Apprehensions have been expressed that the BJP’s ideology will get mixed up, if not downright vitiated, by the entry of politicians brought up in alien thought processes. The probability of such confusion is very low for the simple reason that most of the new members joining the BJP happen to be Hindus. There would, therefore, be no contradiction between their own private lives and what should be projected in their public life and political expression. In contrast, if a person like me were to join, say, the Revolutionary Socialist Party (RSP) at the age of 50, for a year or two, I would not know whether I am coming or going; it would be somewhat traumatic.

I have been brought up in the belief of karma and, in the RSP, I would need to switch over and start having faith in a Permanent Revolution as preached by Leon Trotsky, Vladimir Lenin’s favourite number two until he lived. This favourite leader wanted to go on with the revolution until he had converted the whole world to communism. If I read the Das Kapital, the Bible of Marxism, I would come across the foundational tenet: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. These words are simple but the message behind them could take an average politician some exercise in mental digestion.

A similar challenge had faced  BR Ambedkar who had resolved that he would not like to die a Hindu. In that case, the question arose, which religion should he and his many followers convert to? Babasaheb adopted the thinking method of reductio ad absurdum. First, he took up Christianity and rejected it because it was of a foreign origin; it would, therefore, have a denationalising effect on his followers. Moreover, by having more Christians, Ambedkar felt that they would add to supporters of the British rulers. Islam also had a foreign origin; more Muslims could mean greater support to the creation of Pakistan. Thus reasoning, his eventual choice fell on Buddhism.

For politicians, joining the BJP is like coming home; what they should have politically believed in, and are now believing in. If they are committed to secularism, they can continue down that path. The question of Church and State being separate or otherwise does not arise in the case of the Temple. Virtually every temple can follow its own ritual of worship; how can it then influence the Government? In any case, Hinduism has never had a habit or tradition of dabbling in politics. State governance was the exclusive function of the ruler. But the fact is that since the early sun rose in the mists of time, the Indic ethos has been Hindu (or call it Sanatan or Vedic). That came through in the reasoning of Ambedkar as discussed above.

Traditionally, in the West, especially in America, the common folk identified all Indians as Hindus and then enquired whether one was a Hindu Muslim or Hindu Christian or Hindu Hindu! To them, the sound of the word “India” first rang the bell of the American Red Indian. Some Nehruvians might have been embarrassed but, most of the time, the identity of India has been Hindu. The birth of Pakistan intensified this trend.

The Hindu Mahasabha was founded in 1915, incidentally after the Muslim League was created by Lord Curzon in Dacca (now Dhaka) in 1906 after inducing Nawab Salimullah of Dacca with a loan of £1,00,000. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh came into being under the leadership of  Syama Prasad Mookerjee in 1951. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) helped him with some full-time workers. In 1977, to fight the general elections immediately after the end of the Emergency, the Jana Sangh — like several other parties — merged with a new combine called the Janata Party. In 1980, the Jana Sanghis left this party to form the Bharatiya Jana Sangh; to start with, its manifesto was based around Gandhian Socialism.

The centre point of the party’s ideology is “nation above all else”. It is the anti-thesis of the supranationalist communism. The Islamic supremacy of the ummah above the nation is similarly disapproved. Care as much as possible but even socialism is not favoured as it contradicts the faith in karma as the decisive influence in life. The Hindu view of life sees a contradiction between liberty and equality; the latter causes levelling down of liberty to achieve it. How can one control anyone’s better karma? Welfare for all, yes, but forced equality, no.

Imperialism and the exploitation of other countries are wrong. It is equivalent to robbery. Collective unity of one’s own people in order to dominate others is wrong. Instead, the Hindu blessings are with those who strive to actualise themselves and, thus, bring out the best in themselves. Killing of animals and birds is not desirable and the Jains, in particular, are sensitive to the destruction of even vegetation that is grown below the ground. The worship of the peepal tree is symbolic of the Hindu respect for ecology. Most of the ills that one sees are the result of centuries of rule by others over Hindustan.

There is not a great deal of political or ideological literature. Nevertheless, Veer Savarkar first defined Hindutva or Hinduness in a single volume. It is valuable for those who wish to study the theoretical aspects of the ideology. After that, there is a volume called The Saffron Book and, it is reported, a book called The Grammar of Hindudom is under publication. It is noteworthy that it is the only ideology which is Asia’s own, unlike all other political theories which are foreign or rather European.

Ideology is essentially a Western phenomenon, just as political science is a European preoccupation. In sharp contrast, we in India have so far to our credit only two theses on this subject: One, the famous Arthashastra written more than 2,500 years ago; and the second, published only two years ago, titled Krishna Rajya. Hindu India had only one history book, Rajatarangini, by Kashmiri scholar Kalhana, which again was many centuries ago.

