The Peninsula Foundation

Category: Opinion/Commentary

  • Sedition Law: Sensitivity and trepidations of the State

    Sedition Law: Sensitivity and trepidations of the State

    This article was published earlier in moneycontrol.com

    A few activists and intellectuals, some of them octogenarians, are in jail for varied periods having been arrested for sedition. A question being asked since then is: can intellectuals and activists who fight for the rights of the deprived, underprivileged and downtrodden be seditious and subversive? The law of sedition is a remnant from the days of colonial rule in India.

    Should the State feel helpless and orphaned if the law of sedition is to be repealed? The fact that for seven decades and more the State has staunchly held on to this law suggests so

    The (British) colonial administration was constantly apprehensive and on tenterhooks that the ‘natives’ (the dominated subjects) would rebel against it in conduct, speech, or action. Hence, the sedition law was introduced through Clause 113 of the Draft Indian Penal Code in 1837 by Thomas Macaulay.

    The colonialists wanted to guard themselves against any kind of protest. Any activity that was unpalatable to the colonialists was conceived of as ‘treason’ and ‘subversion’. In order to maintain an untrammeled stronghold on the populace, the colonial administration thought it essential to promulgate a sedition law; an overarching law to protect what it thought was its sovereignty and suzerainty.

    Interestingly, in the 1860 Indian Penal Code (IPC) the law of sedition was not included. However, due to an ‘increase’ in ‘revolutionary’ activities and ‘unrest’ on the part of the Indian ‘rebels’, in 1870, the British inserted Section 124A and amended the IPC to include the law.

    Suppression and subjugation through draconian measures were resorted to by the foreign power for its political and economic gains and ends, in a system that was tyrannical, authoritarian, and dictatorial, and ran through its course till 1947

    Though the Constitution of India (with its oft-quoted Preamble) was to come a bit later, India did become a sovereign, socialist, democratic republic when it got rid of the colonial yoke. So, how come the Law of Sedition got carried over into a republic that became a free country and a democratic political entity?

    On the one hand, why the need for a law of sedition in a free, sovereign country. On the other hand, a look at the way sedition is being interpreted currently.

    In 1929, Mahatma Gandhi called sedition a “rape of the word law” and asked the people to go in for a countrywide agitation to demand the repeal of Section 124A. He said, “In my humble opinion, every man has a right to hold any opinion he chooses, and to give effect to it also, so long as, in doing so, he does not use physical violence against anybody.”

    Subsequently, after Independence, during the debate on the first amendment to the Indian Constitution in 1951, then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, called the law of sedition fundamentally unconstitutional and declared “now so far as I am concerned [Section 124A] is highly objectionable and obnoxious and it should have no place both for practical and historical reasons. The sooner we get rid of it the better.”

    Intriguingly, the Law of Sedition was not repealed, as it should have been, ideally, during the first Parliament session itself; and has been retained during Nehru’s government and subsequent governments too.

    Should the State feel helpless and orphaned if the law of sedition is to be repealed? The fact that for seven decades and more the State has staunchly held on to this law suggests so; more so today as during the last nearly seven years the number of times that the State has resorted to the use of this law is disturbing, to say the least. Besides, the State is arming itself with yet another draconian handle in promulgating the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act (UAPA).

    Was there ever such a low in independent India in terms of lack of tolerance on the part of the State? Any sort of criticism against the government seems to automatically get interpreted as anti-national. This manufactured binary — anti-government equals anti-national — has been the dominant credo ever since the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 2014.

    In a recent article, Amartya Sen says, ‘The confusion between “anti-government” and “anti-national” is typical of autocratic governance’.

    Intellectuals, opposition leaders, activists in different realms, are all swept into the hold-all like sedition law. Also, international voluntary organisations, as also Indian NGOs, have been targeted and attempts are made to stifle them whenever there has been any criticism of the government, however, legitimate or valid the censure be.

    The government’s actions have prompted UN Human Rights Chief Michelle Bachelet to raise issues of a crackdown on CAA protesters, UAPA, Hathras case, and marching orders given to Amnesty International. New Delhi’s response in its lame defence to the criticism has been: ‘The framing of laws is obviously a sovereign prerogative. Violations of law, however, cannot be condoned under the pretext of human rights.’

     

  • As the US exits Afghanistan, who is there to tame Taliban?

    As the US exits Afghanistan, who is there to tame Taliban?

