Politics and Development - Is There a Link?

“The price of not participating in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors” ~ Plato

A government by inferiors, as Plato calls it, is a recipe for the stunted growth of a nation and therefore, strong political leadership – that is to say – a constructive role of politics in the development process, is necessary if a nation state is to realize its full potential.

A cursory glance through the world map beginning from South East Asian nation states with export led economies and management style political leadership, to China and North Korea with communist leadership but drastically different economic fortunes, to India’s democratic leadership and steady growth, onwards to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq – countries ravaged economically due to politics of security and further towards the Middle East’s oil producing nations and largely monarchical systems, and so on and so forth, tells us about the role different styles of political leadership have recently played in shaping the developmental trajectory of the region.

The increased competition between India and China has also given rise to the debate about the role and utility of different political systems regarding economic growth and development. Yet, one must ask, is development only economic? A systematic analysis of the word ‘development’ cannot leave out its historical and social components, which together give a coherent picture of the state of a region and its people.

Historical Role

In India, ancient descriptions of various kingdoms are replete with examples of kings patronizing artists, poets, scientists, men of letters and crafts. Whether it is Kalidasa’s Abhignanshakuntalam, Todarmal’s financial capabilities under Akbar, Abhinavagupta’s Commentary on the Gita, Vishnu Sharma’s Panchatantra or Aryabhat’s numerous scientific discoveries, all of them were made possible due to the encouragement – moral and financial – by the prevailing political leadership of the time. India’s famous handicrafts trade, including the world renowned Daccai Muslin ‘Malmal Shahi’, flourished because it had as its patron and largest buyers various kings and their vassals of small and large kingdoms.

Add to this the various contributions in the form of numerous palaces, forts and other forms of timeless infrastructure including the famous Taj Mahal by Shah Jahan, the Grand Trunk Road by Sher Shah Suri, the various Stupas, Viharas and Grihas, sundials such as Jantar Mantar, temples like those in Konark and Jagannath Puri and the dome shaped mosques and minarets such as Jama Masjid and Bada Imambara - all these are physical consequences of political initiatives of their time.

Yet, not all historical contributions of politics have been positive. The destruction of the famous libraries and knowledge centers of Nalanda and Takshshila, the pillage and sacking of countless temples and other religious places of worship such as Somnath Temple, and the impoverishment of the country through the wanton loot of its natural resources are some of the examples of negative influences of politics on the development process.

Social Role

While reform usually comes from within the society, there are various examples where political developments have given birth to a social reaction and reform process. One such example is the Communal Award announced by the British Government in early 1930s which sought to separate the Depressed/ Backward Classes from the fold of Hinduism and thus drive another wedge in the unity of Indian people and which led to the Poona Pact and the campaign against untouchability launched by Mahatma Gandhi. This, and the dominant role of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar in drafting the constitution, later led to the enactment of constitutional safeguards for Schedule Castes and Tribes in the form of reservation in government jobs and educational institutions.

In the early days of the Company Raj, seeing the plight of the Indian people under the religious orthodoxy and taking advantage of the rule by foreigners, Raja Rammohun Roy, Dwarkanath Tagore, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar etc. relentlessly campaigned for the abolition of sati, widow remarriage, promotion of English language and reform within Hinduism and ushered in the Bengal Renaissance. None of this was possible under the old rulers for whom the religious orthodoxy comprised a crucial support base.

The Post Independence period has seen various initiatives by the modern political leadership for the abolition of superstitious practices such as child marriage, empowerment of women through reservation in local bodies, eradication of deadly diseases such as polio through a sustained campaign and discouragement to blind faith through promotion of scientific thinking and enquiry.

Economic Role

The most recent memory of the amount of destruction that political leadership can bring to bear down upon the fortunes of a region is that of the experience of colonialism. This experience is not unique to India and is shared by various nation states of the world. The deindustrialization and impoverishment of India for nearly 200 years through colonial policies, as detailed by the early nationalists such as Dadabhai Naoroji, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, R C Dutt etc. financed the industrialization and development of Britain.

If one looks at the global level, one would find that major scientific advancements in recent memory were made as a result of war. While World War I heralded the arrival of the Mustard Gas, World War II hastened the entry of the Atomic Bomb. The Spanish Conquistadors were able to conquer a large part of Latin America because of gunpowder, and the same allowed Tipu Sultan to introduce the first rockets in modern warfare.

In the post World War II period, the establishment of the Bretton Woods Institutions such as World Bank and IMF by victorious allied powers, still determines the economic equations between the developed and the developing as well as the least developed countries today. At the national level, the politics of federalism and the distribution of resources between various states signify the role political leadership at the central and state level plays in shaping the developmental graph of the nation.

Conclusion

After more than 4 decades of socialist license-permit raj, Indian political leadership intervened to liberalize the economy in 1991 and effect a much needed course correction required to preserve the credibility of the Indian economy and to take it to new heights. Since then, the aspirations of the people have only grown.

In the 21^st century India, responding to the needs of the population for jobs and basic necessities like housing, clothing, transportation etc. the political leadership has begun to move from the politics of identity to the politics of development. Recent voter behavior too indicates that different sections, especially the youth, is more likely to vote for candidates who focus on results rather than rhetoric. In an era of automation, innovation and competition, only a dynamic and focused leadership can usher in the security and prosperity required for the sustenance of a country with as large a population as India’s.     

The Election of President Donald Trump

Defying all the poll predictions, controversial real estate business tycoon and television celebrity, Donald J. Trump, was elected as the 45th President of the United States on Wednesday, 9th November 2016. The date is important, as it will go down in history as the day on which one of the most remarkable events in the 21st Century took the world by surprise. A substantial number of world leaders seemed to be in a state of panic and confusion, as most of them had been preparing to congratulate Mrs. Clinton as the next President. However, in a spirit that has defined his entire career, The Donald, as he is known to the American public, defied all odds and traveled the narrow path to victory which led him to the White House.

Unconventional and Bitter Campaign

Mr. Trump was roundly slammed by the mainstream media, his Democratic Party opponents as well as colleagues within the Republican Party, for his outlandish policy proposals as well as controversial statements denigrating immigrants, women, minorities, veterans, the disabled etc. which led many to conclude that he did not possess the temperament, experience or the wisdom required for the post of the Commander in Chief of the American armed forces. To the majority of observers, his campaign seemed to be mired in endless controversy and on the verge of implosion, which suggested that either he was not serious about his bid to become the President or more dangerously, that he seriously believed in everything that he was advocating. His constant about turns on his own statements, coupled with a complete disregard for factual accuracy, flustered long time political observers on both the right and the left, who were shocked at the unprecedented show of callousness from a major party nominee. The general consensus, before going to the polls, largely among the educated and opinionated section of the American public, was that Mr. Trump was seeking to capitalize on a wave of resentment caused by the export of American jobs to other countries, fears regarding immigration, racial tensions and general stereotypes against anyone who was not a white male American. This was in stark contrast to the long line of preceding American Presidents, including incumbent President Barack Obama, who had sought the highest office of the country, by associating themselves with the shared values of the American people. One thing more that separated Donald Trump from all the recent Presidents was that he had no prior combat or political experience. He was a TV celebrity cum real estate business tycoon, who was perceived fit to entertain and not to govern.

Hobbled by deep distrust, extremely bad press, just a handful of endorsements, grim poll predictions and a lesser budget than his opponent, The Donald went around his rallies, telling people about the number of votes that he had polled in the primaries ('highest in the republican primary history'), denying the fact that his statements were controversial, denying climate change as a scientific fact, threatening to jail his opponent and promising 'extreme vetting' for immigrants coming from countries 'compromised by terrorism'. In short, he just remained himself. And, perhaps, therein lay his key to the oval office, because, in complete contrast, his opponent, Democratic Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton, 'the most qualified candidate for the office of President in the United States History' according to President Barack Obama, came across as a darling of the 'establishment', never letting people know what she really thought and never uttering a word in public that was not scripted, and hence being 'fake'. Trump was the original bigot, Clinton was the fake saint.

