cuts deepen, so will any hope of reviving investments. And as investments dry up, so will the prospect of a long-term change in the UK's economic trajectory.
Osborne’s austerity measures in 2010 came at a time when interest rates were at a record low. And with energy bills under check, the Tories could push through the relentless slashing of public budgets. In 2022, Jeremy Hunt has no such luxury; his austerity drive will have both economic and political ramifications. It may be a quick fix to soothe the frayed nerves of global investors, but it will not be able to bring back growth.
With a general election in two years, Sunak needs to turn around the economy and fortunes of Tories, who are facing record-low popularity figures.
Almost fifty years ago, the UK faced stagflation, a global energy crisis, a current account deficit, and huge labor unrest. It had to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund. It remains to be seen if the UK can avoid a similar outcome now. As the long British winter sets in and the Ukraine crisis shows no signs of ending, the scenario does not seem very far-fetched.
All eyes will be on Hunt’s November 17 statement.
(Courtesy The Pioneer: Gaurie Dwivedi is an author and a senior journalist. She is also faculty at the Department of International Relations,OP Jindal University.)
Xi’s re-election spell trouble for India, world
The National Congress of the Communist Party of China last week re-elected Xi Jinping to lead the country for at least the next five years. The Congress reiterated that after Mao, Xi was the most powerful leader in China’s modern history, even though Xi may like to believe otherwise.
Xi’s vision of China is one that is expansionist, and will not shy away from using military power to make territorial gains. “We have developed well-conceived and complete strategic plans for advancing the cause of the Party and the country in the new era. We have put forward the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and proposed promoting national rejuvenation through a Chinese path to modernisation. We have made well-coordinated efforts to advance our great struggle, our great project, our great cause, and our great dream,” said Xi in his opening speech to the Congress.
What he hinted was using force to, if need be, reclaim territories, that China considers its own. The model for governance in these reclaimed lands would be what it has been evangelising for nearly two decades, One Nation Two systems” (ONTS). The exhibits of the success of ONTS are Hong Kong and Macao, according to China.
To an external observer what this system has achieved is, provided a highly centralised governance model in place in these two regions with the remote control being operated by the mainland government and local autonomy achieved through China-appointed “patriots” in key government positions. Xi warned during the same speech: “We will crack down hard on anti-China elements who attempt to create chaos in Hong Kong and Macao.”
The next step for ONTS is resolving the Taiwan issue which emerged as a key commitment from the Congress meeting and Xi’s re-election. It was amply made clear that China would not shy away from the use of force, if need be, to achieve its stated target of complete reunification and integration of Taiwan with the Mainland. This is the scenario many China watchers had been pointing out in the run-up to President Xi Jinping’s third term.
The parallels they drew are with Russian President Vladimir Putin who has been at the helm of affairs in another globally powerful region for nearly a decade now. Putin, to stay at the helm of affairs, rekindled the nationalist nerve and vowed on the great Russian past, thereby claiming historical ownership over Crimea and now Ukraine. The world is now aware of what havoc a leader elected through undemocratic processes can bring. Millions of people in Europe are looking at a hard cold winter, while many developing countries across Asia and Africa are staring at starving citizens, all due to high energy and food prices. Now China’s stated policy to use force for reunification of Taiwan opens up another war front.
This theatre of war would be closer to India and much of South and Southeast Asia, which is home to nearly one-fourth of the world population. This conflict zone, if it blows into a full-fledged war, could be the ground for the Third World War where Western powers would face off against China and Russia.
India would have to take a stance, on whether it wants to maintain its agile multilateralism, i.e., pick and choose and align with global powers on commonalities or go in with one bloc. At this point in time given Sino-Indian relations at historical lows, over the military clashes in India’s north-western regions and China’s historical claims over Arunachal Pradesh, chances are bleak that India will partner with the Russian-Chinese bloc. Meanwhile, India has to engage more deeply with its Western allies and secure their trust in key strategic areas.
(The author is a foreign affairs commentator, this article is courtesy of The Pioneer)
Consensus among political parties is needed to avert the financial disaster that freebies will lead to in the long run
India has already suffered a lot because of freebies. Unfortunately, all the regional parties, and to some extent, the Bharatiya Janata Party and the Congress, indulge in mindless populism and imprudent welfarism. There can be justification for free education and healthcare, but none for the distribution of grinders, washing machines, television sets, laptops, subsidised pilgrimages, free electricity, and farm loan waivers.
Freebie culture is blamed on political elites only, while bureaucrats drafting policy go scot-free. The judicial system conveniently ignores its responsibility to correct the course since it will displease the political class and, of course, the media will never discuss the issue since the government advertisement inflows will be hurt. The poor taxpayers of the country enjoy the visual site of watching their own elected government ripping hard-earned money distributed to large sections of the population seeking the comfort of sitting at home since the government has no vision to generate employment for a dignified living. It is all about failed governance and bribing voters to overcome this monumental failure.
