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"? 

The Hindu Wife

RBI established in 1935 has an interesting anecdote related to its initials days. A journalist asked the, then governor of Bank of England, what should be the role of RBI vis-a-vis GoI. His response was "It should behave like a Hindu wife advising from the background without imposing itself too much". Although derogatory, the remark is amusing as almost 80 years after it was made, there were several criticisms regarding role of RBI during demonetization. Even before this, the previous RBI governor faced pressure from several quarters regrading his monetary policy stance. For, those interested in this conundrum, it leads to several questions. What should be the role of central bank in an emerging market economy like India. Should it be similar to Federal Reserve of US or EU bank? Is there a need for RBI to be an independent entity like Election Commission? What should be the relation between RBI governor & finance minister? Although there are no simplistic answers to these questions and a book can be written on each, lets attempt to understand some of the underlying principles. 

The RBI act defines its role as to ensure the price stability and assist in financial policies in line with the economic goals of the country. With time, RBI has assumed many roles ranging from monetary policy, financial regulation to payment systems regulation. Not long ago, the monetary policy included the balancing act between different parameters like inflation, exchange rate & public debt etc. This inadvertently put immense external pressure on RBI governor before any policy announcement. The govt. & industry wanted cheap credit to boost growth while the pensioners looked for high return of deposits. With the formulation of MPC the goal has been narrowed down to inflation targeting. Moreover rates will be decided by a committe of six with two govt. representatives. This will help bring consistency in monetary policy regime and diffuse pressure over RBI governor. Some detractors has seen MPC as a tool by govt, to curb RBI's autonomy. RBI is considered as a banker to the govt. Should the principal borrower which in this case is the govt. have a say in the rate of interest? Does this not amount to conflict of interest? Should Vijay Mallya be allowed to sit in the board meeting of SBI? Similar criticisms were hurled during the 3 months of demonetization including those from previous RBI governors. The joke that went around was "Silent PM with Vocal governor is replaced by Vocal PM with Mute governor"

The answers to these criticisms & questions can be understood through two pronged approach. One, what is the amount of legal autonomy bestowed upon RBI under different acts. The other issue deals with whether laws in their current form require modification in congruence with the best global practices. RBI was nationalized in 1949 and since then the debate on its independence is settled. The RBI is subservient to the sovereign. The governor is appointed directly by the govt. and it has right to advise the governor. Hence in case of difference of opinion, the only option a governor has is to resign or toe the government's line. This brings us to the second question of whether independent central bank is desirable. The global financial crisis of 2008 provides a useful insight. Inadequate regulation, easy credit, inappropriate financial supervision led to the crisis in developed world. In India, there was risk of shrinking liquidity in capital markets with outflow of foreign funds. The industry faced crisis with the lackluster global demands.To save economy from external shock a coherent economic & financial policy was required. Fiscal stimulus driven domestic demand needed the support of monetary stimulus driven liquidity. With direct correlation between fiscal & monetary policy can they be decided by two independent organizations. Since, there is a considerable trade-off between the two, the risk for difference in opinion is very high. In a developing country like India, which still does not have matured institutions compared to west, absolute autonomy of a central banks seems unfeasible. The arguments can be extended to financial sector regulations, exchange rate management, public debt & so on. 

The sole purpose for existence of central bank is to save governments from bankruptcy by printing currency if the need arises. Hence, the comparison of public debt with corporate debt seems frivolous. To quote Voltaire "If Gods did not exist, we would have to invent them". Similar quote can be used to define the relationship between central bank & govt. Apart from monetary policy there are other issues like NPAs in financial sector & increasing security threat to payment systems in digital age that need coherence of policy between govt. & RBI. The role & functioning of RBI will increase & become more complex as the economy matures. When we develop different institutions to take care of different strands of economy, some sovereign power can be pooled into those institutions. "The Hindu wife will take some more time to turn British". 