A day before the polls, the election experts, political commentators, reporters, journalists, pollsters and vocal public opinion was convinced that Trump had a very very slim chance of becoming the President while Clinton was the favorite. There had been some last moment ups and downs with both the campaigns which had increased anxieties, but had done nothing to signal that the applecart has been completely upset.

Election Night

As the votes began to come in, people around the world settled down for some time to relive the moment from 2008, when Barack Obama had won the election against his Republican rival Sen. John McCain and had thus become the 1st African American President in the United States History. If Hillary Clinton were to win this election, which she very well was, the American people, women in particular, would have clinched another historic first, that of the election of the first female President of the United States. The added bonus seemed to be the satisfaction of seeing the loss of Donald Trump, who was smeared as the symbol of orthodox patriarchy, treating women as objects and workers as disposables, basking in the company of white supremascists and outright fascists, defying the established norms of his own party (not for good, for worse) and being an insufferable racist in general. If everything was to go down well with the results, liberal Americans would wake up the next day filled with pride and happiness.

One by one, as all 'battleground' states went to Donald Trump, pride, happiness and hope vanished from the faces of those supporting the Clinton campaign. By the time it had become clear that Mr. Trump was going to become the next President of the United States, Mrs. Clinton had locked herself in a hotel room, probably because her campaign had not thought it as important enough to draft a concession speech, and her many female supporters outside were reduced to tears in the face of the 'impossible'.

The people had spoken. Donald Trump was going to be the 45th President of the United States of America.

Chaos and Acceptance

The power of the verdict of the United States Presidential election was on full display as the markets around the world tumbled, world leaders scrambled to prepare a strategy of dealing with the incoming Trump Administration and people in America rioted on the streets, repulsed by the outcome. How could the impossible happen? How could the same states who had voted to elect President Barack Obama, now elect Donald Trump? How could the people trust such a xenophobic, racist, misogynist, run of the mill bigot? How could the people NOT trust Hillary Clinton, who had dedicated 30 years of her life fighting for them?

The answer was there for everyone to see, if only they wished to see it. The countryside of the United States was reeling with loss of jobs, reduction in standard of living, ageing infrastructure and hostility to immigration. By dismissing these claims as the claims of a racist, sexist, xenophobic - in short - politically incorrect mob, the Democratic Party alienated a large section of the working class of the country, trying to pursue a loftier 'global' agenda. While as a consolation it can be said that Mrs. Clinton polled nearly 2 million votes more than Mr. Trump, the fact is, there is no runner's up trophy in a Presidential Election. You either win or you lose. And Donald Trump had won according to the electoral college system that determined the winner of the race.

Soon, the focus shifted from the loss of Mrs. Clinton to the win of Mr. Trump. Was Donald Trump serious about pursuing the outlandish policies that he had vaguely outlined while running for the office of President? What all had he said about the specific issues that concerned other countries? No one had thought it worthy enough to listen to what Mr. Trump had to say on various issues of ancillary concern to the American public, as his remarks were always controversial and he wasn't winning anyway. Now that he had won, an American newspaper observed, the same kind of remarks, from now on, would determine troop movements and market sentiment.

Indo-US Ties under President Trump

The question of single most importance to an Indian observer is, how is President Trump going to conduct his Foreign Policy? What is going to be the future of Indo-US ties under his administration and what does India stand to gain, or, more importantly, lose, from such a foreign policy? 

The President-Elect has grumbled about the number of H1B visas being provided by the US, while those close to him have expressed dismay over the number of Asian CEOs in the Silicon Valley. However, in an event organized by the Republican Hindu Coalition, the President-Elect professed his admiration for "the Hindus" and Prime Minister Modi. He has promised that under his administration, India and America are going to be the "best friends".

In keeping with the President-Elect's campaign promise of fighting "radical Islam", India should use all available opportunities to shore up support against the proxy war being fought in Kashmir by Pakistan through the use of terrorism.Unlike any other President, President-Elect Trump has indulged in unprecedented behavior with respect to his policies and campaign promises and therefore it would be too early to comment upon the shape that Indo-US ties will take in the future. Only time will tell.

Uri Attack: Hard Choices before India

In yet another example of cowardly proxy warfare promoted by the Pakistani Army and the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate, four heavily armed militants infiltrated the Army Headquarters in Northern Kashmir's Uri Sector in the Baramulla District and killed 17 soldiers, in one of the worst attacks on the army in 26 years. The Indian Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) Lt Gen Ranbir Singh said: 

"All four killed were foreign terrorists and had some items with them which had Pakistani markings. Initial reports indicate that the slain terrorists belong to Jaish-e-Mohammed Tanzeem (militant group). Four AK-47 rifles and four under-barrel grenade launchers along with a large number of other war-like stores were recovered from them."

"Days of Strategic Restraint Over" 

The government and the ruling party both issued strong statements, with BJP General Secretary Ram Madhav asserting that the days of strategic restraint were over. He said:

"We feel that the time for strategic restraint is over. India needs to tackle this menace with a firm hand and we need to take proactive measures. That is why Prime Minister has said that perpetrators behind the attack shall not go unpunished. Terrorism is the policy instrument of cowards and in this case the footprint of involvement of our neighbour is all over there. They have been using terrorism as a state policy in the most cowardly manner to attack, maim and kill people, soldiers as well as civilians, in our territory."

The Prime Minister too condemned the attack and in a series of tweets asserted that the perpetrators of the attack will not go unpunished. The Home Minister, who was to visit the United States and Russia, cancelled his trip and called Pakistan a "terrorist state" and appealed for its global isolation.

The statements, coming from both the ruling party and the government, are unparalleled in their severity and point to the increasing escalation in the tensions between both India and Pakistan. Indeed, with an elected leader commanding an absolute majority at the center, India possesses the political will necessary to take swift and punitive action this time against Pakistan, "at a time and place of its choosing".  

The numbers provided by a report in the Economic Times are alarming with regard to infiltration of terrorists from across the border and demonstrate the extent to which India's patience has been stretched thin. For example, in 2011, there were 247 infiltration attempts, followed by 264 attempts in 2012, 277 attempts in 2013 and 221 attempts in 2014. 13 infiltrating terrorists were killed in 2012, followed by 38 in 2013, 52 in 2014 and 37 in 2015.

Death by a Thousand Cuts

Ever since it realized that it stands nowhere in terms of conventional warfare when it comes to India, a fact that led to its ignominious defeat in three wars, the Pakistani Army and the ISI seem to have perfected terrorism by non-state actors as a means of sub-conventional warfare, a strategy which has come to be known as "death by a thousand cuts". A dysfunctional and failed state apparatus in Pakistan has meant that while the Pakistani Army and the ISI execute their nefarious plans through their remote control of Pakistani Defense and Foreign Affairs, the civilian leadership is left to deflect the blame, obfuscate the issue and deny any wrongdoing.

In such a scenario, where the real power is exercised by the Army, talks with Pakistani Civilian Leadership are just a hogwash designed to keep India engaged while simultaneously inflicting multiple terror attacks in Jammu and Kashmir and Punjab to stoke militancy and unrest. Parity with India is an obsession in Pakistan and an economically, strategically as well as globally resurgent India does not help their strategic imperatives. In fact, Islamabad has repeatedly scuttled any attempts at establishing good relations between the two countries, either by sponsoring terrorism against India, ceding a part of its illegally held territory in Kashmir to China or by repeatedly trying to internationalize the issue of Jammu and Kashmir while carrying out massive human rights violations in its own province of Baluchistan.

It is for India to realize that it is futile to expect any major changes in Pakistan's attitude given that there is a diffusion of power between various stakeholders in Pakistan. 70 years of Pakistan's existence has shown that it is happy to remain a satellite state of one major power or the other (earlier it was the US and now its China) and that its leadership, both civilian and military, is motivated by personal pecuniary interests coupled with Indophobia, which rationalizes the existence of the state in the first place, and has no vision of an independent foreign policy or resolving domestic issues amicably. In short, the average Pakistani be damned but the Generals need their kick by instigating India. In an interview with Arnab Goswami of Times Now News Network, Prime Minister Modi admitted as much when he said that there are different forces working in Pakistan.