Real income growth of the bottom 30 percent of Indians slowed down from 1992 when India first began ‘opening up’ and ‘liberalising’ its economy by encouraging the private sector. Since everyone has a vote, that means politicians cannot ignore them. The sops and freebies to the poor buy the requisite votes. It is a small price that India’s affluent have to pay to ensure the economy continues to disproportionately reward them.
The political parties in India try to outdo each other in luring the Indian voters with assorted goodies called freebies. This trend has gained more momentum in recent times with the political parties being innovative in their offerings as the ‘traditional free water and electricity is no longer sufficient as election goodies. The political dialogue built around freebies is fraught with danger as it shakes the root of free and fair elections to a large degree.
The unviable pre-election promises adversely affect the informed decision making by voters. This calls for fixing the gaps in the design, execution and accountability of freebie culture. It is not that nobody earlier warned against the consequences of populism. It is a “race to the bottom” and “a quick passport to fiscal disaster.”
The results are for all to see. A recent RBI study said, “We can identify a core subset of highly stressed states from among the 10 states identified by the necessary condition, i.e., the debt/GSDP ratio. The highly stressed states are Bihar, Kerala, Punjab, Rajasthan and West Bengal.” GSDP is the state GDP. The states with the highest debt-to-GSDP ratio in 2021-22 include Punjab at 53.3 percent, Rajasthan at 39.8 percent, West Bengal at 38.8 percent, Kerala at 38.3 percent, and Andhra Pradesh at 32.4 percent, whereas the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act recommended a debt-to-GDP ratio of 20 percent for state governments (40 percent for the Centre) by the financial year 2022-23. This level of debt is extremely concerning and is largely the result of committed expenditure and subsidies under populist schemes coupled with slow growth in revenues.
Most of the states, however, post a healthy picture of their finances which is aided by the fact that much of the borrowing that funds these freebies happens off-budget, beyond the pale of FRBM tracking. The States borrow on the books of their public enterprises by pledging future revenues to the State as a guarantee. Effectively, the burden of debt is on the State exchequer, albeit well concealed.
The debt-GSDP ratio of Punjab is the worst and worsening. Instead of being concerned that the state debt to GSDP ratio has not gone below 40 percent for the past six years, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government instead announced that around 51 lakh households won’t pay any electricity bills from September. This is in accordance with the AAP’s election promise of 600 units of free power per billing cycle starting from 1 July 2022.
A case in point is Latin America which provides key learning lessons on populist politics. Populism was active during the 1920s through to the 1970s, when the working poor united behind icons like Brazil’s Getúlio Vargas and Argentina’s Juan Perón over their dissatisfaction with industrialisation. Populist governments resorted to inflationary financing to grant benefits to the poor. By the 1980s, uncontrolled public spending resulted in excessive fiscal deficits, unsustainable public debt and intractable inflation. Latin America’s ‘Lost Decade’ followed.
Growth at 5.6 percent in the 1970s shrank to 1.3 percent and stagnated for another decade. By the 1990s, inflation had reached 1,000 percent in countries like Brazil, and the poor suffered exponentially. Large economies including Mexico, Argentina and Brazil languished, and up to half of Latin Americans slid into poverty. It will augur well for India and its political stakeholders to imbibe the lessons of Latin America and how the first generation of fiscal reforms introduced in Latin America introduced political stability in the early 2000s. Going down the same path as Latin America may result in a ‘lost decade’ for India also.
The problem with freebies is a political one; the way out is simple: all parties (at the Centre and in states) sit down together and draw a list of don’ts, a negative list of things that none of them would do. With states running astray, it is the responsibility of the Centre to work together with states to advocate fiscal conservatism while ensuring states still retain their freedom in the spirit of federalism. This requires the Centre to walk a tightrope and requires strong visionary leadership at the helm. More emphasis and confidence should be placed in the legislation already in place to check fiscal spending which is the FRBM Act.
Constructive debate and discussions in Parliament are difficult since the freebie culture has an impact on every political party, whether directly or indirectly. Therefore, judicial involvement is required in order to propose measures. The Election Commission of India can anticipate enforcing the ‘Model Code of Conduct’ for ‘Guidance of Political Parties and Candidates’ effectively to regulate election manifestos in order to prevent the manipulation of informed voter behavior.
Since getting elected is not a license to kill, the elected representatives must not act arbitrarily. The system of monarchy and practicing democracy have a clear distinction, wherein in the latter system the leader is accountable for all the actions, while in office including the finances and its management. In India, many regional and even national leaders consider themselves the incarnation of god. The reckless way these leaders spend public money is just unacceptable in an orderly society and there have to be reasonable restrictions to be imposed on them while they systematically corrupt the society by offering freebies over quality governance, so as to safeguard the macro interest of the society and the growth of the country.
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month