On the other hand, the European political parties are guided by their ideologies, which are many; beginning with communism on the extreme Left, to what is understood as fascism on the extreme Right. Take Britain, for example; only recently, Jeremy Corbyn was an extreme socialist. Earlier, there was Aneurin Bevan, who incidentally designed and implemented Britain’s famous National Health Service. Harold Wilson, who was the Prime Minister, had the reputation of being a Leftist. Comparatively, Clement Attlee was a middle-of-the-road politician while his contemporary Hugh Gaitskell was looked upon as a liberal. Yet, all these men belonged to the Labour Party.

On the Conservative Party side, Sir Anthony Eden was a Rightist and went to war against Egypt in 1956 over the Suez Canal. Yet earlier, there was Enoch Powell who declared that “rivers of blood will flow

in England as a result of immigration”. Later, Margaret Thatcher was a Right-winger and anti-socialist. Even fascism, considered Right extremism, did not spare British politics. Sir Oswald Mosley, a son-in-law of Lord Curzon, openly admitted to being a fascist. Despite all these differences in ideology, leaders — even eminent ones — occasionally did change their parties. Winston Churchill, who was looked upon as a dire conservative, had for a few years crossed over to the Liberal Party.

(The writer is a well-known columnist and an author. The views expressed are personal.)

Even as the new decade begins, the world continues to reel under the impact of the Coronavirus pandemic. To date, there are over 85,554,736 confirmed cases of COVID-19 while 1,851,952 people have succumbed to the deadly infection globally. In the midst of a global race to inoculate people against the virus, the pandemic continues to mutate and resurge in several parts of the world.

If we take into account frontline workers, including healthcare professionals, their families and friends, billions would have direct exposure to the infection and would experience severe fear, anxiety due to the lockdown and isolation necessitated by the pandemic. A major part of the world’s population will carry emotional scars left by the outbreak.

The need of the hour is to be mentally resilient and focus on healing our emotional scars so that we can regain physical and psychological fitness. Emotional resilience is the ability of people to bounce back from adversities and difficulties. Life, as we all know, is full of ups and downs. A resilient person not only bounces back from a setback but achieves a higher threshold of emotional well-being. Emotional resilience is a skill that can be learnt by anyone by following these simple steps.

Acceptance: The first step towards gaining emotional resilience is the acceptance of reality. Many of us tend to avoid adverse situations but this doesn’t help solve the problem. Avoidance only makes the situation worse. We have to learn to perceive reality in an honest and pragmatic manner. We should neither be too pessimistic nor should we be over-optimistic about life. We also have to assess the causes of our difficulties in a clear and rational way. It is only after thorough introspection that we can begin the journey to overcome adversities and bounce back.

Adaptation and innovation: The second step is to adapt to the new situation. Remaining firmly wedded to the past does not really help the cause because what had worked before will rarely work in a changed scenario. Continuously pondering over past successes and regretting mistakes stops us from moving forward. We should not only adapt ourselves to the new realities of life but must find innovative ways to thrive in them. In the current scenario, humanity needs to change its behaviour, attitude, thoughts, emotions and learn new skills to overcome adverse circumstances. For our progress and growth, we must adapt continuously, else we will become extinct.

Manage negative emotions: When faced with adversities, we often experience negative emotions like anger, frustration, hopelessness and despair. Many people ask, “Why me?” None of these negative emotions help. Such thoughts not only act as barriers to our revival but also tend to make us physically and emotionally weak. The key is to remain optimistic and focus on the future instead of the past.

Opportunity in adversity: Napolean Hill, the self-help guru, famously said: “In every adversity lies an opportunity.” The trick is to focus our energies and abilities not only to spot the opportunity but to exploit it for our growth. As we navigate through the darkness, we need to continuously strive to find the light. Our Vedic mantra “Tamaso maa jyotirgamaya (lead me from darkness to the light)” has never been as relevant as it is these days.

Control what you can: Steven Covey, the famous management guru, developed a simple but highly effective model of commanding the controllable. Many people worry a lot about situations, factors and circumstances that are beyond their jurisdiction. Emotionally resilient people focus on what they can control while ignoring everything they can neither influence nor control. Worrying about the uncontrollable is a futile exercise leading to frustration, stress and anxiety.

Resetting: We have to reset our goals and dreams in the backdrop of the new situation. Many of our future plans like buying a new house, getting married, going for a holiday, studying abroad, promotions and so on may have to be deferred or even cancelled. We must not regret that our original targets can no longer be fulfilled. But we must define a new set of goals and dreams that are achievable in the changed circumstances.

Rebalance: We have already started to rebalance our lives and the concept of Work From Home (WFH) has been the biggest driver of this. In the new normal, we have to restore focus on work, self, families, friends and society.