Affirmative Action: Proliferation for Annihilation

          Every nation has a duty of equitable distribution of resources among its citizens. The uneven distribution leads to internal conflicts & social revolts. Partition of India is historical example of the culmination of policies causing alienation of a particular community. On the eve of independence, India was presented with a historical opportunity to amend mistakes of history. Thus, the constitution makers decided to abolish untouchability & provided for the reservation of seats to SCs/STs. The reason was the atrocities faced by these communities historically. It led to their social & educational backwardness that manifested itself in unequal access to resources & unequal representation at various levels. Later the policy was extended to OBCs in 1991. The policy of reservation has been a subject of wide scale public debate & scrutiny. Since, the issue touches the lives of every aspirational Indian every one has an opinion on it.  The key debates centres around the criteria, efficacy as well as outcomes of the policy. 

          The most vocal opposition of policy comes from a group deprived of its benefits i.e. the upper castes. The major sentiment that prevails is that, the policy deprives the meritorious students of opportunities. The drop-out of SC/ST student from educational institutes due to their incompetence with the required standards is cited as the wastage of resources. It has negative effect on country's growth. Others suggest an income based criteria. They argue that a well-off Dalit with access to resources gets preference over a poor from upper castes. These oppositions are not to be taken as any malign motive of those belonging to upper caste. Rather, reservation policy become an easy culprit to blame in a country facing scarcity of opportunities. At the same time not everyone belonging to upper caste opposes the policy. Some see it important to promote social equity. Yet, they have their doubts regarding the implementation. Reservation, according to them, creates caste based resentment among those who are deprived, which is contrary to original idea of annihilation. Also, many backward castes among SC/ST & women have remained backward as the benefits are availed by better equipped among them. 

          The SC/ST community naturally defends the policy. Counter-arguments are provided to every question raised by those who oppose the policy. Merit, they argue, is not an inherent quality, rather can be cultivated once opportunity is provided. India as a developing country with limited resources uses entrance tests as a proxy for merit. Hence, exams must be seen as policy tools to filter out students rather than a test of merit. Allocation of few seat in this filtering for socially backward seems justified. The income criteria is rejected emphasizing that reservation is not a poverty alleviation program. Govt. already has several schemes for upliftment of poor. Also, caste based discrimination has little to do with the economic status of individual. The discrimination only changes its form with upward economic mobility. In rural areas, practices like separate tea glasses, destruction of property, khap dictats are still prevalent. Besides, there is huge resentment for those involved in menial tasks like cattle skinning & cleaning. In cities, the discrimination is more subtle. Lower caste individuals are made aware of their castes at various levels, managers in private jobs favor their caste candidates etc. Some argue that resentment the policy generates is much better the rejection they face without it.

     There have been several positives of reservation in decades following reservation. The representation of SC/ST in group A & B services has rise slowly but continuously. Huge amount of students (consequently the whole family) benefitted from the reservation in educational institutes. The role of educational institutes is not limited to technical education. It provided much needed awareness & confidence to break the stigma associated with caste. The difference awareness can create, can be seen in the difference in political clout of OBCs & SCs both belonging to lower castes. The OBCs command higher clout & representation in many political parties without any reservation in legislature. SCs even with reservation have a limited political presence. This shows that society is much comfortable in accommodating socially backward OBCs compared to SC/STs with stigma of untouchability attached to them.

          Apart from these positives, the representation of lower castes in all spheres is smaller than their proportion in population. Hence, the continuation of policy until this objective is achieved seems justified. There is added need on govt.'s part to see reservation as a means rather than a end. It must be supported with enhanced efforts at primary education level, support during higher education & other benefits like easy credit & land reforms. For upper castes, the opportunities will inevitably rise with the march towards development. The govt. is already opening new institutes to accommodate more students of all classes. With liberalization of economy, public sector jobs constitute miniscule proportion of total jobs. With no reservation in private sector as yet, the opportunities have risen tremendously for upper castes post reforms. Hence, rather than absolute opposition to the policy, need of the hour is to find ways to improve its efficacy. Opportunity proliferation is the sure route to caste annihilation. 

