Cow Economics

     Few years ago, ex-RBI governor made a statement on issue of rising intolerance in the society. Concerned, he related politics and social issues in a country to the fate of  its economy. The line of his argument was that a nation's economic growth can only be built on a stable platform provided by its polity and society. This linkage between society and economy can be seen unfolding in the state of Uttar Pradesh on issues related to cow since sometime now.

     The cow has been a tool for political mobilisation and polarisation in the Hindi heartland since the time of Arya Samaj. There were cow based riots as early as 1890s. The animal is venerated by Hindus (especially the upper castes) on one hand and is a source of cheap protein in diet for Muslims. Thus, it has turned from symbol of religious faith to a metaphor for diverging communal interests of Hindus and Muslims. Post independence, the constitution of India taking a "principled distance" approach (i.e. no total separation of state and religion as practiced in West) recognized the cow as symbol of Hindu faith and veneration. Thus it directed state to ensure well being of cattle.

     Due to this many state including UP have banned trade in cow for slaughter. There have been attacks on those transporting the cattle even for legitimate purpose other than slaughter. It has created a situation of fear and hysteria among cattle traders including those who trade in buffalo. This has led to economic disruption at various levels including farmers, traders, industry, exporters as well as common citizen.

     Farmers consider cow as a living bank which provides milk and compost. Moreover, it can be sold at a time of stress like drought, pest attack etc. At a time when government plans to diversify the agriculture sector, the ban will discourage farmers to opt for animal husbandry. There have been cases of farmers tying cow to schools, govt. buildings etc. as they destroy crop after being left stray when they surpass their milch age.

     Another victim of the ban has been the group of industries which use cow as a raw material like leather, pharmaceuticals, soap and detergent. The leather industry in Kanpur which account for 40% of India's leather export and provides employment in thousands have seen a considerable shortage of raw material and production. Meanwhile, the stray cattle roaming in cities have caused road accidents, attacked passerby and the animal itself survives on plastic wastes dumped at various crossroads.

     Facing public criticism for this emerging situation the state govt. has introduced a 0.5% excise cess, the money from which will go into creating cow shelter in all districts. The DMs of all districts have been ordered to ensure requisite land, labor etc for the shelter. The state govt. claims that all shelters will be made self-sustainable by selling products like milk, compost etc. However, it is a challenging proposition as the cattle have been left by their owners as they lost their economic value at the first place.

     The situation leaves us with few questions. Was there any spontaneous demonstration at any place in last 5 years where citizen have themselves rallied against the issue of cow slaughter? What was the need of this ban then? How do we promote animal husbandry and ban cattle trade at the same time? Are we okay with seeing our labor-intensive leather industry decline? Should a cess for protection of cow be the utmost priority for a state with highest infant and maternal mortality in the country?

     Our constitution makers were sensitive enough to include cattle welfare in the constitution yet limiting it to a moral and not a legal duty of state. The crackdown on illegal slaughter houses and cattle smugglers is appreciable, however scientific use of animal is possible without hurting public sentiments if the issue is not politicized. It can be seen that only the cattle of non milch age is used for slaughter.

     A leader should use his political capital to drive society towards progressive path, rather than reaping electoral dividends by encashing schism in society.                                                     

          

SC/ST Act

 The new guidelines of the apex court on SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has led to protest by Dalit groups across the country. The issue relates to alleged misuse of act to frame the innocent. The act in consideration creates a mechanism for immediate arrest of accused, after an FIR is lodged for any atrocity committed by a non-SC/ST on members from these communities. It also bars anticipatory bail for anyone accused of such offenses. Going by the evidence of low-conviction rates(around 20%) according to National Crime Records Bureau data, SC concluded that the misuse is rampant. Hence, it ruled that no arrest can be made without the permission of appointing authority in case of public servant and for private citizens, the senior superintendent of police in the district should approve the arrest. It also ruled that bar from anticipatory bail is not absolute and it can be given to those against whom prima facie there is no evidence. Hence, SC has tried to strike a balance between individual liberty and protection of oppressed.

It is not the first time that misuse of law is cited as an argument for amending its provisions. Last year, same question was raised regarding the abuse of Section 498 of IPC relating to the dowry laws. Hence, the current judgement raises several questions. Is the low convictions rate sufficient to conclude the misuse of law? Is the provision of immediate arrest against the basic doctrine of innocent until proven guilty? How can better safeguards be developed such that the misuse of law is prevented without diluting its spirit? And lastly, how far has the act & its stringent provisions fared in terms of ameliorating the situation of SCs/STs?

Several people have raised objection to the conclusion of rampant misuse. They have raised the issue of systemic biases. Poor investigation, weak chargesheets, witness turning hostile and inadequate quality of prosecutions according to them is the main reason for low conviction rates. There are cases where police even deny to register an FIR, due to external pressures or internal biases. Not all states have yet established special courts envisaged under the act. Hence, more data is needed to sufficiently establish the case of misuse.