Renewal and regrowth: Time and again nature has proved that after every cataclysmic disaster, life comes back to normal as the natural regeneration process begins. Our rejuvenation should begin with a positive desire to grow and with the optimistic view that the future is bright. History has taught us that we have always moved towards a brighter future and have emerged stronger after every disaster. People can cope with stress and anxiety by taking care of themselves. On every flight, we are told to put on the oxygen mask before helping others. Taking care of oneself is not selfishness but is indeed the best way to help others. “Me time” and  hobbies are absolutely essential now. Sleep, rest, breaks from screen time and exercise are essential.

Organise yourself: In the beginning, we all thought that WFH was temporary. Now it seems that WFH or a hybrid variant of remote working will be the norm of the future. People have to organise themselves, their homes, time and energy, given that the working environment and methods have changed forever.

Set clear boundaries: The changed work situation has led to different types of expectations from bosses, colleagues, family and friends. Now, everybody feels that they can interrupt any time but these intrusions and expectations cause frustration and relationship rifts. People have to set clear boundaries and agree on a new set of behavioural rules even with their children.

Stay positive: Bad or negative times require an extra dose of positivity and optimism. Don’t brood, don’t think of the worst, don’t be obsessed about the vaccine. Instead, laugh, play, look at the sky, hear a bird sing, tell your children a story, enjoy the warmth of your partner’s embrace. The world has a lot more light than darkness in it. Further, don’t be shy or afraid of seeking professional advice from a counsellor or a psychologist. They are trained to heal people emotionally and to guide them on their journey of resilience, renewal and regrowth. And these three positives are what the world needs the most right now.

(The writer is chief psychologist at Emotionally.in. The views expressed are personal.)

VK Sasikala, a close aide and companion of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa, will be released from prison soon. Post-Jayalalithaa’s demise in December 2016, there was massive political turmoil and a major power struggle within the ruling All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) until Sasikala was sent to jail in February 2017 for four years. She is expected to walk out of the Parappana Agrahara prison in Bengaluru in January-end after completing her prison term in a disproportionate assets case. The big question is, will she become a factor in Tamil Nadu politics ahead of the Assembly elections scheduled to be held in April-May? Some believe that Sasikala can play a role and others say that she might bide her time for now but there is no way to know what her plans for the future are.

For Sasikala, it was the proverbial slip between the cup and the lip in 2017. She was about to become the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu soon after Jayalalithaa’s death but destiny took her to prison. People close to her say her ambition is intact though the politics of the State has changed in the last four years. Since, according to the law, Sasikala cannot contest elections for the next six years, she can only wield power from behind the throne.

In the absence of “Amma”, what impact will “Chinna Amma” have in politics of the State? Sasikala’s evolution into a politician after emerging from Jayalalithaa’s shadow was cut short abruptly and she should realise that the power she had as Amma’s companion was entirely on the seasoned politician’s terms. As of now, the options before her are not many. Much has happened in the State in the four years in which she was incarcerated. Chief Minister E Palaniswami has not only consolidated his hold in the Government and the party, he is also on friendly terms with the BJP. His biggest achievement is keeping the party united so far.

There is speculation that she might try to regain her lost position in the AIADMK and grab power back from Palaniswami as she still has many loyalists in the party. Her re-entry into the AIADMK would further complicate the political environment in the State. Her one-time loyalists, Palaniswami and the Deputy Chief Minister of the State O Panneerselvam, will resist this. However, the Ministers reiterating the party line notwithstanding, some second-rung party leaders striking a “working relationship” with the Sasikala-TTV Dhinakaran camp would only be beneficial for the AIADMK in the long run. Initially, the Coronavirus crisis had helped the AIADMK to improve its standing in the State. However, the growing number of infections eventually led to a dip in the popularity of Palaniswami. Above all, the party has also announced an alliance with the BJP for the forthcoming Assembly polls. The saffron party seems to be promoting the concept of a coalition Government in Tamil Nadu, an idea that the AIADMK is opposing strongly. The party has never shared power and all indications are that it does not intend to start now. The sudden raid on Sasikala’s property and the Income-Tax Department’s recent decision to attach a new palatial bungalow under construction for her, opposite Jayalalithaa’s house in the posh Poes Garden area, are an indication of this.