    Sometimes, the best way to triumph over an enemy is to quit the game. In an attempt to honour his election campaign promise of bringing the American soldiers back home, President Trump announced the complete withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan and Iraq. About eight thousand six hundred remaining boys in boots will return from Afghanistan by Christmas this year. The Taliban, whom American forces have been fighting for the last two decades, is now a closed-door dialogue partner of the White House. The arch-rivals in the eerie battleground are now facing off each other in opulent hotels.

    In Doha, the Afghan government caught up with the Taliban at the much-awaited intra-Afghan peace talk, held in September. 

    In the two-decade-long war, America has paid enormously in currency, diplomacy, and defence. It has cost the US exchequer almost $2 trillion. Several efforts to bring peace have gone in vain. Ultimately, Washington has successfully brought the Taliban and the Afghan government to talk to each other. The two belligerent parties are now engaged in the tete-a-tete. In Doha, the Afghan government caught up with the Taliban at the much-awaited intra-Afghan peace talk, held in September. Despite several attempts, an agreement between the Taliban and the Afghan government could not take place earlier as the bellicose force never recognized the legitimacy of the elected government in Afghanistan. In the eyes of the Taliban, the incumbent in Kabul remains a puppet government of the Western powers. What contrasts the most between the present administration and the earlier Talibani rule is their diametrically opposite ideologies. Whereas the present system in Afghanistan runs democratically, the Taliban believes in the Islamic Sharia law. The battle is now between democracy and theocracy.

    The ongoing peace process is a continuum of American mediation between the Taliban and the Afghan government since February 2020.  White House is nearing an imminent peace deal with the Taliban as they are no longer deeply interested in Afghanistan. Washington’s priority is now countering China’s growing influence.

    In the previous peace talks, the western states sat with the Taliban, disdaining the Afghan government. Even Russia’s attempts failed to produce any fruitful results in favour of Afghanistan. One of the major reasons for the failure is about diluting the Afghan government authority. The Afghan government never endorsed the efforts of foreign nations in the Afghan peace negotiations, in which the Afghan government itself is side-lined. Afghan government affirmed that any kind of peace deal would not be entertained as the legitimate government was not a part of it as it was a clear violation of Afghan sovereignty.  Afghan government took the issue to the United Nations and accused Pakistan of bypassing it in peace talks with the Taliban.

    a large area of Afghanistan and its people are under the Taliban’s control. The Taliban is collecting taxes from the citizens to exercise their undisputed rule.

    Unlike the previous attempts, the intra-Afghan dialogue has raised much hope among the Afghans, the Government, and the international community. But both parties are likely to face many tough challenges to achieve the desired outcome.  The Taliban has already violated the agreement with the United States that resulted in the death of Afghan civilians and army personnel but stresses that it is continuing with the ceasefire. It is possible that by claiming to maintain the ceasefire the Taliban is trying to put pressure on the Afghan government. Despite this hostile situation, the Afghan government has agreed to negotiate with the Taliban mainly for two reasons. First, most of the International Security Assistance Forces and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) forces have left Afghanistan. The Afghan security forces have neither the training nor the institutional mechanism to provide security to its people. Second, a large area of Afghanistan and its people are under the Taliban’s control. The Taliban is collecting taxes from the citizens to exercise their undisputed rule.

    Unlike the previous peace processes, the current one does not rely much on foreign countries. But the peace deal is likely to affect Afghanistan’s external relations adversely. If the Taliban reverts to its Islamic radicalism, Afghanistan may lose billions of foreign aid it has been receiving since the last decade for the reconstruction of the country. The Afghan government worries that the premature departure of American troops may have a negative impact on international assistance.

    Although both parties agreed to negotiate on the peace deal, there is dissatisfaction within the cadres of the parties. In the recent elections, the two Presidential contestants each claimed electoral victory. A power-sharing arrangement was concluded where Ashraf Ghani is the President and Abdullah Abdullah exercises power as the chairperson of the High Council for National Reconciliation. On the Taliban side, many leaders do not support the peace process as they believe that they could win the Afghan war by military means. They consider  Pentagon’s departure from Afghanistan as a sign of their victory.