Others argue that even if an alleged atrocity has indeed been committed, the provision of immediate arrest is against the tenet of rule of law. An arrest should be made if only there is enough reason to believe that avoiding the arrest will be detrimental to the investigation. The counter argument is that most of such atrocities are committed in rural areas in a highly stratified society. There is a risk of ostracization of the victim, further atrocities being committed if a person holding a dominant position is set free after an FIR. Moreover, the fear of immediate arrest is the most important provision in act which provides a strong deterrent. It gives a sense of security among the marginalized to go ahead and file an FIR. Hence, a law must also take social reality into account for it be impactful.

While such arguments do create a sense of need for such strong provisions that the act contains, the fear of misuse remain unaddressed. If not this, then how else can such a concern be addressed? One way can be to classifying the atrocities according to the severity. For example: A manager sabotaging the promotion of his junior based on caste considerations may not be a suitable case for immediate arrest, but garlanding a person with shoes for keeping a moustache or wearing a turban may well be. Hence, the punishment must be proportional. A penalty on frivolous complaints may also be considered provided that the malicious intent is proved beyond doubt. There can be other better ideas as well.

Moreover, the debate which the judgement has created should not be limited to its misuse. A holistic review of how the act has fared so far is also necessary. If not misuse, the lower conviction rate may be reflecting the poor enforcement of law. The pendency of cases is also very high. However, the protests that followed show that the act has created a sense of security in the community. Yet, the poor awareness of masses especially in the rural areas about the existence of the act creates hurdles in justice reaching their door steps. The act also contains provisions regarding the rehabilitation of the victims as most of the times the employer for the dominant caste is the harasser and the marginalized have to choose between livelihood or self-respect. In such cases immediate financial support from the state is necessary, so that an individual is able to live with dignity.

Finally, it is important that issues which have the potential affect the lives of one-fourth of country's population are debated in the parliament. It allows for voices of different sections to be heard via their representatives before a decision is taken and insulates the judiciary from charge of overreach.

Leading Power

     The current govt. has already finished 3.5 years at centre. Perhaps its right time to evaluate its achievement in an area in which the PM himself has played a pro-active role i.e. foreign policy. One of the stated goals of "Modi doctrine" has been to re-calibrate India as a leading rather than a balancing power especially in the Indian ocean region. It will help India to have a major say in the geo-politics of its extended neighborhood. The recent National Security Strategy of U.S. has also shared this vision of establishing India as a leading global power. Yet it seems as a mere euphemism for containing China as a sole hegemon in Asia.

     Nothing terrifies the western democracy more than the idea of anti-democratic China leading Asia. U.S. has tired itself by fighting a war it will never win in Afghanistan. It has lost much of its leverage over Pakistan with China filling the space receded by U.S. All this combined with Russia under Putin has created a China-Pak-Russia axis in the west Asia. In the east, there is little U.S. has done to protect its all time ally Japan from North Korean threats other than offering to sell its weapons. Asean have little confidence in U.S. leadership to hold fort in South China sea and press against Chinese aggression. Hence, from east to west a vacuum has been created with U.S. receding from its role of net security provider in the region in post world war global order. Viewed from this perspective a resurgent China has been both a challenge and an opportunity for India. 

     Challenge because its own territorial and marine security is threatened with Chinese expansionist designs. Opportunity because India has emerged as a major contender to fill the vacuum and lead the Asian democracy against the anti-democratic axis mentioned earlier. The fact that leaders of all 10 Asean nation accepted India invitation for its republic day must be seen in this perspective. Also, India commands respect and goodwill of most third world countries since the NAM days. A recent example is the support it was able to garner in ICJ elections.

      But being a leading power requires more than just diplomacy and summits. It requires hard power. It requires economic might and more than that it requires putting forth your views on major issues with conviction. For ex: A leading democratic power cannot be seen as being neutral to a genocide of Rohingyas in its neighbour. While there was no mention of the ongoing crisis during PM's visit to Myanmar, China played pro active role in mediating between Myanmar and Bangladesh. In quest of strengthening its ties in extended region with countries like Israel & Japan, India has also lost sight of it closest neighbours and all time friends like Nepal, Bangladesh & Mauritius which have drifted towards China.  

      India has almost no presence in other major issues of global geo-politics like Syrian crisis, South China sea issue etc. due to its non-membership of UN security council. Even in smaller groups like NSG, China has succeeded in thwarting Indian attempts of membership and has practically hyphenated India's entry with that of Pakistan. In major global forums, India is most of the time seen as a petitioner raising issues of its self interest like terrorism emanating from Pakistan rather than taking active part in issues of global concerns.