A House Divided

While the reaction among Indian media, political and strategic experts and civil society at large has been that of taking stringent action to stop the flow of terror from Pakistan, on the other hand there is the usual clique of naysayers who have characteristically put their numerous if's and but's in the debate.

Shivam Vij, writing in the Huffington Post, advises the Indian government not to engage Pakistan militarily as it could backfire. Among the reasons cited are "risk of war", "risk of failure", "international pressure", "economy" etc. In short, let there be status quo ante and what if our few soldiers are dying, we can absorb the losses. The Left Parties, are perpetually in favor of an unconditional political dialogue, even when their own Members of Parliament were humiliated by the separatist leadership on their recent visit to the state. I am constantly amazed by the fact that the Left Parties still have Members in the Parliament. This opinion piece by Mohammed Zeeshan in DailyO starts by stating that India can't effectively respond to Pakistan anyway, asks it to decide on a consistent course of action towards Islamabad and says that the only consistent course of action towards Islamabad is Track-II dialogue and maybe economic sanctions. But that's a big maybe.

It is this multiplicity of opinions in the face of terror that stopped successive governments since the outbreak of the militancy in Jammu and Kashmir since 1990 from taking any concrete steps against this proxy war. These governments were also hampered by the fact that all of them were coalition governments requiring endless debates and discussions, cajoling and cooing, to come to any conclusion. However, Prime Minister Modi has no such compulsions. The country has given him a decisive mandate with full majority in the Lok Sabha and the ball is now in his court and he has to make some hard choices if he wants to fulfill the election promises he made in the run up to the 2014 General Election.

Options Before Us

India must boldly consider moves that it has refused to consider so far fearing escalation and risk of failure. The dream to become a superpower can never become a reality without ensuring that the cardinal duty of a nation state is fulfilled, i.e. achieving security for all its citizens. Given below are some of the steps that India can consider while formulating its future strategy viz-a-viz Pakistan.

1. PoK is Indian Territory, Take Out Terrorist Camps: Kashmir formally acceded to India in 1947 but Governor-General Mountbatten made the accession conditional on a plebiscite. According to the resolution passed in the United Nations, a plebiscite could only take place when Pakistan vacated its troops from the region. Since it has not done so for the last six and a half decades, India should now treat the matter with an iron fist and carry out surgical strikes in the PoK to take out any terrorist camps being run in the region to spread militancy and unrest.

2. Scrap Article 370: It is only India's constitution which guaranteed full autonomy to the State of Jammu and Kashmir in the form of Article 370 which limited the center's role in the state to defense, foreign affairs and communications. Pakistan was not able to formulate its constitution for a long time and when it finally attempted to do so, it did not grant any autonomy to their side of Kashmir. The result was that although the demography in PoK has undergone a profound change since 1947, the demography of Indian Kashmir more or less remains the same (except for the exodus of Kashmiri Pandits in 1989). With no industries due to militancy and security situation in the state and not much tourism or trade either, the people of the valley unofficially live in a ghetto where Azadi is a chimera, poverty a reality and darkness is most probably the future.

3. Balochistan: India should maximize its efforts to fix the international spotlight on the massive human rights violations perpetrated by the Pakistani Army in Balochistan. It should patronize the human rights organizations working for Baloch Rights and grant citizenship to prominent Balochistani activists working for the cause. By increasing its contact and network among the Balochi activists, India can in future attempt to create similar militancy and unrest in Balochistan as exists in Kashmir today.

4. Disrupt Pakistan's Aid Infrastructure: Pakistan is a bankrupt state surviving on the aid distributed to it from numerous capitals across the world including the United States. India must bring its enormous international goodwill to bear upon these states (except China) and must categorically state that any aid to Pakistan will only go towards the funding of non-state actors and towards maintaining the luxurious lifestyles of Pakistani Generals, and hence should be stopped. India's diplomats are among the finest in the world and they would be able to bring results if given a clear mandate to do so.

5. Tackling the Dragon: China, Pakistan's all weather ally, should be handled in a different manner. It is no use grandstanding before a nation that has everything to gain by keeping the factors that fuel instability in the region alive. We must leave no stone un-turned in creating hurdles in the implementation of CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) while simultaneously baiting China in the South China Sea. We must make it even more difficult for Chinese businessmen to do business in India when we know that the money earned will only be used against us. We should also make it clear that China's strategic imperatives do not precede India's and that terror is not acceptable as a stratagem.  

Conclusion

The National Security Advisor Ajit Doval and Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar, celebrated as doers and men of their word, have lost their face before the public due to the repeated terror attacks taking place on the Indian soil and the failure to counter them. Their role in guiding the Prime minister as he contemplates the future course of action is going to be critical and can make or break their reputation in the time to come. It is hoped that the Indian leadership does not squander away the huge mandate accorded by the public to the government and wipes the menace of militancy and terrorism from its very roots.    

A Tale of Two Deaths: Pratyusha Banerjee and Delta Meghwal

Over the last week there has been a lot of hullabaloo over the alleged suicide of former Balika Vadhu lead Pratyusha Benerjee. The 24 year old actress committed suicide in Mumbai over difficulties in her relationship with her boyfriend, depression and lack of work. Her boyfriend Rahul Raj Singh, was hospitalized after being described on the 'verge of madness' by his friends after two days of questioning by the police. 

On the other hand, there has been complete silence in the mainstream media about the rape and institutional murder of the 17 year old student Delta Meghwal in Rajasthan, which exposes deeply entrenched bias against students belonging to lower castes in the country's "cow belt" state as well as in the mainstream media. Delta Meghwal was allegedly raped by her Physical Training instructor and her dead body was found in the water tank of her college. She was studying in a training institute in Bikaner and her artwork had been acknowledged by the state's Chief Minister herself. According to the facts that have come to light so far, it is alleged that the institute that Delta was studying in actively conspired to cover up her rape and harassment by the PT instructor and forced an apology by both of them which stated that they were caught having sex by mutual consent. To rub salt on the wound, Delta's dead body was carried off from the institute in a municipal garbage carrying vehicle. 

The Ladies Finger, a prominent feminist website, has posed five questions to Delta's institute reproduced below:    

Questions activists are now asking, and we should all ask:
1. Why did the principal Eashwar Chand Vaid and the institution  not file a police case against Vijendra Kumar Singh, since Meghwal was a minor?
2. Why was the college’s knee-jerk reaction instead to force Meghwal to write a letter that she had been shamefully caught in consensual sex with her teacher?
3. Why was due process not followed by the police when Meghwal’s body was found? Reports say that even video evidence was not taken before Meghwal’s body was moved from the scene of the crime.
4. Why did the police use a garbage tractor to move her body?
5. What kind of institution was Vaid running where it would be considered ‘normal’ for a teenaged girl student to be sent to clean the room of a teacher?

Caste Consciousness in Mainstream Media

The case of Delta Meghwal comes close on the controversy involving the institutional murder of Dalit PhD scholar Rohith Vemula in Hyderabad. While Rohith's suicide was taken up in a big manner by JNUSU as well as HCU before coming in the mainstream media, Delta's rape and murder has hardly attracted any mainstream media attention.

This is not to say that Pratyusha Banerjee's suicide was any less tragic. True, depression in young people is a serious issue that should be debated and for which the government should be pressurized to take remedial measures such as providing additional counselling and sensitizing the public about the measures to be taken in such a scenario. However, the complete blackout of the rape and murder of Delta points to the caste bias in the media which considers suicide and murders of upper castes worth its TRPs and those by lower castes as pass overs.