    The Taliban continues to maintain its contact with the Al-Qaeda, according to a UN security council report. The US -Taliban agreement of February demands a complete divorce between the Taliban and the Al-Qaeda.  UN reports and the violation of ceasefire show that the Taliban is not adhering to the agreement. Once the peace deal is completed, the Taliban could take advantage of the absence of US troops in Afghanistan and renege on their commitments by maintaining close ties with the Al Qaeda, Haqqani Network, and the other extremist groups. The training camps of these Islamist terrorist groups are being used by Pakistan based terror outfits like Lashkar and Jaish-e-Mohammed. When Soviet troops left Afghanistan in 1989, insurgency and terrorism increased in Kashmir. It saw a drastic fall when Washington waged war on Taliban and other Islamist extremist groups.

    If the Sharia law returns to Afghanistan, all the democratic rights and the freedom that the Afghan people have seen since the last decade, are likely to be lost.

    The consequences would be grave if the peace deal doesn’t fetch the desired results. The peace deal is necessary for the Afghan government in maintaining peace and stability in Afghanistan. If the Sharia law returns to Afghanistan, all the democratic rights and the freedom that the Afghan people have seen since the last decade, are likely to be lost. Even if a peace deal fructifies, it may not ensure peace for every section of society. During the previous Taliban rule, the fundamental rights of women- ranging from education to employment, were denied. Women had to live a sub-human life. At present, women hold 28 percent of the total seats in the parliament. So, if the Sharia law is enacted again, it will deny the basic rights of Afghan women. Millions of Afghan refugees in neighbouring Iran, Pakistan, and elsewhere in European countries cannot hope to return home. The host countries, however, have started sending back the Afghan refugees forcefully amid instability.

    Afghanistan is a country of over a hundred ethnic groups, tribes, non-Muslims, and other communities. Most ethnic groups have a conflict with each other. In recent times, the Taliban attacked the non-Muslim communities, especially Hindus and Sikhs. The Ministry of External Affairs of India facilitated the travels of a few Hindu families to India. Even after the Afghan government concludes a peace deal with the Taliban, conflicts may continue and peace may still be elusive. The effectiveness of the peace deal will depend on the commitments of each party.

    European countries do not have the military or economic strength to prosecute overseas conflicts. The internal mechanism of NATO is weaker than before. And after the Brexit deal, the fragmented European union lacks the political will to intervene in the war-torn state. China’s interests in Afghanistan are mostly commercial. Infrastructures or projects under Belt and Road Initiative can’t be built amid the carnage. China has the political, financial, and military strength to fill the void, after the complete withdrawal of the US forces. The Chinese financial contribution in Afghanistan is a clear sign that the country has a long-term strategy in the region. This apart, China has security concerns as well in Afghanistan. The rise of extremist movements in Afghanistan is likely to impact security in China, especially in Xinjiang province. In recent years, China has increased its military ties with Afghanistan. In the absence of the American troops, Afghanistan may consider China as possible support.

    Once the US exits, Kabul will have an option to raise the peace issue in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). The SCO can be the main military and economic block in Asia. Except for Turkmenistan, all the bordering countries of Afghanistan and other major players in South Asia have either members-status or observer status at the SCO. It can certainly play a very effective role as the peacemaker providing its members, each with considerably different stakes in Afghanistan can get their act together.

    The Taliban in the Afghan government would provide political leverage to Pakistan over India.

    If the Taliban assumes power, India-Afghanistan bonhomie will turn frosty. Unlike other countries, the Indian government never supported the Taliban. India has been a staunch supporter of Afghan-led, Afghan controlled and Afghan-owned peace deal. Pakistan has always been supportive of the Taliban as it serves its strategic interests. The Taliban in the Afghan government would provide political leverage to Pakistan over India. Seeing that it has been left out of the Afghan peace talks, it appears that India is coming around to talk to the Taliban.

    Afghans are exhausted from bloodshed in the last few decades. The region has turned into a breeding ground for Islamic State in Khorasan, Al-Qaeda, and other terrorist groups. A stable and democratic Afghan government is necessary for maintaining peace in the South Asian region. As the effectiveness of SAARC continues to be hampered by India-Pakistan animosity, other South Asian states, Organization of Islamic Cooperation member states, and other Islamic states like Saudi Arabia or Turkey should act to restrain the Taliban and pave the way for peace in Afghanistan.

     

    Image: US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo meets with Taliban’s Mullah Abdul Ghani Baradar and members of his negotiating team. Credit: www.voanews.com

     

  • Nationalism Today: A Threat to Democracy and Multilateralism?

    Nationalism Today: A Threat to Democracy and Multilateralism?