      When it comes to trade and economy, India is no match to China. All countries that are perceived as Indian allies have high stakes in China. Japan has investment plans in China's Belt and Road Initiative to which India has objections. Asean's trade with China is above $500 billion while that with India is $70 billion only. 

      Hence, for the time being, in a leveraged world where all countries have vested interest with others, India must not fall into the western designs of being projected as an adversary to China. India's relationship with China itself have become worse than before. China has kept its head down and worked towards improving its economy for 30 years before playing pro active role in global space. India must give China the respect and due space in global geo politics it commands unless its not adversarial to any Indian interest while balancing its relationship with U.S. Conflicts like Doklam must be handled silently rather than making them an issue of national prestige and going to a point of no return.

      There is no reason why India and China can not be partners in a 21st century that belongs to Asia. U.S. and Canada have existed side by side for years in cooperation. While projecting China as an enemy may be good for domestic politics, its definitely not in national interest. Hence, India must not put all its eggs in U.S. basket and continue playing the role of consensus builder in the region. Modiji has very little time to change current scenario w.r.t. China lest the election bell rings and the hyper-nationalist inside him rises again.

PS: Vijay Gokhale, an old "China hand" and a Mandarin speaker, took over as Foreign Secretary on, succeeding S. Jaishankar who has also served as India's envoy in China.

Is Triple Talaq Bill really about Gender Justice?

    Lok Sabha has cleared the Muslim Women (Protection of rights on marriage) bill 2017, which criminalizes instant divorce. Despite opposition to the bill from many quarters, govt. has projected the bill as legal tool for empowerment of the women of Muslim community. The hurry with which it has pushed the law in the lower house and the accompanying politicization reflects otherwise.

    Firstly, the bill is full of many incongruities and lacks cohesiveness. To criminalize an act of civil nature is classic case of legislative overreach. If the govt. was so serious about the rights of community there was no need to wait for SC verdict on the issue. The fact that SC has already declared talaq-e-biddat null and void, it becomes the law of land under Article 141 of the constitution. What it means is that any person pronouncing instant divorce to his wife will not count as legal divorce. Hence, what is the need to criminalize when the crime in itself is not recognized/committed?

    Secondly, the bill provides 3 year of jail term and provision for subsistence allowance for the wife. Who will provide the allowance if husband goes to jail? What if the wife just wants to be reunited with her husband without sending him to jail? At best, the bill needs redrafting to remove these discrepancies.

    Thirdly, its the question whether triple talaq the only injustice faced by Muslim women. Several groups of Muslim women have asked for an all inclusive law which makes illegal other practices like polygamy & halala. Just shooting the gun over Supreme Court's shoulder by singling out instant divorce and calling it a decisive step is laughable.

    Hence, what is needed is to include all other practices which are discriminatory to the women of Muslim community & make them a civil rather than a criminal offense.

    The bill raises other pertinent question about the approach of government towards individual rights. Do the current dispensation really has the courage of conviction to abrogate laws that abridge individual rights? Lets look at the stand of govt. on other issues of individual right which do not involve only the Muslim community.

     It has defended marital rape by arguing that criminalizing it may weaken the institution of marriage. Do the women who are victim of marital rape do not need empowerment? It is puzzling that the govt. which is repealing the antiquated laws has not moved its foot on laws like Section 498 of IPC that deals with adultery. Others like transgender rights, sedition laws etc. can be added to the list. Most of all, the govt. argued and fought against the right to privacy in the SC calling it an elitist concern not protected under Section III of the constitution.

    Moreover, the govt. has ridiculed the argument of orthodox member of the community that talaq-e-biddat should stay as it is the tradition of community protected under Article 25. While it was right in doing so, the govt. itself takes the refuge of same argument while justifying cow protection or its stand on Ram Janmabhoomi conflict. It has always favored the community traditions over individual rights when it comes to Hindu community.

    So, based on the stand it has taken on the spectrum of issues, the current bill is everything but a step towards gender justice & women empowerment. It is basically the manifestation of the "love jihad" ideology which criminalizes Muslim men as a enemy of Hindu Rashtra. Full points on opportunism.

Transgender Person (Protection of Rights) Bill

    In its landmark judgement in 2014 (NALSA vs Union of India) Hon'ble SC declared transgenders as the third gender and affirmed that fundamental rights granted under the constitution will be equally applicable to the community. Also, it asked the government to make adequate provisions for the empowerment of the community. As a follow up govt. tabled Transgender Person (Protection of Rights) bill in the parliament in 2016 which was subsequently sent to a parliamentary panel for further improvements. The govt. has reintroduced the bill again in the parliament without any modifications. Due to various provisions of the bill, it has attracted criticism from the community stakeholders on various grounds. Lets us try to analyze what the bill provides and where its found lacking which has led to this criticism.