Numerous studies have shown that dalits have gone almost unrepresented in India's mainstream media leading to a very slanted view when it comes to caste. This opinion piece in The Hindu, for example, documented how the representation of dalits in the Indian media had remained static since 1992 and that such static-ness was a violation of the constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity. This opinion piece in Firstpost, written by someone who carried out a three month study of the journalists who passed out of IIMC, country's premier journalism training institute, records the sting of caste discrimination faced by lower caste students even in the supposedly 'progressive' mainstream media. Finally, this opinion piece in the Hindustan Times wondered aloud whether the suicide of Rohith Vemula would alter the caste dynamic and sensitivity in the country's leading newsrooms. Going by the coverage given to Delta Meghwal's death, it clearly hasn't. 

The Absent Legacy

In an opinion piece written for Seminar, NDTV's Ravish Kumar ruminated on the caste relations that are forged between different politicians and journalists and the kind of gratitude he was flooded with after airing an episode on Ambedkar Jayanti. Dr. Ambedkar's seminal role in writing our egalitarian constitution, although applauded by many, has scarcely done much to alter the social attitude towards dalits in India, who continue to be discriminated against in many spheres. Reservations in government jobs and institutes of higher education, have done a lot to empower this downtrodden and exploited section of the Indian society, but at the same time it has fueled negative feelings verging on hateful feelings against the lower castes by the upper castes in the country, as witnessed by numerous caste atrocities still prevalent in the country today.

The coverage given to Pratyusha Banerjee's death, on the other hand, displays a deep sensitivity towards the urban problems faced by youngsters, namely depression, lack of work and difficulties in love life, which figure in the 'safety' and 'love' category of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. It is only when an individual reaches these advanced stages that these issues become important. However, if an individual hasn't even progressed or is progressing from the starting point, doesn't his/her struggle assume more importance than the one who has already crossed this level just by the reason of his/her birth?

 Conclusion

The stark contrast between the coverage and attention given to Delta Meghwal's death as compared to Pratyusha Banerjee's death is a timely reminder of the discrimination faced by the lower castes both in the employment and coverage of issues with regards to the mainstream media. Before we can move towards the goal of an egalitarian society where everyone is afforded the same level of justice - social, economic and political, we will have to deliberate upon these uncomfortable questions staring our society and polity today.

As Expected: Pak JIT denies Pathankot Terrorists being Pakistani

This post featured in Blogadda's Tangy Tuesday Picks

NDTV has reported that Pakistan's Joint Investigating team, which came to India to collect evidence in the ongoing Pathankot Airbase Attack probe, has denied that the terrorists were pakistani. More from the Report:

"National Investigation Agency officials had briefed and accompanied the Pakistani team into the Pathankot air base on March 29. The team was also showed the route taken by the terrorists to enter the base.
Pakistani investigators said they could not collect evidence in this limited time, the news report said quoting sources.
The JIT returned yesterday after its five-day visit to India during which all evidence pertaining to the attack was shared with it. This included the DNA samples of four terrorists, their identities as well as call records showing involvement of Jaish-e-Mohammad or JeM terrorists."

What was Modi thinking?

Public opinion in India was overwhelmingly against allowing Pakistani JIT, comprising of officials from Pakistan's Inter services Intelligence (ISI) agency, to visit the attack site. The Indian National Congress and the Aam Aadmi Party, both reacted strongly to the development and termed the visit akin to ISI probing itself. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal blasted the move in the Delhi Assembly after the assembly had to be adjourned for half an hour due to massive protests by AAP legislators. Congress party volunteers protested outside the Pathankot Air force base against the visit. India has long held the position that it is Pakistani Intelligence, specifically the ISI, that has nurtured and bred Jehadis and terrorists through training camps spread all over their country in order to wage a proxy war against India. Despite the overwhelming negative feedback, the Prime Minister and the National Security Adviser, in a display of amateurish foreign policy bravado, decided to do the unthinkable and host the delegation in the country. As expected, Pakistan has once again played the time tested card of denying any involvement in the terrorist attacks, thus leaving egg on the government's face.

Backstabbing from the very start

Pakistani establishment had begun to show its true colors hours after the Pakistani JIT landed in India, when its officials claimed that they have catched a RAW spy in Baluchistan who was engaged in subversive activities. Inter Services Public Relations Agency (ISPR) made outrageous claims of the man being involved in harming the China Pakistan Economic Corridor with the Gwadar port as its target. The man later turned out to be an ex-navy official who no longer was associated with the Indian forces in any manner. Nevertheless, the relentless brandishing of the arrest as a major achievement by the Pakistani establishment even as the JIT was visiting India exposed the whole exercise as a mere pretence cloaked in a god cop bad cop script. 

Weakening of India's International Position

This blunder has gone beyond the diplomatic one-upmanship common in the bilateral relations of India and Pakistan and has weakened the position of India internationally with regards to the issue of terrorism emanating from Pakistan. Till now, India had refused to fall for the smoke screen of state versus non state actors put up by Pakistan to brush away responsibilities for the attacks. India had consistently maintained , especially after the attacks on mumbai in 2008, that the terrorists involved in attacks on India were sufficiently equipped, trained and provided necessary resources for carrying out the deadly operations by elements within the Pakistani state and that therefore the Pakistani government would have to own up responsibility for the same. 

By allowing Pakistani JIT to probe the attack site and then claim the obvious, the Prime Minister has foolishly allowed a precedent to be set where India impliedly seems to agree that non state actors totally divorced from any arm of the Pakistani state may be responsible for the attacks, therefore giving the Pakistani government, military and intelligence a clear chit. This is a blunder that can have wide ramifications in the future because Pakistan can bring up this disastrous decision again and again in the international fora to strongly claim that even the Indian government is unsure about the origins of terrorism wrecking its cities and military establishments.

Total Failure of the NSA

National Security Advisor Ajit doval, hailed as the superman of counter-intelligence in India, has so far monumentally failed to live upto the hype that his appointment had generated. Mr. Doval has so far engaged in empty theatrics when it has come to solving the Gurdaspur and Pathankot terror attacks, besides totally squandering the years of gains made under his able predecessors. His theory of "Offensive Defense", hailed in hawkish circles as the approach needed to tackle Pakistan, has so far remained a lame duck squatting on yellowing parchments in South Block rather than an actual policy implementable on the ground. Even during the pathankot attacks, he was heavily criticized for his decision to send in the NSG, instead of the regular forces better equipped with intelligence to handle the situation, which resulted in the tragic casualty of one brave commando. Of course, the Indian Army had to come to his defense.

Instead of utilizing the decade long diplomatic pressure built on Pakistan through hard work and international efforts, the NSA accompanied the Prime Minister on his cameo visit to Pakistan, thus breaking the draught of PM level visits imposed by India on Pakistan. MP Jyotiraditya scindia, while recently speaking in the Parliament, deplored the attitude of the Prime Minister regarding Foreign Policy which left most of the top level officials in the dark regarding the impromptu visit.

Modi should stop the PR, start being the PM

The Prime Minister's narcissism and vanity are not new found obsessions and have been well documented in the past. It seems that he is still in the election mode and is busy in managing his PR rather than manage affairs like foreign policy seriously as a PM. It seems that for him and his cabal, image building has become more important than nation building. This disastrous move has even silenced all the loud admirers of the PM into shame and has made them question the judgement and skill of their leader when it comes to important matters of diplomacy. It would serve the Prime Minister well if he stops acting like a know-it-all superman on matters galaxies beyond his questionable intelligence and tightens the leash on his National Security Adviser who acts like he is scouting for a role in the next James Bond movie. The Prime Minister should start listening to what his experienced and intelligent advisors advise him on matters of foreign policy rather than turning every bilateral meeting into a hug and selfie festival. If he does not start doing that soon, he may have plenty of followers on social media, but an even larger army of trolls in real life.      

When do men mature?

This first appeared in Daily News and Analysis

A recent photo shared by a popular Facebook page put me in a quandry. When do men really mature? What is the age when it is suitable to say that a man has enough intelligence to judge between what is right and what is wrong? When do they stop being impressionable and start being rational?