The next best option for Sasikala is to head her nephew Dhinakaran’s  party, the Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK). Even this can pose a serious challenge to the incumbent AIADMK in the forthcoming polls. He had floated the party with Sasikala’s approval in 2017 and the AMMK has already taken away five per cent of the AIADMK’s votes. It must be remembered that Tamil Nadu has chosen either the DMK or the AIADMK since 1967. It is the turn of the DMK now. Sasikala has plenty of money and also political insight, given her long association with Amma. It is said that she and her nephew have some influence in South Tamil Nadu. This might cut into the AIADMK’s votes even further. Dhinakaran’s silence is an indication that there could be some deal in the works. There is also talk of a merger of the AIADMK and the AMMK but it is unclear as to what role Sasikala will play if this happens. The third option before Chinna Amma is to take a back seat, silently support the AIADMK and wait for 2026. However, an ambitious woman like Sasikala might not opt for this and try to run the show from behind the scenes.

“There will be no change in the party’s stand on matters concerning Sasikala,” the Chief Minister said recently. The statement assumes significance as it’s the first time that he has made a public statement on Sasikala’s impending release and her future in the AIADMK. The AMMK, meanwhile, claimed her release would have an impact on State politics. “We are eagerly awaiting Chinna Amma’s release,” said AMMK spokesperson CR Saraswathi. But for the jail term, Sasikala might have played a much bigger role in the AIADMK and Tamil Nadu politics. She is keeping her cards close to her chest but 2021 is not 2017. She will play her role directly or indirectly, however small it might be.

(The writer is a senior journalist. The views expressed are personal.)

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) tribunal in The Hague has rejected the back tax demands of Indian tax authorities in both, the Cairn and Vodafone cases. These back taxes relate to capital gains made on transactions in 2006-2007. According to the PCA, the demands have been rejected on two counts. First, they violate India’s obligations under Bilateral Investment Treaties. Second, they are based on a retrospective amendment to a tax law passed in 2012. Both the arguments are untenable. As regards the first, tax is levied on the earnings of the companies from their operations in India. The Government has done nothing to put their investment at risk. As for the second, the 2012 amendment was only in the nature of a “clarification” to remove ambiguity and bring out the real intent of the law i.e. levy tax on income generated from an underlying asset in India. This is irrespective of how the transaction was given effect. Even when it involves indirect transfer of shares, it can’t be construed as a change in the law itself. The Narendra Modi Government has challenged, rightly so, the tribunal’s order in the Vodafone case and is expected to follow suit in the Cairn case, too.

The capital gains made by the firms on sale of their ownership in Indian companies run into tens of thousands of crores. But on September 25, 2020, the PCA rejected the I-T Department’s demand for Rs 22,100 crore in back taxes (Rs 7,990 crore plus interest and penalty) relating to Vodafone Group Plc (the British telecom giant) $11 billion acquisition of 67 per cent stake in the Hutchison Essar Ltd (HEL) — an Indian company running a mobile phone business — owned by Hutchison Whampoa (HW) in February 2007.

The tribunal held that the Indian Government’s demand from Vodafone using retrospective legislation was in “breach of the guarantee of fair and equitable treatment” assured under the bilateral investment protection pact between India and the Netherlands. It also asked the Centre to reimburse Vodafone 60 per cent of its legal costs (about Rs 85 crore) and half of the Euro 6,000 cost borne by Vodafone for appointing an arbitrator on the panel.

Second, on December 23, 2020, a three-member tribunal at the PCA invalidated India’s March 2015 tax claim of around Rs 24,000 crore (Rs 10,247 crore in tax plus interest and penalty) on the British behemoth Cairn Energy on capital gains made by it on the “internal reorganisation of its India business” run by Cairn India in 2006-07 (then, Cairn UK transferred shares of its subsidiary Cairn India Holdings to Cairn India).

It also ordered the Indian I-T Department to return up to $1.2 billion to Cairn Energy in funds withheld by the former including the (i) value of the latter’s 10 per cent shares in Cairn India attached and sold (during 2011, even as Cairn Energy had sold majority of its holding in Cairn India to Vedanta, the department did not allow it to sell 10 per cent); (ii) seizure of dividends that the company paid to its parent and (iii) tax refunds withheld to recover the tax demand. Add $200 million of interest on these amounts and $20 million of arbitration cost, the total comes to $1.4 billion. Cairn can use the arbitration award to approach courts in countries such as the UK to seize any property owned by India overseas to recover the money, if the award is not honoured.

There is widespread consternation over the decision of the Indian Government to raise the demands in the very first place and thereafter pursue these in the court. Critics argue that raising the demand using a retrospective amendment in tax laws (this was enacted in 2012 to negate a judgment of the Supreme Court in the Vodafone case that had declared untenable a tax demand earlier raised on the February 2007 transaction; armed with this amendment, it resurrected that demand in 2013 besides raising demand on Cairn Energy using the same law) affects long-term stability of the fiscal environment and undermines investor confidence.

Prima facie, retrospective amendment in tax laws may look bad. Investors can argue that they take decisions on the basis of prevailing laws of the land and if laws are changed midstream, this is unfair as it undermines the very basis of the business decision. The million-dollar question is: Did the then Government fundamentally alter the law? To get to the bottom of the truth, we need to closely look at the genesis behind the 2012 amendment.