    Transgenders have been one of the most marginalized community since the ancient time as their sense of gender identity did not conform to the prevalent social norm. They are forced to live in separate settlements, deemed fit only for certain professions and castigated by the state & society for no fault of their own. Archaic provisions like section 377 of the IPC restrict their control over their own body and are detrimental to the right to life and dignity provided by Article 21 of the Indian constitution. In this light SC's decision was welcomed & seen as opening up the path to freedom for the community from the shackles of history. However, 2 years after the judgement little difference has been made on the ground.

    The bill introduced by the govt. provides a definition of transgender person as one who are neither wholly male or female, or a combination of both female and male. The activists have criticized this definitions as it defines transgenders based on the traditional heterosexual gender norms. Moreover it falls short of providing affirmative support to transgenders in arenas like education & employment. The bill just states that the state will make sure that they will not feel any discrimination due to their gender. It provides for punitive action against those who subject transgender to any kind of violence but does not include public servants under its ambit. Considering that the transgenders have to face maximum exploitation at the hands of police officials via torture in custody, sexual violence and criminalisation by perennial threat of section 377, the bill does little to help to allay this fear.

    The bill also falls short of granting civil rights to transgenders like right to marriage, adopt children etc and they will continue to face legal action against section 377 of IPC. The SC judgement was historic in the sense that it provided the right of self determination to the transgenders to define their identity in the way they deem fit. The bill reiterates the self determination in principle but at the same time provides a state level screening committee to grant transgender person a certificate of identity. How the self identification and certification will work parallely is unclear.

    It is difficult to comprehend a society where a human being is deemed unfit for certain basic civil rights due to his gender.  The union govt. had an opportunity to nudge society to a progressive attitude towards gender identity by building on the SC judgement through a strong legislation. By rejecting all the recommendations of parliamentary committee, the bill will fail its purpose to be a tool of empowerment for the transgender community.

Post Script: SC upheld the validity of Section 377 in 2013 Koushal judgement. By declaring right to privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 in 2017, SC has paved way for quashing Section 377 as it can be interpreted as violation of privacy of transgender community.

Quad: Rising stakes in Indo-Pacific

   There is a new addition to the alphabetic soup of coalitions in the Indo-Pacific region. After ASEAN, RCEP, TPP, APEC, SCO, EAS and many more, India, Japan, Australia & USA have agreed to come together for a "quadrilateral" meet. In the current scenario, it is inevitably seen as a coalition to counter the resurgent China. The 4 democracies have reiterated their commitment to "rule based order" in the Indo-Pacific region. The importance of the region lies in the fact that more oil passes through it than through Suez canal. 

    The US president has pushed for this alliance & US sees India as playing a key role in the cause. India has also shown its willingness to lead from front in the recently concluded ASEAN summit. Hon'ble PM made India's stand clear on issues ranging from nuclearisation of Korean Peninsula to South China sea conflict. India has demostrated its capability to counter China in recently concluded Doklam crisis & it has increased India's credibility in the eyes of smaller players in the region who see China as a threat to their territorial sovereignity.

    Overall, two visions have emerged for the region. The Chinese are ready to accept the multi lateral global order but they consider Indo-Pacific as their backyard. The recently concluded twice in a decade communist party conference in China has spelt the vision for a China as a key global player. They will be more & more unwilling to share power in the region in coming future. The other vision is that of multilateralism with the preservation of status quo that US & Soviet Russia had designed for the region. Only time will tell which vision will succed but odd seem to be in favour of former at present. 

    Diplomatically, China is quickly occupying the space receded by US in global forum. It has championed the cause of climate change at UN, free trade at WTO. Indian interests in these areas align more with China then with the developed world. 

    Militarily , China has developed key defense infrastructure across the region outside its boundaries. The string of pearls in Indian ocean is almost complete with military base at Djibouti, Gwadar port in Arabian sea, Friendship bridge in Male, stakes of Hambantota & other key projects in Kyuapkyu, Chittagong & more recently in Kathmandu. At South China Sea it has developed many military bases in the artificial islands. It is using North Korea as proxy to target Japan & US protectorate islands in Pacific ocean. All this it could achieve without a single bullet being fired. 

    Economically it is six times as big as India in terms of GDP & holds 10 times more foreign reserves which it is deploying to its strategic advantage. It is a bigger trade partner of US, Japan, India & Australia than these countries are of each other. None of them will want Chinese economy to falter.                     

    Strategically, it has widened its sphere of influence beyond its geographical limits with Belt & Road Inititaive. Many experts see it akin to the Marshall aid that US gave to Europe post world war.  With the eastern sector extending upto Eastern Europe, it is fishing in Baltic waters to break European unity. Hence, it is clear that there is no domain of superior power relation that its has left untouched. 