    The idea of ‘nationalism’ and a sense of cohesive national identity has existed perhaps longer than the system of modern nation-states came to be. Except for a few, every empire, kingdom, and the territorial state tried to legitimise and conceptualise its authority in the minds of its citizens through ideology. A phenomenon that recurs throughout history, nationalism has only recently taken on the connotations it holds today: a malignant force that separates and divides rather than unites and deteriorates rather than improves.

    A phenomenon that recurs throughout history, nationalism has only recently taken on the connotations it holds today: a malignant force that separates and divides rather than unites and deteriorates rather than improves.

    In the contemporary context, this phenomenon presents across the world and appears to be accelerated by the current global pandemic. If one begins their survey at the Westernmost end, it is easy to witness this wave all over: in the United States, ahead of the elections, with Trump’s white supremacist, protectionist agenda underlined by anti-immigration measures; further in Europe, the rise of nationalist parties in Italy and Spain; Russia’s stifling of dissent and opposition under the mandate of national security, Viktor Orban’s rule by decree-law in Hungary to take over complete control in the Covid-19 backdrop- and further east, India’s and China’s majoritarian movements reflecting minority suppression and territorial aggression respectively.

    Considering these developments, the looming health crisis appears to be the catalyst for the rise of this aggressive, exclusionary brand of nationalism, or as observers have called it, hyper-nationalism. But looking beyond the surface one can discern the vast backdrop of a competitive international system that allowed these movements to become the popular political tool of the time.

    The past decades were characterised by some major changes in the international order; most importantly, the transition from a unipolar world under American hegemony to an emerging multipolar polar one with the rise of Asian powers and a Russia hoping to regain its superpower status. Economic ebbs and falls, the climate crisis, and a shift from multilateralism and globalism was the backdrop against which China grew as a rule-maker in the international system. China’s rapid rise as a global power gives the spectre of a possible bipolar world.

    Akin to the Cold War, wherein ideological systems competed, this decade in the post-COVID-19 world is also marked by alliances, power clusters, challenges to the globalised economy, and the visible fragility of the liberal democracy. While nations like the US prompt the liberal world to identify China as the face of the abstract systemic threat to the framework of democracy, liberalism and multilateral cooperation, the real danger may lie elsewhere. Besides coronavirus and the human tragedy, it evoked, the endemic threat to the norms and values of the democratic order is most likely internal and to be found in the political weaponry of modern democracy.

    What does nationalism mean as a value? To a nation-state, creating a sense of allegiance to the nation-state is extremely important and vital to its survival. Nationalism may be a force of resistance against oppressive authorities, or toward self-determination. The Irish and Indian national movements against colonisation, for instance, were nationalistic struggles that established self-governance in these countries and were spearheaded by the people themselves. However, nationalism may also manifest as state-led, systemic, and top-down approach under the authority of a populist leader who commands the support of many. An example is Mussolini’s fascist movement in Italy, prompted by the poverty and economic downfall of the interwar period.

    Triggered (although not caused) by extreme crises like the pandemic, this kind of nationalism uses a nationwide problem to appropriate control and stir political unrest.

    What we see in the world today is ostensibly the latter: aggressive, top-down nationalism where individuals and groups have little organic agency or innovation. Triggered (although not caused) by extreme crises like the pandemic, this kind of nationalism uses a nationwide problem to appropriate control and stir political unrest. These forms of control may involve excessive use of the police apparatus to restrict movement, a suspension of electoral or democratic processes and accountability mechanisms, or the use of the pandemic to enforce identity politics against minorities. In India, the police crackdown on the Shaheen Bagh riots in January 2020, a series of protests against the discriminatory Citizenship Amendment Act, is an example along with the United States’ successive episodes of racially motivated police brutality against African Americans. In Hungary, Orban has been pushing towards a regionalist, Christian, Central European community at the expense of minorities and immigrants (while heavily militarising Budapest in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic).

    This causality, somewhere in the 21st century, seems to have weathered down and given way to   monolithic ideas of territoriality, authority, centralisation, and capitalism, propelled especially by the role of contemporary social media.