Opinion: Ambedkarism

          Religions can be classified into two types: the ones that trace their origin to a founder like Christianity, Islam & Buddhism, and the others without a founder like Hinduism, Zoroastrianism & Judaism. The former were found as a reaction to the prevalent norms of their contemporaneous societies. With the advent of science & modern day ideas of freedom, justice & equality enforced by state, the state has taken many roles previously sanctioned to religion. The religion is now reduced to the individual level, satisfying his spiritual needs. Still many consider the battle is not lost yet with skirmishes between religion and state visible throughout the world in general & West Asia in particular. However a new religion has risen in India. I call it Ambedkarism.

          PM Modi started his campaign for recently concluded UP elections by garlanding Dr. Ambedkar's statue. Same was the case with alliance partners. Although, it was nothing more than a spectacle to attract the 20% Dalit population, it has a clear undertone to it. In the race to co-opt Dalits, no one can ignore Ambedkar. Post-independence, all the political parties have co-opted the leaders of freedom struggle to suit their agenda. While Congress co-opted Pandit Nehru & Gandhiji, BJP found the embrace for its ideology in co-opting Sardar Patel & Bhagat Singh. Yet, 70 years after the independence, Ambedkar is emerged as a leader no one is willing to ignore. Political parties aside, he finds acceptance among whole spectrum of ideologies. The right wing use him for his view against Gandhiji, the left use him for his critique of religious fanaticism, the liberals admire him for his dedication to the modern democratic principles. From promulgation of ordinance to crisis in Syria, writers quote him on his visionary thoughts. Of all this, the most striking legacy of Ambedkar can be seen in the constituency, for whose cause he dedicated most of his political struggle i.e. the Scheduled Castes. 

          3 days ago, on 14th April, the popular media was filled with the photo ops of the leaders from CM Yogi to PM Modi garlanding & remembering Ambedkar. Parallel to this were numerous events & fares organized by the SC community to remember their hero. Calling Ambedkar a Dalit hero will be an understatement. His charisma is akin to that of a demigod among laity. When asked by a journalist in a fare, whether she buys & keeps the Ambedkar idol in his living room, the prompt response from a follower was ''we keep it in temple & worship him". Although, single data point is insufficient to conclude that most of his followers worship him this way, the fact that there is a market for his statues, idols & posters is suggestive of a demand. This is what I referred to as Ambedkarism in the first paragraph. Thus, it is the institutionalization of Ambedkar in the lives of laity, where the symbolism takes precedence over ideas. In this term it is something similar to religions with a founder. Rather than finding positives & negatives in what is largely a societal reality, a much intriguing study will be to find parallels in history & understand the genesis.

          For a case study, the evolution of Buddhism can be delved into. Siddhartha Gautama born around 483 BC became disillusioned by the prevalent rituals and practices of the time. He wandered as an ascetic for years & later developed his own doctrine on the ideal norms for a society & ideal traits of human behavior. However, within few years of his death, he was apotheosized and made into an idol. Different groups ascribed different meaning to his teachings causing breakaway of earliest sanghas into different sects. Many wonder what made Ambedkar to follow Buddhism instead of atheism and a lot has been written about it. It is equally striking how society completes a full circle from Buddhism to Ambedkarism. Ambedkar developed his ideology in the pretext of caste based atrocities of early 20th century India. He provided a strong critique for the bhakti of a particular thought or leader, yet he himself has metamorphosed into a demigod. His statue stands in every corner; every city has an intersection called 'Ambedkar Chauraha' or 'Ambedkar Chauk'. Votes are cast in his name. However, the wait of another Ambedkar from the community still looms. 