    On the other hand, the "quad" is a weak coalition with strong centrifugal tendencies at best. All members of quad are member of other groupings with China & they will need to balance their priorities. India is a part of BRICS & SCO whereas Japan, China & Aus will be coming together for TPP. Despite the challenges, the countries of quad will be betting on India to lead. 

    India on its part has started late but has slowly come to terms with the elephant in its neighbourhood. India's geography with its location at the centre of Indian ocean provides it an upper hand on all cargo movements between Aden & Malacca. It has started mobilising its own infrastructure projects with littoral states. It has welcomed US investment in Nepal & invited Japan to invest in Arunachal Pradesh which China claims as South Tibet. It has also completed Malabar naval exercise with Japan & US despite Chinese reservations. 

    Yet, in the end all boils to one thing i.e. financial resources. Whats difference between China of today & 20 years ago? The answer is its economy. India has limited financial resources to counter Chinese economic imperialism. US Secretary of state Rex Tillerson has called for alternative to Chinese loan model & financial mobilisation needs to be the highest priority for the quad. The biggest success for quad will be to help smaller states reeling under the burden of Chinese loans. ASEAN has welcomed the quad and they will be looking for the kind of help quad could provide. Despite all this President Trump has given mixed signals during his 12 day long trip to the region. He has asked India & Japan to contribute more citing the trade surplus they enjoy with US.

    Thus, there seem to be different motives for each member state to join quad with common adversary in China as the binding glue. While India will look to develop an alternative to China's economic model by mobilising finance, Japan seeks assurance of its security by devloping a collective leadership, U.S looks at it as an effective alternative to power vaccum created by US withdrawl from the region. 

    The fact that 4 countries have come together to contain China is proof in itself of its growing influence. While the seasonal meetings serve as a great theatre of political aspirations, the benefits of quad will be little without nations willing to make sacrifices on financial side. There is no denying the fact that the region will be governed by "rule based order", the fight is for who gets to make the rules. 

Role of technology in NPAs

      Hon'ble finance minister has recently announced the recapitalization of PSBs. Among the many discussions it has ignited has been the question of what has led us to this situation? Depending on which side of line you are the explanations vary. Of the many reasons that has come to fore are: 1. Aggressive bank financed capacity expansion by the private sector during the "boom" period followed by financial crisis. 2. Judgement of hon'ble SC on spectrum allocation that led to reallocation through auction increasing input costs. 3. Priority sector lending to infrastructure projects etc. which later proved to be nonviable. 4. Political interference in the management of PSBs & reckless lending to wilful defaulters 5. The fear of 4Cs under which the PSB management operates and the resultant delay in NPA resolution through writing off the bad loans. Hence, the government has announced that "reforms" will precede the "recapitalization" to make sure that such situation is not repeated. However one of the important issue that has received little attention is the role of "disruptive technology" which has revolutionized many of the sectors in which the lending took place.        
 

      Various commentators have highlighted that huge share of NPAs  pertain to the power & telecomm sector. During the boom period it was realized that too fuel the engine of growth, a garangutan leap in India's power generation capacity is required. Thus, huge investment in setting up coal based powerplants & auctioning of mines took place in which private sector was more than happy to participate. The govt. made sure that finance for setting up these power plants is available through PSB loans. 

      So far so good. With all this investment, India soon became a power surplus country from a power deficient one. Yet, this surplus presents a false picture. Whats the use of all this surplus if a huge part of country still has no access to affordable and reliable power supply! To address the issue of accessibility the govt. launched SAUBHAGYA scheme & to address the issue to affordability the govt. tried to clean up the finances of DISCOMS via UDAY scheme. Yet 3 years down the line the power plants are running at plant load factor of 56% down from above 80% in 2000s. The DISCOMS are unable to buy more electricity as they have no extra money. Hence, the "recapitalisation" of DISCOMS via UDAY has not worked the way govt. wanted.

      Of the many reasons ailing the DISCOMs is the new challenge from renewables. With "climate change" attaining centre stage at COP21, research on renewables has received much attention worldwide. With many countries opting for renewables and economies of scales kicking in, the cost renewables have precipated. It has gone down to a level where the tarriff has become even cheaper than the coal based power. Hence, DISCOMs have deserted the coal for renewables and many have announced that they will renegotiate the Power Purchase Agreement with the coal power generators to get better deals. On the other hand hon'ble SC has called the agreement sacrosant with no scope for renegotiation. Still, will load factor as low as 56% the generators are unable to pay the interests they have taken from NPAs. At the other hand DISCOMs which are state owned are still making losses, thanks to cross subsidies, competiton from captive power generation and transmission inefficiencies. Both the DISCOMS and power plants have a high risk of defaulting on their loans. 

      The other sector disrupted by technology is telecomm. With the coming of 4G, the business  of 2G providers have become unviable. The Reliance communication has losses running in thousands of crores and is unable to pay back the its loans. The other major issue of unemployment is as much a result of diruptive technology as it is of inequitable growth.    