The cardinal principle of taxation is that tax is levied on income generated from an asset. In the Vodafone case, the underlying asset was the mobile phone business then run by  HEL. HW having 67 per cent shareholding in HEL through its fully owned Cayman Island-based subsidiary, viz; CGP Investments sold the entire 67 per cent to Vodafone’s Netherland-based subsidiary Vodafone International Holding. From the sale of these shares, HW made major capital gains. This was made possible due to increase in valuation of the Indian asset, viz; HEL — rechristened Vodafone India Limited (VIL) after acquisition of majority shares by Vodafone. Hence, the Indian Government is fully entitled to collect tax on this income. Yet, the firms exploited an ambiguity in the extant law by citing that the transaction took place between two foreign entities CGP Investments and Vodafone International Holding Ltd (the buyer), thus, camouflaging it as an “indirect transfer” of Indian assets.

To stop abuse and plug the loophole of such indirect transfer of Indian assets, in 2012, the Government amended the law to make such transfers (albeit indirect) taxable in India. As per an amendment to Section 9 of the Income-Tax Act in 2012, if any share or interest in a foreign entity derives its value substantially from the assets located in India, then such share or interest is deemed to be situated in India and any income arising from transfer of such a share or interest is deemed to arise in India.

The amendment was merely in the nature of a “clarification” to the subsisting law aimed at making the intention of the law explicit. Quite clearly, the real intent was to ensure that the income generated from an “underlying asset” in India irrespective of how this transaction was given effect — even when it involves indirect transfer of shares — is taxed by the Indian Government.      

Enacted after the aforementioned transactions had happened, while this may give it the colour of being retrospective, the fact remains that the amendment was only in the nature of a “clarification.” It can’t be construed as a change in the law itself. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Centre can’t collect tax then, are we to infer that the capital gains made from sale of Indian assets will go untaxed? Does it not violate the basic tenet of taxation?             

The demand raised by the I-T Department is pursuant to a law passed by a sovereign Parliament. There is absolutely nothing illegal about it. Had it been so, the top court would have declared it invalid.  The ruling of the international arbitration tribunal in the two cases cites the tax demand as being violation of India’s obligation under Bilateral Investment Treaty with the countries concerned. The argument does not hold water as the Indian Government has only levied tax on the earnings of the companies. There is nothing to suggest that it has put at risk the latter’s investment in India. Even so, taxation is not covered under investment protection treaties and the law on taxation is a sovereign right of the country.

In the Cairns Energy case, the tribunal has referred to a statement by the then Finance Minister, Arun Jaitley, on November 7, 2014, that his Government had taken a “policy decision that as far as this Government is concerned, even though there is a sovereign power of retrospective taxation, we are not going to exercise that power.” The demand raised by the I-T Department is in no way incongruous with Jaitley’s assertion as it is merely the result of removing an ambiguity in the extant law and certainly does not fall in the category of retrospective tax. 

To conclude, India’s sovereign taxation rights can’t be held hostage to its bilateral investment treaties with other countries. Keeping this overarching consideration in mind and opinion of the Solicitor General that an “arbitral tribunal can’t render a law passed by a sovereign Parliament ineffective,” the Government has decided to challenge the tribunal’s order. In the Vodafone case, on December 24, 2020, it filed a petition in the Singapore court well within the three-month deadline from the date of order. In the Cairn Energy case too, it should challenge the tribunal’s order.    

Undoubtedly, India needs foreign investment in its march towards accelerated growth. But this can’t be taken to mean that the Government will forgo its legitimate tax dues on the gains made by foreign investors from their operations here. It should pursue all available legal options to make Vodafone and Cairn pay up.

(The writer is a New Delhi-based policy analyst. The views expressed are personal.)

On the face of it, what some Indian cricketers in Australia did by stepping out for a meal was not a big deal. After adhering to Australia’s quarantine norms, they were fully within their rights to step out for a spread. The question is whether an overenthusiastic Indian fan breached their “bubble” by hugging one of the players, as he claimed on the social media. Of course, since that breach we have seen clarifications and what not and the “supposed” breach of the bubble has become part of the “mind games” that are a feature of any Australian tour. And, of course, there are those in India who are more upset about what the cricketers were eating rather than anything else. However, this incident also highlights something else altogether and that is more worrying than what these sportsmen ate or did not eat. The problem with any top-level athletes is that they are superstars. Indian Test players are no exception and, given that the Indian diaspora loves their cricketers, they will be mobbed, hugged or kissed wherever they go. Until the Coronavirus upended our lives and particularly that of global athletes, that was not a problem. Now, however, all sportspersons — particularly superstars like Indian cricketers — will have to lead very ascetic lives, much like Lewis Hamilton did during the 2020 Formula 1 season.

