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.

India: Nation vis-a-vis Society

     The history of mankind is that of challenges it faced and the solutions it has designed to overcome them, in its continuous march towards modernity. The challenges sometimes were of a natural order, while others, the result of its own making and the paths chosen were the factors distinguishing one society from the other. The Britishers enthused with the enormous boost in production after industrial revolution and the consequent demand of raw materials and market it generated, sailed thousands of miles to reach a civilization which until then was alien to them, which with all its past glory & riches has to be eventually not only ruled by them for next two centuries but to totally change itself in form and character by the time they leave. The moment was of a monumental significance in the history of civilization. A new epoch has begun. A nation state with all its power, as if it was some mechanical press was thrusting itself onto a society which in its rich and diverse history dating back to more than five millenniums has never known something even close to this and was still in its nascent stage.

     The history of Indian subcontinent has been that of mingling of different races. Its has been a mixing pot of cultures starting from Indo-Aryans, Dravidians, Hellenistic, Grecco-Romans, Yueh-chi in the ancient period to Turks & Mughals in the medieval phase. All the earlier conquers representing a different culture, which in turn assimilated into the one they conquered, the native culture changing itself accommodating the newer ones. This is probably what Gandhi was hinting to, when he said " I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the culture of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any". Well, what can be the use of keeping your feet firm on ground when its is surrounded by mud through all sides.

     Indian society as it is known now, can be divided into three broad groups of people, the brahmans, follower of vedic brahmanism sect who enjoyed the patronage of whosoever ruled the subcontinent, coming up with the new books on Dharmasutras to preserve their ritual exclusiveness and social status excluding small phases of hostile rulers, the other three varnas who did not strictly recognized themselves with the varna divisions nor followed the rules of brahmanic texts until the late eighteenth century and were mostly the follower of shramanic sects or a whole range of diverse beliefs which were later termed as Puranic Hinduism. The third were the out-castes who were regarded as untouchables by the brahmanic texts and were subject to numerous social atrocities since the ancient times. This order was to be maintained through ritual status ascribes to different varnas , occupational heredity and inherent inequality in its nature. Due to this rigid social order Indian society could survive numerous waves of antithetical culture while perishing to none. The different kingdoms, wars, rulers were like a phases of clouds over the blue sky of this social order in the backdrop. The seasons changed, the rulers changed from turks to mughals, from marathas to rajputs, but the sky was always there with its ever constant bluish tint in the backdrop. It was this social order in the backdrop which India inherited when British knocked the door. But this time the natural clouds were replaced by the mushroom cloud of nuclear explosion. It was not the British culture but the British nation state with its hunger for resources, that was to make Indian its colony. Indian society of that time had no notion of a nation state. Had it been another wave of invaders like countless before, with the political sovereignty changing hands its would just have been a passing storm. But the Britishers were to act as a new binding force parallel to this social order and sometimes even disrupting it, which will give India its future identity. British Raj was to sow the seed of Indian nation. A nation where people come together to pool their political sovereignty into a society with a well defined territorial expanse for their economical well being. 

Indian freedom movement led by Congress was nevertheless a portrait of deep fissures in the Indian society. For most of its part it was dominated by the upper class, intelligentsia and the merchant class rendering it to be of limited political force. It was only after the coming of Gandhi that it took shades of mass movement with the application of satyagraha which he developed and successfully applied by during his stint at South Africa. Indian society which is believed to be secular for the most of its past has to become increasingly communal after the British conquest. This can be attributed to two reasons. First the concept of Hinduism as a religion was introduced to India by Britishers who compared the diverse group practices of prevalent in India at that time to their uniform society & religion. Thus every religious sect in India not in congruence with a distinct religion like Islam or Christianity was to be called a Hindu. This bought a sense of religious identity to Indians and the practices of vedic brahmanism were to be imposed on followers of many different sects more ferociously than ever before. Secondly, Britishers considered Muslims to be the major culprit of the revolt of 1857 and followed a discriminatory policy against them as a consequence for next half of the century with a wider objective of divide & rule in mind. This further led to a sense of alienation among Muslims and also led to their backwardness in both economic as well as educational aspects. This continued with Congress facing intense competition with Muslim league for the political representation of Muslims leading to independence, that eventually led to the partition.

     Many Hindu right wing groups like Hindu Mahasabha, RSS were also established during this period, which may be regarded as the interpolations of the brahman patron to the kingdoms of the earlier time for their sabotage of freedom movement at the behest of the British. Although their membership remained meagre at that time but they were to become the most important political force in the country in next 100 years. Hindu nationalism of that time was more anti-Hindu than anything else, with the term Hindu becoming a substitute for Vedic Brahmanism. With them being in favor of varna system, there was no regard to the upliftment of women and other oppressed classes in their agenda leave aside the animosity and intolerance towards Islam.

     Gandhi too was mostly interested in political freedom with limited or no interest towards emancipation of oppressed classes. Although he appealed for the abolition of slavery but this lacked vigor of a Satyagraha for peasant movements. Gandhi probably did not want to distance the Congress from the upper caste Hindus and invest his energy on social issues with a much bigger agenda of political freedom in hand. The untouchables, excluded totally in the brahmanic setup since ages, were suddenly clubbed together as Hindus and Gandhi rejected to recognize them as separate from Hinduism. While going on fast against the communal award for the untouchables his argument was that this will create fissures into the Hindu social fabric.

     Ambedkar rightly understood that political freedom alone will not mean anything in a society with deeply engraved social hierarchy leading to both physical and mental subordination. There is a tendency of looking at the ideas of Gandhi and Ambedkar in contrast with each other but they have a lot in common too provided they are traced to the origins of these leaders. Gandhi coming from a baniya well to do family in a village community was never subjected to untouchability himself and saw it a deficiency in his own social group and appealed to his own upper class for its abolishment. Ambedkar born to a subedar in Army, lived his youth in Mumbai city and had a modernist approach to the issue. He himself adopted the Gandhian principle of Satyagraha at Mahad and he appealed the protesters to be non-violent when they faced the violence of upper castes. There was certainly a reluctance for the cause of untouchables on Gandhi's part but nevertheless he identified himself with their cause.

    
 Ambedkar's contribution to India goes much beyond his well know struggle for Dalit rights. He envisioned an India free from its social stratification, which is enshrined in our preamble through the specific mention of word 'fraternity'. He saw freedom struggle as a golden opportunity to change the social order continuing since millennia. Freedom for him was not merely the transfer of power from British to rulers of Indian origin. How much of this dream is realized after 70 years of independence and how much of it is still prevalent is for us to judge. The continuous curbing of citizens freedom by the Indian political class, the continuous exploitation of the poor by the bureaucracy and the selfish character of different social groups should make us think whether India might have succeeded as a nation-state but has failed as a society! Whether we have missed the golden opportunity Ambedkar rightly identified or whether there still is time & hope!