      So the question that affronts us is that if there was no development of renewables or 4G or AI, would we have been in the same situation as we are today? The question is for anyone to answer. Fortunately, these changes are an exception rather than the norm. Many experts have called this the "fourth industrial revolution" and a revolution by its nature is disruptive. And while we are here the revolution is still taking place & will encompass more sectors sooner than later.

Facade of a Religion-less Utopia

With or without it [religion] you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes a religion.

    Is there any significant benefit of religion to human race? If we go by above statement it seems there is none. In a climate where religion has led to growth of communalism & terrorism it is very easy to consider religion as the evil legacy of ancient and medieval ages to the modern society. In fact all the major religions that we have today predate the industrial revolution, the renaissance and many even predate the period with any historical record. So, if the cost benefit analysis of religion is highly skewed toward cost, what if we somehow manage to create a world without religion? There will be at least one lesser source of conflicts if nothing else. In fact, many of us feel that we are slowly transforming into a less-religion society eventually converging into a religion-less atheistic utopia. And the fuel to fan the fire of this not so sacred altar of religion is the spread of modern education.

    However I have my reservations against this stream of thought. First, the definition of religion does not have any relation to its causal effects we see in society. Modern science defines religion in specific as belief in and worship of superhuman power and in general term it is a pursuit or interest followed by great devotion. Hence, religion is totally individualistic in this sense. However, the religion as we know now is comprised of two distinct parts: individual faith & social norms. Many religions like Islam & Christianity have combined these two as the social norms shaping the practice of communities and individual devotion derives itself from a single source of Quran & Bible respectively. Hinduism on the other hand derived its community norms mainly from Vedas, Dharmashastras while individual devotion emanated from the Bhakti movements of medieval period. While, the social norms of religion cause a social harm & must be repressed, the individual devotion as a human right of every individual must be respected and guarded against any restriction. Our constitution balances this very well by prohibiting social norms like untouchability on one hand, and allowing freedom to practice, preach & propagate your religion on the other.

    Second, we perceive religion very narrowly as compared to its definition. If it is a firm faith in a particular system. What will you call a blind faith in communism with the communist manifesto as its holy grail? After all, no matter how tangential, Marx's mode of production as motor of historical change has a parallel in Buddha's social contract theory. Belief in communism has taken more lives in the modern world compared to any form of religious fundamentalism. Same can be said about chest-thumping nationalism  which caused two world wars, and the nuclear threat still looms over world due to competition between nation states. Hence, pointing out the harm caused only by faith in one form of system while leaving others is unjustified. To counter a faith you will always need a faith, faith cannot be countered by vacuum on other side. We can only change the religion from Hinduism to Science by impressing upon the people its benefit over other forms. And what are the benefits of changing a faith that is totally individualistic and spiritual? When spirituality and science can go hand in hand, whats the point of favoring one for the other. Considering diversity in any form as good is a thumb rule of Social Darwinism and so should be the case with faiths. You can always have an option to switch off from  work and meditate in Himalayas when all those therapy sessions with you doctor are not leading you anywhere. Taking faith away from human is like taking away the essence of humanity and turning it into a machine that run through laws of motion.

    Third, there a no evidence to suggest that a religion less society will be free of social norms attached to a religious society. Social norms are attached to religion to provide them legitimacy, likened to some form of divine truth that cannot be challenged. Eating beef does not make any one a lesser Hindu if it doesn't do so in his eyes. Similarly, the norms like caste remained even after religious conversion from Hinduism to Islam. An individual is the final adjudicator to decide his personal faith. In a same way a religion less tribal society can have its own social norms and customs. Hence, eliminating religion doesn't guarantee a more liberal society. For the same region replacing religion with moral & ethical training is not a good idea because it address the social norm side. An individual cannot run to his moral science teaching while facing a catastrophic situation, while praying to unknown may certainly help in easing out the strain.

    Hence, calling for a blanket ban on religion or envisaging a religion-less society solves no purpose. On one hand there is no guarantees freedom from social norms, on the other hands it creates a spiritual vaccum in individualistic space. What we need is to bring to life, rights and restrictions provided in our constituion.   

Tryst with Faith

              At the stroke of the midday hour, when the world is awake, India will sleep to death and destruction. A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step back to old from new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance. This is probably how the honorable Haryana CM will paraphrase Pandit Nehru’s Independence day speech to describe yesterday’s happening. However, the poor soul, bounded by his political compulsions understandably can’t afford to offend his core constituency. What is more disturbing is the way in which the people of Haryana came out in support of a convicted rapist! Nor do we have the comfort to attribute this behavior to the funding from a rogue neighbor like we do to their unlucky cousins from the valley. Nor do they have anything to win or loose. Nor can they be dismissed as a fringe or some anti-social elements with their numbers in thousands. Probably we need to dig a bit deeper and do some root-cause analysis before we can jump to conclusions.