That is not going to be an easy task for anyone, particularly for a top-level sport star. But this is a decision that they have to take for themselves, even if they have the ability to go out like the quartet of Indian cricketers in Australia: How much do they want to push the limits and, more importantly, can they push the limits at a time when everybody and their uncle has a smartphone? It is almost certain that in the coming months, a top-level athlete will get caught in a scandal, where they breached the bubble by spending the night with someone or the other. While that was par for the course before everything went down, it is not the right thing today. It is not easy staying isolated with only your team and support staff for company, particularly in a strange land. Modern communication technologies do make things easier but, make no mistake, staying for days in a strange hotel room is not a great life, no matter how good the monetary compensation. Sports authorities — and in the case of India, a quick aside where we wish Sourav Ganguly a quick recovery from his cardiac issues — have to dedicate time and effort to soothe the mental health issues that isolation will bring on.

India’s planned vaccination drive against the Coronavirus has understandably generated a lot of curiosity, controversy, questions and anxieties. And at this stage of the pandemic, where the nation is being challenged by wave attacks of the mutant virus and when our healthcare systems are being worn out to contain the spiral, the deadliest threat comes not so much from the disease itself but from misinformation. It is of utmost importance, therefore, that we follow science and transparency, go for an exact enumeration of facts as they are rather than claiming a human achievement and send out the right kind of public service message. Certainly, we can do away without politicising the vaccine process, be it by the Government, which needs to curb its over-ambitiousness, or the Opposition, which is questioning every move just for the sake of doing so. While clearing two vaccines for emergency use — Serum Institute’s Covishield and Bharat Biotech’s Covaxin — the Government is obviously acting on the notion that though their efficacy and immunogenicity are still not fully proven as they are still in the trial stage, they are safe enough to be administered and good enough to trigger fightback responses in a major part of the population, break the chain of transmission and build up herd immunity. Every nation is betting on this and our evaluators are still seeking data for those vaccines even cleared in the West. The drug regulator has built in checks and balances, making their emergency use approval conditional on the developers submitting details of both the progress and side-effects to it every fortnight. Besides, each person receiving the dose will be monitored and their responses updated as if they are in the “clinical trial mode”. As for the use of Covaxin, which is still awaiting data from its ongoing clinical trials, the Government and the Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMR) are repeatedly clarifying that it is a back-up vaccine and the first series to be rolled out will be that of the Serum Institute, which has advanced in trials and results. Health Minister Harsh Vardhan has himself said while vaccines approved globally based on gene encoding spike proteins have protective efficacy of over 90 per cent, Covaxin — which is based on the whole inactivated virus — has other antigenic epitopes in addition to spike protein. So it’s likely to have similar protective efficacy, even for the new strain that has surfaced in the US. But the fact of the matter is that suppositions are not good enough and the Government should immediately prioritise an information dissemination system comprising experts, and not bureaucrats, to maintain transparency. Suppression of information could be risky given that the vaccine’s effectiveness could vary among different people and gene pools as would its side-effects. The fact that the Government did not take questions while approving the vaccine use, therefore, backfired somewhat and exposed it to the Opposition’s charges of opacity on a sensitive issue, much like in Russia and China. It is good to clarify that the proposed dosage regime is a work in progress and could be amended depending on shifting data interpretation.

There should be a systematic myth-busting and detailed protocols for adverse reactions to eliminate fears and doubts. People must be made fully aware of what could go wrong, too, and how that could be taken care of easily as well. Without this interactivity, there will continue to be a trust deficit. The Government’s challenge is to treat a complex issue with sensitivity, maturity and certain simplicity, all at the same time. Of course, equal responsibility is expected of the Opposition. We certainly could have done without the kind of response that came from Samajwadi Party (SP) chief Akhilesh Yadav, who said he wouldn’t opt for the inoculation simply because he didn’t believe in a “BJP vaccine”. Or the Congress casting doubts on the indigenously-developed Covaxin, running down an effort that is being pioneered by the nation’s best minds. The vaccine has already been used on children above 12 in the previous round and has been declared safe. Its third-level trials are on with the biggest sample size and it could actually turn out to be our aatmanirbhar asset. The questions that the Opposition indeed needs to ask are about how what looks like a Central plan, using a general election-like apparatus, will be implemented neutrally in States, particularly the non-BJP ones. Kerala has already argued that given its highest peak since the outbreak and with a large part of its population suffering co-morbidities, it be given priority for vaccine allocation. How much of the costs will be divided between the Centre and the States? Who will ensure quality, demarcate the population slabs and who will command this new data of public health? In the end, public health issues become political, and this is the toughest challenge we need to overcome.