          Probably, it is in nature of individual to derive respect from collective prestige of his social group. The social group paradoxically derived its prestige from a singular individual. This individual symbolizes all that is considered desirable in the initial phase, but later is just reduced into a caricature of his original ideas. This phenomena confers itself in obsession with God in all religions. It may be harmless until this derived respect is not used in any way for institutionalization of social hierarchy like caste system, for political gains & fanning animosity between social groups. In case of Ambedkarism it provides much needed wings to break the shackles of history.

Champaran Centenary: Tale of a century

''There is an Indian saying: “Pray strike on the back, but don’t strike on the belly.”’ Under the ‘native despot the people keep and enjoy what they produce, though at times they suffer some violence on the back. Under the British Indian despot the man is at peace, there is no violence; his substance is drained away,unseen, peaceably and subtly — he starves in peace, and peaceably perishes in peace, with law and order.''

          Dadabhai Naoroji perfectly described the British rule in India through the above critique of British economic policies. British disturbed the agrarian system in India like no other ruler before them. Systems like Zamindari, Ryotwari were introduced with sole purpose of maximizing revenue. According to some estimates, the peasant of Champaran were subjected to 40 different taxes when Gandhiji arrived there on 10th April, 1917. He successfully fought against those oppressive policies and landlords partially agreed to peasant demands. The event was significant for two reasons. First, the strategy of Satyagraha which Gandhiji developed during his stint at South Africa was introduced in the Indian freedom struggle. Second, it brought the peasants into mainstream of freedom struggle. The second is important because peasant constituted the major part of Indian population of the time, and no movement could have been successful without their active participation. They played a major role in Gandhian phase of freedom struggle. Thus, Indian freedom movement was also the struggle against the oppression of peasants. 

          Fast forward five decades to 1960s. India was facing a severe food shortage due to rampant famines and had to depend of imports. This was the time when, then PM Lal Bahadur Shastri made an appeal to citizens, to skip a meal everyday during Indo-Pak war of 1965. The slogan ''Jai Jawan, Jai Kisan" perfectly captures the mood of the times. The need to increase agricultural produce was realized. With increase in public spending on irrigation, research of high yielding variety of seeds, price support for procurement, easy credit through opening of rural bank branches (nationalization of banks by PM Indira Gandhi had a role here), the agriculture growth soared during next decade. This phase is described as Indian green revolution. As a result, India not only became self-sufficient, it started exporting food grains to many south Asian countries.

          Fast forward another three decades to 1990s. Indian govt. faced with balance of payment crisis ushered in an era of neo-liberal reforms and rest is history. GDP growth soared to 8% in 2000s and India found itself on the 4th position in list of countries ranked by GDP (PPP). There is also a parallel narrative to this growth story. The growth rate of agriculture has reduced since 1990s. The share of agriculture in GDP has gone down from 50% to less than 15%. Yet, the percentage of population engaged with agriculture is still above 50%. Post reforms, the focus of govt.was on reduction of fiscal deficit to attract foreign finances. To achieve the fiscal targets the expenditure on agriculture was reduced substantially. On the other hand, reduction in import duties led to fall in commodity prices with increasing competition from imports. Rural branches declined and priority sector lending to agriculture received reduced impetus. The farmers had to borrow from money lenders, with high interest rates causing debt traps. More than 2 lakh farmers committed suicide in the two decades following reforms.

          Fast forward another two and a half decade to 2017. A political party implemented its promise of farm loan waiver within a month of forming government in India's most populous state. This has triggered competitive politics around loan waiver with CM of Punjab meeting PM with similar waiver demand for his state. The demand coming from a state that led the green revolution reflects on the severity of agrarian crisis. The loan waiver without doubt provides huge relief to farmers. Yet, RBI governor asked political parties to eschew such promises during elections. The SBI chief emphasized on the disadvantages of such loan waivers. It will encourage farmers to strategically default before elections with expectation of similar waivers in future. This will also deter banks from lending to already credit starved agri. sector. Detractors of such loan waivers also provide the examples of previous waivers (the biggest one was in 2008 by UPA govt.) that helped only in short term without dissecting into the long term issues. A few remedial steps suggested by experts are 1) improvement of logistics, 2)socio-economic growth of rural areas, 3)land reforms, 4)reduced dependency on monsoons, 5)FDI in retail. Apart from these there are numerous other policy levers at govt.'s disposal provided the focus is on long term improvements. 