A recent photo shared by a popular Facebook page put me in a quandry. When do men really mature? What is the age when it is suitable to say that a man has enough intelligence to judge between what is right and what is wrong? When do they stop being impressionable and start being rational? The photo had tried to find those answers in light of the recent political developments but had concluded nothing.

Unfortunately, even medical science is split on this question. The relationship between age and maturity is a debatable one as it is difficult to determine how does one's biological development effects one's cognitive and psychological functions. So as Medical science gave me a cold shoulder, I turned from the particular to the general, i.e., how the society perceives maturity of men. But while the scenario here too was like that in the scientific arena, however, it was made even more interesting by the combination of a variety of factors.

Sample this: When it became known that one of the rapists involved in the Delhi Gang Rape case is a juvenile, the public was salivating at the jaw for his blood. A physician was called in to determine his 'real age'. When he found no discrepancy then a bone test was recommended. When the bone test refused to yeild anything, there was a clamour of voices in the media debates and talk shows where many legal experts and panellists cried that a person is mature enough by the age of 16-17 and that the age bar for juvenile crimes should be lowered to 16 years. Everyone demanded death penalty for someone who had been described as the "most brutal of all rapists".

So one sat back thinking that yes, a man attains maturity by the age of 16. They become adults capable of exercising judgement to protect themselves from the possibility of harm. But as the after effects of the gang rape case subsided and as media began to hunt for its next prey, there was suddenly the Supreme Court which handed the popular Bollywood actor Sanjay Dutt a sentence of 5 years for possessing illegal arms. Suddenly, everyone was welling up. Tissue papers were being passed around by the public who said "What a pity! What about the poor man's family?" "What about his career?" "He is such a good hearted man!" Even the PCI Chairman Justice Katju, who thinks that 90% of Indians are fools, jumped on the bandwagon of foolishery by advocating a Governor Pardon. All this, after the fact that Dutt was not even charged by TADA but by the relatively lenient Arms Act and that the Supreme Court judges went to extraordinary lengths to give him the minimum punishment under the act. Politicians melted. "He was just 33 and quite impressionable at that age" said one. "He was just a child!" quipped another.

So one scratched his head and said "to hell with 16! No one even understands how people are and what effects will the acts have until they are 30-35. 35 actually. Moving towards old age and wiseness." But for some, even 35 is too young to be mature. Case in point: Rahul gandhi. The Congress seems to be obsessed with projecting the Gandhi scion perennially youthful, so much so that I hope he starts bagging commercials for various beauty products if the politics peters out. "Rahul Gandhi, at 42, is leading the Congress campaign for the 2014 Lok Sabha elections" so say the media outlets. Even 42 is made to sound like 7.

Although I lost a couple of internet hours in trying to get an answer to this query of mine, I was not able to find a satisfying reply. While the age of maturity of men seems to be disputed among the various sections of the society, there exists no such dispute in the minds of a particular section of the society about the age of maturity of women. A women is mature enough as soon as she hits puberty, they say, and can be married off. 13, 14, 16...doesn't matter. In fact, women get so ripe with maturity around 35 that even men lose interest in them. Or so do some people in the Police say.

What does this difference of behaviour of our society towards two different genders tell about the atmosphere that we are living? For one thing, it does point towards the hypocrisy of perception that exists in the society about an individual regarding their status in public life, their social strata and most importantly, their gender. While we may shake our heads in disapproval of certain acts at a certain age, lets not get carried away by the superficial circumstances to trump rationality and give in to the popular sentiment. Take that as food for thought.

The Diplomacy of Language

First Published in Youth Ki Awaaz

While the more broad minded and vernacular oriented people in India whose preferred domestic language happens not to be Hindi might take offense, the fact is that encouraging the usage of Hindi in other nations has long been on the agenda of India’s foreign policy. With its ideal of projecting its soft power of culture, customs and the way of life, India’s foreign policy places an unusual amount of importance on encouraging the usage of Hindi in other nations.

India is not alone in this move. In fact, encouraging the usage of their respective vernaculars in foreign countries has for long been on the to-do lists of nations with a strong vernacular culture. The westerners did not need it, as the necessity of the same was fulfilled by the forceful colonization and subjugation of countries across the globe. In India, to be particular, the famous minute of Lord MaCaulay heralded the arrival of English as the sole medium of imparting education and consequently, as the de facto official language for the rest of her life under the British. However, for the nations which did not have the luxury of expansionist programs or large swathes of colonies under their rule, the process of language diplomacy started only after the process of decolonization had been accomplished to a significant degree in the latter part of the twentieth century.

A Cold War Equation

Nehruvian vision and a particular tilt towards Russia in the cold war and non aligned years ensured that Russian Universities were the first to take up the teaching of Hindi as an optional language. The banning of Hollywood films in the cold war era resulted in Soviet Russia turning to Bollywood films for their entertainment, a phenomenon which made actor Raj Kapoor an instant celebrity in that country. The warm response to such films provided both the countries with an opportunity to further their people to people ties, as a means of furthering their national interest, making the exchange of their respective vernacular languages inevitable.

Indian governments which succeeded Nehru were quick to realize the pragmatism of “exporting” domestic culture to other countries as well as familiarizing themselves with the culture of their counterparts. Jawaharlal Nehru University (which was established in 1969) was one of the first universities to take up the task of dissemination of foreign languages in the country. Following the grand success of festival of India in Soviet Russia in 1988, the Indian Embassy in Moscow embarked on an aggressive program of showcasing the country’s culture through the Jawaharlal Nehru Cultural Centre which was established in 1989.

Apart from Nehru’s experiments of cultural ideas in the laboratory of International relations, India’s reluctance to engage in any kind of third party military adventurism has over the years, strengthened the case for its projection of soft power. In this larger scheme of things, language, undoubtedly, plays the largest role.

In a Globalized World

While a more muscular Cold War age may not have been particularly receptive to such ideas, choosing instead to gain allies with the show off of its arsenal, the case is certainly not so in a globalized and inter connected post cold war era. The immediate agenda now is to shift the study of their respective languages from the drowsy seminar rooms of a few odd universities in a friendly country to a larger audience in the primary and secondary schools with a long term view of creating a fertile field for realizing their goals and interests in foreign relations.

In June this year, China decided to introduce Hindi in South China by setting up a Hindi chair in Guangdong University of Foreign Studies in Guangzhou. Several schools and universities in other parts of China are already teaching Hindi as an optional language. This month, India decided to reciprocate this gesture by announcing that Mandarin would be introduced in over a hundred schools as an optional language.

While Sino-Indian reciprocity can be seen in the light of two nations trying to shake off the shackles of their past scarred by a bitter war in 1962, other nations which are warming up to the idea of introducing foreign languages in their school and university curriculum, see it as a result of the fast paced growth of Asia.

Last Monday, Australian Prime Minister Ms. Julia Gillard introduced a white paper on the “Asian Century” which included, among other proposals, a proposal to introduce Hindi, Bhasa Indonesia, Japanese and Mandarin in the country’s primary and secondary schools, with the primary focus being on Hindi. Aimed at maximizing the links with the fast growing economies of Asia, the proposal has already been lauded by various sections of the Australian civil and political society.

A Policy of Necessity

Although the diplomacy of language remains the central scheme of things in India’s soft power, so dear to its foreign policy, it can also not be denied that this is a policy that India badly needs in order to create more jobs for its young population in order to realize the maximum potential of its demographic dividend. India is expected to surpass China in population terms by 2025 with the majority of its population being in the working age category. In order to provide employment to such a large proportion of population, India cannot depend entirely on the public sector. New and unconventional avenues will have to be explored which is only possible if the youth of the country are equipped with the right set of employable skills.

A continuing familiarization with the languages of different countries can not only boost India’s tourism industry and provide it with more translators, interpreters and teachers, but it can also help in adding more value to the already strong Diaspora of Indians which exists abroad.