            While acknowledging that the mob has mind of its own, the mob also has a minimum common objective. It is this objective they try to achieve by putting the state to ransom. What makes them feel that they have any iota of chance to achieve their objective through this means? The answer is simply that many times they do succeed, which feeds into this vicious cycle of violence. The compulsions to let them succeed are always political. The feeble political will power bows to the majoritarian demands most of the times. It is not long ago when the same people from same state burnt Murthal demanding reservation. The examples are many and spread throughout country. The Jallikattu protests is another example of protesters resorting to violence. While many of us may criticize Gandhiji for his commitment to non-violence, but it was probably more than a belief he wanted to restrict to himself. Looking at the state we find ourselves in now, its disheartening to conclude that he might feel himself to be only partially successful in his mission. While means are as important as the ends, the reverse is equally true. A violent protest by a debt ridden farmer demanding waiver cannot be equated to a mob on a burning spree against conviction of a rapist. The objectives are important.

            With the objective of the mob in this case being indefensible, it’s probably the time to reflect upon where do we have reached as a society and how? How did we reach from Swami Vivekananda to Asaram, from Guru Govind Singh to Baba Ram Rahim? It’s not that we don’t have virtuous saints today, but these so called Godmen have become the poster boy of all that is wrong in blind faith. They run their multimillion dollar empires under the refuge of religion. At the same time we have a huge uneducated populace, which provides them a fertile ground for this opium of faith. While we rightly invested on building our industrial capital, we have significantly defaulted on the side of social capital. The primary education had to suffer the brunt of resource crunch. The result is that we have few pockets of highly advanced human capital while rest of the country is still reeling with the medieval era thinking and dogmas.

Another aspect of this situation is purely political. In a stroke of pen free India provided universal adult franchise to all its citizen post independence. The Economic survey discusses how it has impacted government’s economic policies, a study on its social aspects will provide more insights. Dr. Ambedkar pointed to perils of imposing political democracy over a social undemocratic society. His viewpoint may provide a starting reference for such a case study. Can the right to equality guaranteed in constitution remove patriarchy with a stroke of ink? Or can right to life free a person from the prison of his own faith? Probably, the constitution provides the end goals we may strive for and not the ones we already attained on 26^th January 1950. This will also explain why it took 70 years to ban Triple Talaq, that too with a mere 3:2 verdict. This will also explain why section 377 of IPC still exists and why a uniform civil code is still a distant dream. The universal adult franchise deters the government of the day to take an anti-majoritarian stand point. It explains why the people look forward to SC when they should ideally make their elected representatives accountable to their demands. Why cannot the government come with a law banning Triple Talaq or a law legalizing homosexuality?

This is what exactly Chief Justice referred to in his judgment on Triple Talaq. In a matter involving faith, the court should refrain from being an activist court and necessarily put rationality above faith every time. A top down approach can have little effect in solving social problems. You cannot impose liberal values over an uneducated mass of people. The demand should come from the society itself, reflecting in the political will to legislate. The only long term solution is investing on the social capital to generate this demand. However it should not mean that we should let the irrationality of society prevail over individual rights till we reach this desirable state. The balancing act between a modern constitution and a society not fully ready will prove a tough task till then. Long years ago we made a tryst with destiny, and now the time comes when we shall redeem our pledge, not wholly or in full measure, but very substantially.    

Google Ngram: History through graphs

I recently stumbled upon Google Ngram View and found it pretty fascinating, especially for those interested in history.

How it works? It simply plots the mentions of any word in the books published over a given time.
While searching for some random words, I found that the inflection points of the curve match pretty well with the timelines we are taught in history. Here are a few examples.

1. Hindutva 
The mentions rise at around 1980. BJP was also formed in 1980 (just saying).

2. Kashmir-Palestine
Now you know why India is so soft on Israel's position over Palestine. Both the issues have striking similarity, both in nature and timelines.

3. Islamophobia
Islam is 1400 year old, yet Islamophobia had to wait till the ending of the cold war (1990s).

4. Lenin
Only few people are more famous after death than alive. Lenin died in 1924, his name reached heights in Cold War.

5. Luftwaffe
Nothing depicts the sheer might of German Air Force (Luftwaffe) during World War II better than this graph below. Waiting for Dunkirk.

6. Engine
The two time the graph rises steeply is before the World War I and World War II. Capitalists love war, don't they?

7. Railways
Railways peaked around 1900s and started declining after that, while the mentions of aircraft present a complimentary picture and explains the reason for decline of railways.