          After 100 years of Champaran, Indian politics still revolves around the issues of peasant distress. This may be a good news for Indian democracy but not for Indian economy. Rising inequalities (rich&poor, rural&urban, agriculture&services) has been a part of Indian growth story post reforms. This inequality manifests itself partly in agrarian crisis that remains hidden behind the growth boost provided by the services. If India has to reach & sustain a double digit growth for next 2 decades, it cannot ignore it agriculture sector. It may not be easy but it is definitely not impossible. It will certainly involve politically difficult decisions but with a stable majority government in center, it is probably the best time for these measures. 

National Health Policy 2017

        The government of India has recently announced a new 'National Health Policy'. This is the third such instance after 1983 and 2002. Health, along with education and food security is one of the three main pillars for any country. India with its huge population of 1.3 billion represents around one-sixth of world's population. With such huge representation and promising growth, many experts see 21st century as the century of India and China. With huge power, also comes, huge responsibility. Economic Survey (ES) 2016-17, elucidates on how India's demographic dividend might recede sooner than expected. China, with its one child policy was successfully able to curb the population growth. The cracks in this policy appeared, soon after, with rapidly aging population. The Asian giant has since, shown signs of slowing economic growth triggering currency devaluation led trade power and dwindling global growth scenario. This may be attributed to many direct and indirect factors including population aging. Other countries like Japan & many in Europe are already facing repercussions of population decline.  India, on the other hand has emerged as the sweet spot in the abysmal global growth story. In India too, average age has already started to shift towards the higher end of spectrum in some states (ES). The national average age is expected to show inflection within a decade. Thus, one may conclude that, India has a bright road ahead, provided it learns from the mistake of its counterparts,

        Health (Right to Life) is a fundamental right, but health care is part of Directive Principles of State Policy in our constitution, Health care is a state subject with center providing for regulatory mechanism, policy guidelines & additional funds to needy states. Limited financial resources at the time of independence deterred the constitution makers to make health care a fundamental right. It is saddening that the vast amount of population is the country is still without health care net. India recognized the need of public sector heath care pretty early. The plan was laid out in the first planning commission based on the recommendation of Bhore Commission (1943). The numbers suggest a mixed scenario of the progress, seven decades after independence. The life expectancy at birth (LE) had a meteoric rise from 32 to 67.5. The infant mortality rate (IMR) declined from 150(1947) to 50 but still remains among the highest in the world. Small Pox has been eliminated and prevalence rates of Leprocy, TB, Malaria have gone down. Polio immunization program has received much accolades worldwide. The number of hospitals and dispensaries have more than quadrapuled although their accessibility in rural centres remains a source a worry. The sanitation & bio-waste disposal mechanism at hospitals have been dismal, but the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM, since 2014) has been a positive change, Institutions providing health education have spread resulting in increased manpower. China, with the communist party at helm after the civil war in 1949 has shown much better improvement. India's transformation with people's representation & participation remains equally laudable,