    Nationalism has historically been espoused with democratic revolution and civil rights movements. In the French Revolution, the Irish Independence movements, and the colonial liberation movements of many other colonies, nationalist movements allowed a people to unite for a secular, democratic cause: self-determination. Even as of the late 20th century, nationalism served to demolish imperialism, colonialism, and dictatorships giving rise to civil rights, suffrage, labour rights, and even the welfare states. This causality, somewhere in the 21st century, seems to have weathered down and given way to   monolithic ideas of territoriality, authority, centralisation, and capitalism, propelled especially by the role of contemporary social media. The question that we must ask is this: Is the current flavour of nationalism serving any advantage to strengthening the democratic apparatus? Does it help make our leaders accountable, our parties representative, and our economies more resilient to face unexpected crises?

    Image credit: vocal.media

  • Lebanon’s Food Security Crisis

    Lebanon’s Food Security Crisis

    Security has been a buzzword in the arena of International Politics since the Cold War, and this is widely recognized to be the subject’s genesis as articulated by Barry Buzan and Lene Hansen in their book, The Evolution of International Security Studies. The traditional view of security as largely related to military is the aspect that is given the most prominent focus in discourses on the subject. However, since the 1990s, “societal security” and concepts related to people are broader and sub-concepts such as food security have gained in importance. Food security looks at how much food is available, the access and affordability of food to all people in a country. Food security is also the ability of the country to keep sufficient food available during tough times, such as inflation, disasters, and other such hardships. The Food Climate Research Network speaks of the five factors of food security; availability of food, access to food, utilization of food, stability, and malnutrition. Perhaps food security is one of the most essential forms of security, as the lack of food leads to starvation. This is the reason one hears of bread riots and bread in many protest slogans; ‘bread’ symbolizes food security and represents people’s survival. The economic meltdown of Lebanon and the failure of governance has created a human catastrophe of instability and poverty. The recent Beirut explosion has highlighted not only the failure of the government but a complete breakdown of safety and social security for its common citizens. Under the current circumstances, Lebanon’s food security situation is a major cause for concern.

    Hikes in Food Prices

    Lebanon today is a country with massive debt, income inequality, with much of its revenue going towards servicing of national debts. In addition, Lebanon has been facing high inflation for the last few months, making it very difficult for families to access food. As a result, basic food items are overpriced and in short supply; for instance, a pat of butter costs 9.4 Euros.  Meat, fruits and other commodities have become luxuries for most Lebanese citizens. There are huge breadlines across Lebanon, and many grocery stores cannot afford to buy food to sell to consumers. The COVID-19 crisis has compounded the economic crisis. Prices of eight basic food items have increased by 56%. Lebanon’s food crisis is so grave that parents are bartering their children’s toys and furniture for food online.

     Economic collapse and Food Security

    The most circulated pictures over the last few weeks on media are of the explosion in Beirut and the spillage of grains. This blast occurred because of the unsafe storage of ammonium nitrate and has led to the death of over 200 people, with over 6,000 injured so far. There are many still missing. For Lebanon, this is a triple layer of burden, as the country is fighting a mismanaged economy, a pandemic, and now the horrific aftermath of the explosion. Post the explosion, many countries and global institutions have rushed emergency support by providing minimal aid and funding to facilitate fast recovery from this catastrophe.  While the world has come together to help Lebanon, the situation remains grim because of the shortage of various necessities like medicine and food. The second-largest port in Lebanon, Tripoli has some storage of flour; however, this suffices to cover just one month’s requirements. Beirut port, the largest in Lebanon, is virtually unusable because of the blast. The port infrastructure is severely damaged, thus hurting imports. Lebanon is a country that relies hugely on imports; it imports 85% of its food from outside, making this a major crisis . By one estimate the blast has destroyed 120,000 metric tons of grains, and this could affect food availability as well as sky-rocketing of food prices. The United Nations Food Program reiterated that Lebanon is in a grim situation regarding food security. The current assessment is that the grains can sustain them for less than a month.