It is in India’s interest to continue to experiment and explore new avenues in addition to its diplomacy of language, that can not only further its interests abroad, but can also prove beneficial in domestic terms in the long run.

A Victory for Thangjam Manorama

This first appeared on Daily News and Analysis

The Justice Verma Committee recommendations regarding sexual violence against women in conflict areas by the armed personnel are a victory for its many forgotten victims like Thangjam Manorama and Soni Sori.

Patriotism mixed with mass hysteria of our mainstream media often pushes the silent screams of the countless victims of sexual brutality at the hands of armed personnel, into a dark corner. Punished by those who were tasked with protecting them, these victims' endless cries for justice eventually get lost in the labyrinthine corridors of power. They find themselves repeatedly driven back in the long queue of the aggrieved waiting for redressal of their wrongs; a queue that is conveniently jumped by those with money in their hands and power in their heads. Brutalized by the army, ostracized by the society and regularly denied justice, the lives of these women either become fodder for bleeding hearts like me or are reduced to obscurity. That is, if they come out of the ordeal alive.

Thangjam Manorma was lucky. She didn't survive the ordeal at the hands of the Indian Army Personnel. In the wee hours of 11 July, 2004, the 32 year old was dragged out of her house by the personnel of 17 Assam Rifles on charges of being a PLA agent. No incriminating evidence was found during her arrest as recorded in the memo of the arrest (This was not-so-subtly denied by the official spokesperson of the Assam Rifles who later said that a hand grenade, a wireless radio and plenty of incriminating evidence were "seized" from her house). However, after much searching, her body was found four kilometres away from her house. Although there were barely any clothes on her body, there were plenty of bullets in her vagina.

Not so lucky was Soni Sori. The (now) 38 Year old adivasi primary school teacher and human rights activist was arrested in October 2011 on charges of being a courier between the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist) and the Essar Group as a part of the Naxalites' extortion scheme. The Essar Group, the Naxalites as well as Soni herself have denied the charges. Despite her protests, she was remanded in the custody of Chhattisgarh state police in Dantewada where she was stripped naked and given electric shocks. When she was finally hospitalized on the orders of the Supreme Court, stones were extracted out of her rectum and her vagina.

What happened to the offenders? The army personnel of 17 Assam Rifles still roam free after a court ruling termed the inquiry against them constituted by the Manipur Government as 'Illegitimate'. Manorma's body still lies in the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences in Imphal as her family alleged that the post mortem was not carried out according to the guidelines set by National Human Rights Commission. As for Soni Sori, the principal accused in her case, SP Ankit Garg was awarded the Police Medal for Gallantry last year by the President (This same President also pardoned many prisoners who had been sentenced to death for various crimes of rape and murder). Soni Sori still languishes in the Raipur Central Jail.

These are just a representative sample of the cases that have managed to grab the limelight. There are still others who are missing, whose dead body was never found or if they escaped alive, their story was never picked up by any news outlet.

So, it is with a sense of relief that one reads the Justice Verma Committee's report where unlike other various committee's, they have not glossed over this grotesque reality of Indian Armed Forces. Starting from Page 149 of the 631 page report, the committee notes that India is a signatory to the International Convention for the protection of all persons from Enforced Disappearance and also recognizes that like most other countries, our country too flouts the norms laid in this convention with impunity. They go on to recommend that "Sexual violence against women by members of the armed forces or uniformed personnel must be brought under the purview of ordinary criminal law" and that "There is an imminent need to review the continuance of AFSPA and AFSPA-like legal protocols in internal conflict areas as soon as possible."

The Prime Minister has often reiterated his "comittment" to replace AFSPA with a more "humane law". But unfortunately, he lives in a world where everything is "theek hai". For countless victims like Thangjam Manorma and Soni Sori, who have been fighting their lonely battle against the brutalizing machinery of the state for too long, one hopes that the recommendations of these reports finally bring them closer to achieving justice. The ball is in the court of the government now, and despite the banal and robotic monotone of Dr. Singh's address, I would be all ears tomorrow morning to see how his government moves forward in implementing the recommendations of the report.

The Republic of Hurt Sentiments

This first appeared on Daily News and Analysis

The events of the past week involving the brouhaha over Kamal Hasan's latest film is a reminder of how intolerance and narrow mindedness has percolated the fabric of our society.

In 1927, Katherine Mayo, an American writer and Social Historian, released a book called 'Mother India' in which she highlighted the various ills of the Indian Society including the treatment of women, the Dalits and the 'character' of nationalistic politicians and made a case against Indian self rule. The book created a furore in the country with Mahatma Gandhi labelling it as "report of a drain inspector sent out with the one purpose of opening and examining the drains of the country to be reported upon, or to give a graphic description of the stench exuded by the opened drains." The book prompted at least 50 other books and pamphlets in response which rebutted all the arguments put forward by Mayo against Indian Independence. However, the most famous rebuttal came from Mehboob Khan, who wrote and directed a film by the same name. Mother India the movie needs no introduction. It is known to all and sundry in this country as Independent India's one of the most famous contribution to the world cinema, which lost the Academy Award for the best Foreign Film by a whisker.

Amartya Sen would agree when I say that the response to the publication of 'Mother India' highlighted the best Argumentative Traditions of the country at the time. Not only did the book receive powerful rebuttals that contradicted its claims, but in the end, the very idea of Mother India was usurped and transformed to rid it of all the negative connotations. However, while the India of 1927, with a tiny educated population responded in such an intellectually charged manner, it is a shame that the India of 21st Century has behaved like illiterati supreme over works of arts and literature that dwarf in comparison to Mayo's book. The events of the past few weeks regarding Kamal Hasan's Vishwaroopam or Ashis Nandy's comments over corruption in the country are an unfortunate reminder of how as a society we have become ultra intolerant towards differing points of view.

The social acceptability of a ban has encouraged the fringe political groups to soothe their sensitive egos in the limelight by jumping at a moment's notice to demand the immediate curtailment of someone's work of art or literature in the name of hurt sentiments. In a civilized society, those with hurt sentiments would have been immediately referred to a competent psychiatrist. Yet it is only in our country that these fringe elements, which rarely represent more than 5% of any community, are repeatedly entertained in the name of preserving 'law and order'. It is difficult to imagine how 20 people protesting a film can create a law and order situation for the entire city that would force the government to halt all the screenings in the entire state.

It is a mark of growing intellectual bankruptcy in the society that has allowed the conservative groups to rub the nose of artistic freedom on the ground and has sapped the vitality of the public sphere which allows an individual to make a reasoned judgement him/her self. It would not be wrong to say that in the absence of better debate and adequate control over these fringe groups, the state has shed its responsibility of protecting the freedom of speech and expression and has instead let these contractors of religion to dictate what's offensive and what's not. This is a dangerous practice inherently inimical to the values of the democracy that we so greatly cherish. For any progressive minded individual it is clear that the Muslims in the country are in a dire need of education and jobs. Instead of being treated like a vote bank, a mindset cruelly responsible for the steeply deteriorating respect for the freedom of expression in the country, they would be much happier if the government can provide them with a semblance of self respect by opening avenues of progress instead of bending over backwards every time a fringe group that does not even represent 5% of the community starts kicking and crying in the name of hurt sentiments.

One can only expect that the government recognizes the apotheosis of intolerance that the society has achieved and takes stringent remedial measures in order to restore an atmosphere of vibrant and level headed debate in the public sphere of the country where the power of brains instead of the power of lungs and numbers is recognized and heeded to.

Sexism in Science? No Kidding.

This first appeared in Daily News and Analysis

As Women enter workforce in the largest number for the first time in the history of human kind, they face entrenched bias and gender related hurdles even in the most unlikely areas.

In March 2012, a scientist employed by LabX Media Group, which owns LabWrench and publishes Lab Manager Magazine and The Scientist, decided to take her love of science away from the labs. She created a Facebook page called 'I Fucking Love Science' which soon started attracting people due to its often humorous and educative posts. However, when Elise Andrew decided to reveal her identity on the page last week, there was an explosion on Facebook. "What?" People wondered. "She is a SHE?"