The recent judgment of the Allahabad High Court upholding the freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) and chiding the State of Uttar Pradesh (UP) for malicious prosecution of a person who had criticised the Chief Minister for “poor handling of law and order in his State”, should hopefully have a salutary effect on the State Governments which have been recklessly using penal provisions in our laws against those who express dissent.

The case pertained to a First Information Report (FIR) lodged in August 2020 against Yashwant Singh, who put out a tweet criticising the Chief Minister for transforming the State “into a jungle raj in which no law and order prevails”. The tweet also made reference to various incidents of abduction, demand of ransom and murders. He was accused of violating two provisions in the law — Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertaining to defamation and Section 66D of the Information Technology (IT) Act, 2008, which pertains to personation, or what is commonly understood as impersonation. Yashwant Singh petitioned the High Court and sought the quashing of the FIR.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that the right to comment on the affairs of the State was well within Yashwant Singh’s constitutional right envisaged under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and that “mere dissent does not amount to criminality”. Hence, the FIR registered against him was mala fide “and was meant only to coerce him to stop expressing his dissent against the State Government”. He also contended that no offence had been made out and that the FIR should be quashed.

A Division Bench, comprising Justices Pankaj Naqvi and Vivek Agarwal of the Allahabad High Court, has made a succinct but significant observation while quashing the FIR and other proceedings against the petitioner. Referring to the charge of “defamation” under Section 500 of the IPC, the judges said that no case had been made out “as the alleged tweet cannot be said to fall within the mischief of defamation”. The judges struck a blow for democracy when they said that “expressing dissent on the law and order situation in the State is a hallmark of a constitutional liberal democracy like ours, constitutionally protected under Article 19 of the Constitution”.

The second charge against the petitioner pertained to violation of Section 66D of the IT Act, 2008, which states: “Whoever, by means of any communication device or computer resource, cheats by personation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine which may extend to Rs 1 lakh.” The judges analysed these provisions vis-à-vis the allegation made in the FIR and said that they did not find “even remotely” a commission of offence under Section 66D, as the said provision relates to cheating by personation and it is not the case of prosecution that while committing the overt act, the petitioner tweeted using somebody else’s twitter handle nor was there any allegation of cheating. Hence, the court concluded that no offence had been made out under this Section as well.

As far as the State is concerned, this is indeed a damning indictment of the Government and the police. To prosecute a citizen for criminal defamation — which can entail a fine or a jail term which can extend up to two years — because he is disappointed with the Chief Minister’s handling of the law and order situation is something unheard of in this country, and the judges have rightly ticked off the State for doing so.

But this scenario is not confined to UP only. Several other Chief Ministers and State Governments have begun challenging the basic freedoms given to all citizens by the Constitution. The State of West Bengal would head this list, not only for the sheer number of such cases but also for starting this trend of jailing its critics. It all started with the Mamata Banerjee Government arresting Prof Ambikesh Mahapatra of Jadavpur University and his friend in 2012 and charging them with offences under the IT Act for circulating cartoons lampooning the Chief Minister. Following his arrest, Prof Mahapatra moved the State Human Rights Commission, which criticised their arrest and directed the State Government to pay each of them a compensation of Rs 50,000. The State did not comply with the directions of the commission, compelling the Professor to move the Calcutta High Court. The court upheld the rights commission’s order and enhanced the amount of compensation payable to Prof Mahapatra and his friend to Rs 75,000 each.

Even more absurd was the sedition charge slapped on a folk singer in Tamil Nadu in 2015 for criticising the then Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa’s policy on the issue of prohibition.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist)-led Kerala Government was unhappy with the State Lalithakala Akademi’s decision to select a cartoon, which mocked a Bishop accused of rape, for its annual awards. Several Christian outfits and the State Government wanted the autonomous body to re-consider its decision. The Akademi, however, did not relent.

Those of us who are senior citizens, have lived and thrived in a healthy democratic environment in this country in which we have said much harsher things against the persons in power. At the height of the controversy over the kickbacks paid by Bofors, the Swedish arms manufacturer, to Indian politicians and others, the Indian Express ran Ram Jethmalani’s famous 10 questions to Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi every day. Reading those questions, Rajiv must have squirmed every morning but he had to grin and bear it!

In fact, many of these Chief Ministers must look at how Prime Minister Narendra Modi deals with those who abuse him on the social media. The Modi-baiters constantly upload cartoons and memes seeking to ridicule him on Twitter and Facebook. They often generate hashtags like “#WorstPrime-Minister” or some such and begin a trend along with their camp followers. On his last birthday, they created a hashtag,  “#NationalUnemploymentDay”, and kept it going the whole day. He is probably the most trolled Indian. Often, his political enemies cross the limits of decency. As Modi himself said at a public meeting during the last Lok Sabha elections, a Congress leader called him “gandi naali ka keeda” (a gutter insect) while another said that he was a “mad dog”. Can there be anything more defamatory and abusive than this? If the Prime Minister’s Office were to prosecute all these people, Modi would need to create a full-fledged department to handle these prosecutions.