        Like many countries, Indian healthcare system is divided into primary, secondary & tertiary. Since independence, The primary sector has received maximum public sector intervention among three. In the purview of rampant poverty that independent India inherited, primary sector required maximum attention.  A high proportion of population dwelled in rural areas, and communicable diseases had a huge share in total disease profile. A lot has changed since then especially in the last two decades. The disease profile has had an epidemiological transition, seen in many developed countries. The share of non-communicable diseases like hypertension, diabetes & cancer has risen, whereas others like TB have mutated in more severe form of MDR-TB & TB in HIV infected persons. With the rising middle class, demand of motorized vehicle, ACs, electric generators have increased. The Delhi smog, Bengaluru lake fires, Chennai floods have raised alarms. Arsenic impurities in ground water, especially in the regions of Ganga basin has worried experts. The rising number of breathing related ailments & deaths in Delhi exemplifies the health effects of pollution. The knee-jerk policies like odd-even show how grave the situation is! This necessitates the need for a new policy to remove any mismatch in resource allocation and coming after a gap of 14 years, the National Health Policy 2017 provides a breath of fresh air,

        India spend 8% of its GDP in healthcare compared to 16%-18% of OECD countries, The share of central government is only 1.5% of GDP. This inadvertently leaves a huge burden of health financing on individuals. This catastrophic out-of-pocket expenditure has pushed many families into poverty. India cannot afford this at this moment of its history. It sabotages the efforts of different poverty alleviation programs. With continuous economic growth and efforts of govt. to curb black money through Jan-dhan, Aadhar & Mobile (JAM) the fiscal capacity is bound to rise. Considering this, the decision to raise health care expenditure to 2.5% of GDP is a welcome step. The intention is to reduce out-of-pocket expenditures by burden sharing with the public sector & increasing insurance net. Apart from this many quantitative targets like increasing LE to 70 by 2025, reducing IMR,MMR shows India's commitment to its mothers and children. When it comes to health, everything counts! Thus, the impetus is also on the cross-ministerial schemes on improving healthcare. Sanitation (SBM) & pollution control (Namami Gange, International Solar Alliance) are expected to have long lasting effects. This will help India to fulfill its nationally determined contributions of Paris climate treaty as well as achieving targets set in Agenda2030 of UN.

        A shift in focus from selective to comprehensive health care in primary sector is called for. Thus, all aspects of healthcare i.e. preventive, palliative & curative will be improved. India's growth story is mainly due to its service sector unlike China's growth impetus of last two decades coming from labor oriented manufacturing sector. Thus, demographic transition might not be this hard for India economically, but it will have indirect effects. A large number of old-age population requires more health care compared to younger one. Thus a shift from curative to preventive care is need of hour. Besides, the strategy also helps in countering non-communicable disease like hypertension, diabetes etc. Health education & yoga programs will be encouraged in schools to spread awareness. The sanitation in schools will be linked to SBM for sensitization through participation. Strategic buying of resources in secondary & tertiary sector will share the financial burden and address the demand-research mismatch in the private sectors in the short term. The long term goal will be to establish a wide public sector infrastructure in secondary health care as well. The geographic equity will be considered for the location of hospitals along with population equity. The tribal population of 100 million must not be alienated and all planning will be based on urban, rural & tribal areas. Diseases like HIV will get specific impetus with the 90:90:90 target. Doctors will be encouraged to take rural postings through appropriate incentives. Tobacco & alcohol use will be gradually reduced. Free emergency care will be provided to all at public hospitals. Infrastructure will be improved to provide emergency care within the golden hour rule. AYUSH systems (Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani, Siddha & Homeopathy) will be integrated with the public health centres and schemes like ASHA to mainstream their usage. The govt. will continue its commitment of providing free medicines at hospitals and dispensaries.

        Thus, NHP 2017 touches all the policy levers at the govt.'s disposal with the emphasis on 'Health for all' in primary health care, and burden sharing to reduce the health costs to manageable levels in secondary health care. The policy measures have been welcomed by the experts & individuals alike barring some criticisms regarding the 'Right to Health Care' not being recognized as fundamental right. If at all its shows Indian democracy in bright colors, with people in constant conversation with their representatives. If the vision set out in the policy is turned into a mission during its implementation, it will go a long way to enhance the prosperity and well-being of one-sixth of humanity.