As Andrews admitted in this interview with CBS, there were quite a few people who were shocked. That a woman administers and runs such a hugely popular page on Facebook (by the time of writing, her page has more than 4.3 million 'likes') came as a rude surprise to many. The National Geographic quoted Rita Colwell, a Molecular Biologist and University Professor at the University of Maryland, College Park, as saying that "it was absurd and clearly indicates [that] although we've made progress over the past 40 to 50 years, we haven't made that much progress in behavior and attitudes".

Mrs. Colwell makes a valid point. Back in March, 2010, the New York Times reported on how bias in the scientific arena still posed a major hurdle in the career growth of Women (see infographic). Similarly, last June, Mark Fidelman of the Forbes Magazine wondered why were there so few women in technology related fields. Rejecting the old explanations (that women were not interested in Science, or wouldn't succeed at it or would not be happy and comfortable working in the field), he claimed that the main reason why there was a frustrating lack of women in technological fields was because women, while being interested in the field, were not choosing it because of the confusion regarding the various options and an ignorance about the economic potentials. To quote Fidelman:

"According to research by Penn Schoen and Berland (PSB), nearly two-thirds (63 percent) of teens have never considered a career in engineering. In another research study by Girl Scouts of America, only 13% of female teens say a STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) related career would be their first choice. Why? It turns out Klawe was on to something. From the research results, PSB found that 74% of teens that considered engineering did so only after being explained the economic benefits and impact they can have on the world."

While Fidelman's logic does explain a great deal about what's wrong with women not opting for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) related careers in the US, it conveniently side steps the third reason: Why do women feel that they would be unhappy and uncomfortable working in STEM fields? As Andrew's experience clearly shows, the answer is Sexism. Of course Andrew in not the only victim of sexism. Last week, Adria Richards, an employee of Silicon valley based tech firm SendGrid, was unceremoniously fired from the company after she tweeted about the sexist comments being passed around at the PyCon Developers Conference in Santa Clara, which she was attending as an employee of the company. In an article posted on her site which details a blow by blow account of what occurred at the conference, Richards revealed her real motivation behind calling those two men out:

"I saw a photo on main stage of a little girl who had been in the Young Coders workshop. I realized I had to do something or she would never have the chance to learn and love programming because the ass clowns behind me would make it impossible for her to do so."

While terminating her employment, SendGrid did acknowledge the incident and its nature, but faulted Richards for her own conduct. According to the official statement issued on SendGrid's website:

"We understand that Adria believed the conduct to be inappropriate and support her right to report the incident to PyCon personnel. To be clear, SendGrid supports the right to report inappropriate behaviour, whenever and wherever it occurs. What we do not support was how she reported the conduct. Her decision to tweet the comments and photographs of the people who made the comments crossed the line. Publicly shaming the offenders – and bystanders – was not the appropriate way to handle the situation."

The issue of women in workplace in Silicon Valley has been red hot for quite some weeks now after the release of Facebook Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg's book 'Lean In', which deals with it. But what makes employees like Adria Richards keep getting fired and scientists like Andrews face sexist jokes? The real problem seems to be perception. According to Mrs. Colwell, there seems to be a perception problem among the larger population which sees women through the old fashioned glasses of tradition. As the nature and medium of technology and most importantly, work, changes, it is going to be rough for a populace that has grown accustomed to seeing half the population squat (according to them) at home - to see them come out and demand an equal share. It is refreshing to see this dialogue finally getting started in the US, whose media houses and publications scorned at the developing world last year for its high rates of crime against women. So the next time you go on a date or welcome a new person in the neighbourhood, do not be surprised if she turns out to be a scientist. After all, they are just starting to get your attention.

A Question of Reasonable Freedom

First Published in Youth Ki Awaaz

Till 1983, October 31st was marked as the birth anniversary of India’s first home minister and one of the tallest leaders of National Independence movement, Sardar Vallabhai Patel. Known and feared for his shrewdness, presence of mind and clever deployment of tactics to force his enemies into submission in the political arena, Patel is also considered the best Prime Minister India never had. While his stormy relationship with India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru may had earned him some detractors within his own party, respect for invented traditions and the fierce loyalty of his supporters and followers ensured that Vallabhai was never reduced to a distant figure buried in the yellow and dusty pages of history.

That was until 1983 of course. In 1984, at the height of the Punjab separatist movement, two Sikhs, who also happened to be the personal bodyguards of the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, decided to pump their anger into the PM’s body via their automatic machine guns and thus burden the fateful date of the Julian calendar with another marking of History.

Rules of nature and science validate that Vallabhai’s birth anniversary still falls on 31st October. However, he now shares the extra tight compartment of that one day in the books of history with a lady, whose successors have ensured that their madam suffers no inconvenience by being reduced to the margins. Entombed under the eventful baggage of his Prime Minister’s daughter, Mr. Patel’s birth anniversary has today become a forgotten appendage to a greater event that transformed India.

Although joined by fate on the same page, a study of the style of functioning of the two leaders is a study in contrast. I would choose to speak of their attitudes and behaviours towards the issue of freedom of speech, because for me no other sphere of activity can shed more light to their glaring differences as this one.

Independence, Republic and The First Amendment

One can say that Sardar Patel resided over the most tormentous phase of national security over the country as its home minister. Given the situation, he could have acted in a dictatorial manner citing law and order; however, Gandhian principles and the ritual of consensus building ensured that things did not come to such a pass. Fresh out of the rule of the British, which had left their stamp on the history of freedom of speech in the country in the various forms of gag orders and press censorship, Mr. Patel and his government were determined to reverse the trend as a crucial part of their aim of nation building.

Perhaps the first and the only serious challenge which arose in his lifetime as the home minister regarding the freedom of speech and expression in the country was from the hallowed corridors of the courts which necessitated the Indian parliament into passing the first amendment in 1951, shortly after his death.

In a series of two judgements (Romesh Thapar vs The State of Madras and Brij Bhushan vs The state of Delhi), the courts in the country interpreted the scope of the term “public safety” or “public order” in Article 19(1)(a) of the constitution to imply only those actions or expressions which would pose a grave danger to the security of the nation as a whole. The court opined that banning such expressions or speech would constitute a violation of fundamental rights unless it could be shown that the particular case fell under the exceptions provided by Article 19(2) of the constitution which said:

“Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause 1 shall affect the operation of any existing law insofar as it relates to or prevents the state from making any law relating to libel, slander, defamation, contempt of court or any matter which offend against decency, or morality or which undermines the security of the state or tends to overthrow the state”

This interpretation left the acts of hate speech which could incite violence and hate crimes totally out of the purview of the Article and hence provoked a great deal of alarm in the government. Lawrence Liang, in his paper “Reasonable Restrictions, Unreasonable Speech” writes:

“The government argued that the expression “public safety” in the Act, which is a statute relating to law and order, means the security of the Province and, therefore, “the security of the State”. Within the meaning of Article 19(2), “the State” has been defined in Article 12 as including, among other things, the Government and the Legislature of each of the erstwhile Provinces. The court, however, stated that the phrase “public safety” had a much wider connotation than “security of the state”, as the former included a number of trivial matters not necessarily as serious as the issue of the security of the state. It concluded that “unless a law restricting freedom of speech and expression is directed solely against the undermining of the security of the State or the overthrow of it, such law cannot fall within the reservation under clause (2) of Article 19, although the restrictions which it seeks to impose may have been conceived generally in the interests of public order. It follows that Section 9(1-A), which authorises imposition of restrictions for the wider purpose of securing public safety or the maintenance of public order, falls outside the scope of authorised restrictions under clause (2), and is therefore void and unconstitutional” (Regarding Romesh Thapar vs State of Madras)

This decision, coupled with that of Brij Bhushan vs State of Delhi, triggered hectic discussion in the government over the need to introduce an amendment so as to bring hate speech and incitement to violence under the purview of the aforementioned article.