In fact, this is one of the professional hazards of being in public life in a democracy and, over the years, and especially in the age of social media, the politicians across democratic countries — including India — have learnt to develop a thick hide. Some of our Chief Ministers must follow suit.

(The writer is an author specialising in democracy studies. The views expressed are personal.)

The year 2020 had just begun. While people were engaged in the New Year’s celebrations, on January 3, the sad news of the assassination of Major General Qasem Soleimani, the great commander of anti-terrorism forces, shocked the world. US President Donald Trump’s admission of this act of terror added to the global bewilderment.

Now, ahead of the first anniversary of the dastardly assassination of martyr General Soleimani and Arabaeen or Chehellom (40 days following martyrdom) of martyr Professor Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, people in Iran and around the world are holding commemoration ceremonies to pay tribute to these late Iranian icons.

Respected both by friends and foes as a major military tactician, General Soleimani was the world’s most talented military figure in the field of counter-terrorism.

For many people worldwide, General Qasem Soleimani was an anti-terror hero, who played a key role in defeating Daesh (ISIS) in Iraq and Syria. However, US President Donald Trump ordered his assassination in an air strike during his official visit to Baghdad and while being received by the Iraqi authorities at the International Baghdad Airport. This cowardly terror act was the biggest gift from the US to takfiri terrorism and its supporters.

General Soleimani had played a major role in defending the region against Daesh’s terror campaign. As foreign-backed takfiri outfits raised their heads in 2014, the late commander emerged as a key strategist and ingenious commander leading Iranian military advisers assisting Syrian and Iraqi troops in battles against terrorists.

He assisted the Baghdad Government in operations to retake the strategic oil-rich city of Tikrit from Daesh in 2015. General Soleimani was on the front line of anti-terrorism operations, from Iraq’s Mosul to Syria’s Aleppo. The General also took personal command of the battle against takfiri militants in the Syrian city of Bukamal, located in Dayr al-Zawr Province, in November 2017.

Finally, in November 2017, he declared the end of Daesh’s territorial rule in a letter addressed to the leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei.

The late General’s anti-terror drive was also beneficial for India’s national interests. His efforts were key to the rescue of Indian nationals, including a group of 11 Indian nurses, trapped by Daesh in Iraq. In fact, from General Soleimani’s point of view, terrorism recognises no religion or specific country and it may take victims from all corners of the world, irrespective of their religion, faith or nationality. For this great man, delivering relief and rescue to all people of the world by fighting against terrorism and extending support to victims of terror was a basic principle.

Martyr Soleimani had a humble and kind face in his encounter and interactions not only with military officers but also with the common people and that is why he was so popular with the people of region and many memorial functions were spontaneously erected to observe his martyrdom after his sudden demise. Inside Iran, in his farewell funeral, millions of people in different cities poured to the streets to attend this ceremony.

Martyr Professor Mohsen Fakhrizadeh had also an outstanding role in different peaceful scientific projects in Iran, the most recent example of which is the development of the first indigenous Covid-19 test kit and vaccine, which is a great contribution to Iran’s national efforts in curbing the Covid-19 pandemic and production of its vaccine at a time when Iran is under the inhumane, unjust and unilaterally imposed sanctions by the United States.

These dastardly acts are committed against Iran which itself has so far been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism in order to establish and contribute to  peace and stability in the region and the world and such acts are a flagrant violation of international rules and humanitarian principles. The US’ criminal move to target General Soleimani has once again proved to the people of the world who is really backing the terrorists and that the US definition of terrorism is defined by its self-interests and is rooted on double standards.

It goes without saying that had it not been for martyr Soleimani’s valuable efforts, Daesh would have spread its rule of terror throughout a wider part of the region. Curbing of Daesh also prevented the takfiri terrorists from causing terror in other parts of the world, including South Asia. By giving a severe blow to the foundation of Daesh, more recruitments for this terrorist group from other countries were also prevented.

To honour the memory of martyr General Soleimani and pay tribute to all scarifying their lives for the peace and tranquility in the region and beyond, the Islamic Republic of Iran proposes the following: designation of January 3 as “World Counter-Terrorism Day” by the international community and dedicating an annual International Martyr Soleimani Award to the heroes of fighting with terror.

Last but not least, it is hoped that 2021 may be a year of peace, tranquility, health, prosperity and development for the people of our region and the entire world.

(The writer is the Ambassador of Iran to India)