8. Electricity
Benjamin Franklin did the famous kite experiment and invented electric charge in 1750s.

9. Cancer
If we extrapolate the graph, cancer will be bigger threat than AIDS soon.

10. Democracy
The two dips in democracy are the period between two world wars and the cold war.

11. Mahatma Gandhi
The two times when Gandhi's curve falls are post 1930 (Gandhi-Irwin Pact, Poona Pact) and post 1975 (Emergency). Although I am not very sure if this is the reason or something else.

12. Nationalism
Epic rise in nationalism from period subsequent to World War I upto the end of World War II. Only decline was during cold war.

13. IITs
Atleast somewhere IIT Kanpur is above IIT Bombay.

14. Science
Gradual increase after the period of enlightenment in Europe. (1700s)

At the end, I would like to add the caveat that all large number of factors are working together to change the course of history and these interpretations provide only the superficial knowledge.

Hindutva Hate Mail

In the chapter titled "Hindutva Hate Mail" in his book "Patriots & Partisans", eminent historian Ramchandra Guha, has listed a number of angry mails he received, most of them from Indians settled in west. I myself am a witness to such comments on opinion pieces of many eminent writers on the news websites. While there are many abusive comments written in broken English by what are now called as "trolls", the ones that disturb me the most are the types he mentions in the book as they supposedly come from a group of educated Indians. They feel that Congress party has cheated the cause of Hindus for decades. They fear that the Muslim population in India will outnumber Hindus and the Hindus will be reduced to minority in their 'pitra bhumi' & 'punya bhumi'. They are either oblivious of the fact that there are numerous report of various independent committees which highlight that socio-economic conditions of Indian muslim are worse compared even to Dalits or choose to ignore it consciously. As I read further, I was looking forward to his analysis of why this continuous cycle of hate mails exists, but, the chapter ends without further insight. He might have saved it for some other time, but this is how I feel about it through application of my limited knowledge.  

  

I feel, these Indians who have settled in west are very emotional to an extent of being inane. These emotions stem from many factors. Even after living in west for years they are not able to adjust themselves into the new society. Rather than finding fault in themselves, they find faults in societies of the west. From this stems the belief, of their culture and society being superior to rest. Being away from India for so long they romanticize Indian culture with the Hindu ancient culture, and develop this feeling of hatred towards free thinking modern intellectuals. Apart from this there is always an inferiority complex seeing the progress of the west. I believe that when an individual identifies himself only as a part of & subordinate to a group, trying to project that group above rest, based on class, caste, religion, culture or nation, the ultimate desire is that of hiding his own failures. They cannot take pride in the achievements of contemporary India, hence this obsession with history. 

  

While all of this has continued since long, what troubles me is the funneling down of this feeling into the lives of ordinary Indians. This fear mongering against minority becomes very easy in the age of social media & fake news. Of late, I read many articles on the continuous polarization of Indian society. While there were stalwarts like Gandhi & Nehru to take on RSS during freedom struggle but I see no one in the modern times to take on this Hindutva agenda. This is what worries me the most. While this hate mail brigade remains very confident of seeing a saffronized India soon, my anxiety stems from this confidence. A social equilibrium of different ideologies is the very essence of democracy, yet I see ours leading into imbalance. Media is highly corporatized, the few intellectuals who speak are labelled as anti-nationals, pseuso-seculars and naxalites. We have lost all sense of nuance in the popular discourse. Yet, having limited knowledge of history & society, I feel I might not be able to see the light at the end of tunnel myself so I have few questions for everyone. 

  

1. Is there an actual rise in right wing chauvinism or it just comes out more in the age of social media? Many of my friends & family members who have little interest in politics vote for right wing only because of the popularity of PM Modi. Are these cow vigilantes, love jihad brigade really a fringe and will remain so in the future? Is the current political discourse something new in Indian history or have we been through this before? Will this new found Hindutva enthusiasm die down gradually or will be need a revolution similar to the lokpal revolution against the congress corruption? 

  

2. Is there an inherent guarantee in our country's institutions that it will never become a Hindu Pakistan or a Hindu Saudi Arabia? Has the Sangh parivar with it grass roots volunteers, pan India presence & schools successfully infused Hindutva ideology into a generation of Indians? What gives us the confidence that a society that has seen many hegemonic empires in the past, has allowed tyrants to rule with their consent will not let it happen again in future.  

  

3. Why is the idea of Hindutva and nationalism appeals to a majority but the idea of rationality, modernity & humanism appeals to a minority. Is this because inherently selfish nature of humans? Why is it so that the liberal idea enshrined in our constitution appeal so strongly to me, but not to many, especially to the educated ones. Ignorance of an uninformed can be understood but what about others? 

  

4. Even if I give this Hindutva brigade any benefit of doubt and consider that they really want to do something good for the nation, why is their agenda always negative? Rather than engaging & commenting on the articles of right wing ideologues, why do they choose to target the liberals and the left all the time? What good can come out of this hate, even if all they want is to profess "Hindutva"?