It was a unique situation. Patel thought that the Romesh Thapar decision “knocked the bottom out of most of our penal laws for the control and regulation of the press” and hence supported the idea of introducing an amendment so that adequate controls could be established in order to safeguard law and order situation in the country in view of the fragile relationship between its various religious communities. Even so, the intention was not to place a blanket ban on the expression of such ideas in the media, but was to place “reasonable restrictions” which were justified by the kind of atmosphere people lived in.

Such decision making characterised the working style of the home minister: to find balance and unanimity, to be benevolent but also be a realist.

Indira, India and Emergency

However, by the time Indira Gandhi came to power, these values of democracy, of tolerance and of thoughtful action had already started withering from the arena of India’s polity. Transformed into a battleground for power struggle, the chief objective became to acquire power and thwart the rival interests in favour of one’s own. Indira Gandhi, not known too much for her intellect as for her family background, turned out to be the quintessential politician that one would have expected once Indian democracy started to mature and show its true colours. Having acquired a following and legitimacy by promoting her personality cult after the 1969 split of the Congress into two rival parties, it became imperative for her to silence her critics, either by hook or by crook.

It is in this regard that the emergency of 1975 should be seen. Far from the considered pragmatism of the country’s founding fathers, the Emergency is a case study in intolerance to criticism and blatant disregard for the principles enshrined in the Indian constitution. The press was censored, opposition members jailed, free speech and freedom of expression revoked and the judiciary just made a compliant cog in the wheel of the state’s vehicle of things.

Could things have been any different without the Emergency? One cannot say. However, with the benefit of hindsight, one can safely conclude that the deterioration in the belief of rights to freedom of expression, which gathered pace after Nehru’s death, was accelerated with the catalyst of the Emergency and even without it, would have continued to grow, albeit at a slower pace.

In our Times

Thus, it is with a certain sense of deja vu that one analyzes the events of the past year. The cheap trick through which Salman Rushdie was not allowed to attend the Jaipur Literature Festival, apparently to soothe the hurt sentiments of a particular religious minority, the route of Baba Ramdev from the Ramlila Maiden during his fast against corruption and black money, the arrest of cartoonist Aseem Trivedi and Binayak Sen on charges of Sedition, the arrest of a professor of Jadavpur University for allegedly forwarding “insidious” mails against Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee, the censorship of the internet in reply to the North East exodus in the aftermath of Assam Riots and the latest, the arrest of a small time businessman for tweeting against the present Home Minister’s son.

It seems that the modern Indian state is in a state of limbo. Confronted with the rapidly advancing means of communication and modes of dissemination of information, the present administration finds itself inept of taking action in a balanced manner like that of Sardar Patel and fearful of going whole hog in destroying the civil liberties enshrined in the constitution to assume complete control like Indira Gandhi. In this state of indecision, the blunders that the government commits, with regard to free speech and free expression, only weaken the base of the limited liberties we enjoy and thus paves the way or a bleaker future.

Are Women 'Secondary Citizens'?

First Published in Youth Ki Awaaz

When a government fails to protect the honour and dignity of its women, it not only degrades them to the status of second class citizens, but in this process, it also reduces the constitutional provisions guaranteeing various rights and freedoms to all its citizens, to sorry figments of imagination.

In the last one month, over 19 different cases of rape have been recorded in the northern state of Haryana, which is infamous for having the lowest sex ratio among all the states in India. The rapists include teenagers, security personnel, neighbours or just random strangers. Like the rapists, the political opinion regarding these rapes has been varied and bizarre. Khap Panchayats, the rural kangaroo courts that seek to maintain the “honour” of the community even when it involves justifying “honour killings”, came out with the bizarre theory of lowering the age of marriage for girls to “protect” them from such incidents. Lending an intellectual bent to this ridiculous piece of “suggestion”, Om Prakash Chautala, the former Chief Minister and the head of the powerful opposition party INLD, explained:

“Look back at the past, the Mughal sultanate in this country used to misbehave with women and used to kidnap them. In order to prevent that people started getting their young girls married early so that no one does anything wrong to them… I have seen girls getting married at tender age; the same situation is back again.”

Another Congress leader, Dharamveer Goyal, eager to present his understanding of the whole scenario, suggested that 90 per cent of rapes were consensual:

“The girl gets into an affair with a boy and she goes with him without knowing that he is of criminal mindset. It’s not the state government which is responsible for rapes, in fact in most of the cases its consensual sex. In 90 per cent cases, the girls and women initially accompany boys on their own and are later trapped in gang rape by criminals” 

Apart from being sexist, horribly insidious and callously irresponsible, these comments are also a crude reminder of the mentality towards rape, molestation and other such crimes directed towards a female’s body in particular and the attitude towards women in general. To then expect a safe and secure environment where women have an equal right to opportunity to achieve their desired goals would be to expect too much.

Such mindsets and attitudes are not unique to the Indian polity. In fact, these are in sync with the phenomenon of global misogyny that the world has witnessed in recent days. Just day before yesterday, the Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard thundered in the Australian House of Representatives against the Leader of Opposition Tony Abbott, who had ironically demanded the resignation of the Speaker of the house of representatives (after he was found to have sent sexist texts to a former staff member), when he himself had been going around passing loose remarks about the Prime Minister and the women in Australia as a whole. In the United States, amid the flurry of election campaign, Rep. Todd Akin, in a bid to endear himself to the voters, earned the wrath of the media when he suggested that “legitimate rape” rarely resulted in pregnancy. Rep. Roger Rivard wasted no time in jumping to Akin’s bandwagon when he opined in a newspaper that “some girls rape easy”.

The irony amid all this slur of misogyny being vomited by political representatives from all across the spectrum was that just days before, on October 11, the world had celebrated its first “International Day of the Girl Child”, which reaffirmed the global pledge to “end gender stereotypes, discrimination, violence, and economic disparities that disproportionately affect girls.” In the light of these remarks, the celebration seems like a bad satire on the state of women all over the world.

One of the victims of rape in Haryana was just 7 years old. In any other part of the world, even in Australia and the United States, this single incident would have been enough to shame a government to death. However, in our country, this is just another rape, just another flash of bulbs and we are back to normal. It is with profound shame that one admits that when a woman is raped, it is not only an assault on her body, but a sad commentary on the vulnerability of women in an unsecure and predatory society and the government’s inability and also collusion, in removing that sense of insecurity.

Sexual assault of any kind snatches away from a woman, her inalienable right to pursue her desired objectives in life, by traumatizing her psychologically and shaming her in the society. It reduces her chances of being treated with respect, with dignity, with equality and without any prejudice. A rape increases her chances of getting pregnant and burdened with the responsibility of motherhood, without fulfilling the pre requisite avenues in life which would ensure a better and secure childhood and future for her children. In effect, a rape also snatches away the rights of an individual who has not yet been born.

The National Crime Records Bureau statistics suggest that there is an incident of rape every 22 minutes in the country and that instances of rape have gone up by 873 per cent between 1971 and 2011. Seen as crude statistics, these mindboggling numbers only makes one feel helpless and incompetent. However, the sheer gravity of the situation demands no less than a sincere effort to beef up the law and order and increase awareness about the rights and liberties of the womenfolk. Such an effort would need to attack, first and foremost, the institutions and practices which subordinate women to men.

The sense of complacency and neglect with which issues of gender equality and gender rights are treated only signals a demise of gender sensitivity in Indian politics and call for drastic action. The prevailing state of affairs in the country can only be summed up in the words of Faiz who said:

“Nisar mein teri galiyon kay aye watan kay jahan

Chali hai rasm kay koi na sar utha kay chaley

jo koii chaahanewaalaa tawaaf ko nikale

nazar churaa ke chale, jism-o-jaan bachaa ke chale”

(My salutations to thy sacred streets, O beloved nation!

Where a tradition has been invented- that none shall walk with his head held high

If at all one takes a walk, a pilgrimage

One must walk, eyes lowered, the body crouched in fear)