    Grim Outlook and Tough Challenges

    The looming food security crisis is a direct fall-out of the economic collapse and multiple crises facing the country. Discontent with the government in Lebanon is not new, since the protests have been on since last October. The explosion and its resulting loss of life and property have triggered waves of protests again, forcing Hassan Diab, the Prime Minister of Lebanon, to step down from his office on 10th August. Decades of poor governance, entrenched kleptocracy, corrupt political class, criminal negligence, incompetence and economic mismanagement have led to the current catastrophe. The former economy minister, Nasser Saidi, says that ‘Lebanon is on the brink of the abyss of depression, with GDP declining by 25% this year, growing unemployment, hyperinflation, and humanitarian disaster with poverty exceeding half the population. The growing food crisis and poverty could lead to famine conditions’. The government will need to address income inequality, large-scale corruption, and the role of foreign players in contributing to the economic collapse.  Financial institutions and other creditors, more often foreign powers, need to suspend debt repayments and allow the Lebanese economy to recoup; since a considerable portion of the revenue goes into debt servicing, which is unsustainable for long.  International funding agencies, while sympathetic to the common peoples’ plight, are hesitant to go ahead with aid due to the poor governance track record of the political class. By some estimates, they put the immediate requirement for humanitarian aid and the cost of rebuilding essential infrastructure post the blast at USD 15 billion. This pales compared to the even bigger mess in the financial system. Ghazi Wazni, the country’s finance minister who quit with the rest of the government last week, has put the total losses in the banking system at $83 billion, and a black hole in the central banking system of $50 billion. The people are displaying discontent over the sectarian politics that have afflicted the country for decades and are the root cause of endemic corruption. Last year’s protests led to a new government in December, which was forced to resign post the explosion.

    Amidst the political crisis, food security is increasingly the major problem in Lebanon for months now. The blast has left 300,000 people homeless.  International Organizations and Civil Society Organizations, Ukraine, Russia, and the United States are enabling and mobilizing food supplies.

    Poverty is the immediate concern; there are already one million Lebanese in poverty, with the likelihood of more than half of the Lebanese population falling into poverty. Food shortages will most likely result in starvation, malnutrition, and death. Looking at the five tenets of food security mentioned above, Lebanon satisfies neither of the five criteria. Lebanon is an example of how decades of factional strife, warlordism, corruption, and power in the hands of the kleptocratic elite can push a country and its people into the abyss of poverty. While resolving Lebanon’s food security crisis is possible through immediate international aid and support, resolving the larger problem of its economic mess and humanitarian catastrophe will need international intervention.

  • Freedom of Speech and Right to Information amidst the Covid-19 Pandemic

    Freedom of Speech and Right to Information amidst the Covid-19 Pandemic

    The global pandemic hit India in March 2020 and Prime Minister Modi announced a 21 day lockdown beginning on 25th March 2020. Since then the lockdown has been extended multiple times as the country grapples with a major public health crisis. Media houses have been on their feet, both literally and metaphorically, as they cover new stories, cases and most importantly, the state response towards the pandemic. The citizenry relies on news reportage to learn more about their government’s approach towards handling this unconventional situation. Media is often regarded as the fourth pillar of democracy meaning it is a supporting figure for democracy to persist and flourish. The pandemic has exposed some paramount inadequacies in the government’s handling of the situation such as lack of a robust public health infrastructure and other issues. The reportage on such instances has often faced backlash from the government resulting in legal notices against the journalists and media houses. India also dropped two places in the World Press Freedom Index making it 142nd in position citing the curfew in Jammu and Kashmir. The watchdog has also issued a warning about the implications of the pandemic, “the looming health crisis could serve as an excuse for governments to take advantage of the fact that politics are on hold, the public is stunned and protests are out of the question, in order to impose measures that would be impossible in normal times” (Scroll Staff, 2020).

    Media is often regarded as the fourth pillar of democracy meaning it is a supporting figure for democracy to persist and flourish.

     Two patterns can be observed with regards to media freedom in India during a time like this; furthering a certain narrative through misinformation and misrepresentation and carrying out state-sponsored propaganda. In this lockdown, the state wants a narrative which eulogizes their efforts during the lockdown and overall handling the situation. However, there are major loopholes in the measures taken by the government which has led to the system failing its most vulnerable class of individuals; the marginalized and the poor. The state has also taken this time to strike upon certain civil liberties and advance their propaganda by curbing dissent.

     Misinformation and misrepresentation of certain communities has been rampant during this time. Nabeela Khan, in an article called Trends in Covid19 misinformation in India for Health Analytics Asia categorizes the spread of misinformation in four waves. First, misinformation about the origin of the virus, this has been debated not just in India but worldwide where they have accused China of producing this virus in a lab and spreading it to use to its advantage. There have also been multiple other theories available online related to consumption of certain meats in China. Second circulation of old images and videos to create fear, in this case the Tablighi Jamaat incident was highlighted immensely and videos from before the pandemic were used to show that ‘Muslims’ in India spread the virus. Third, on ‘cures’ and prevention techniques which is particularly famous on several WhatsApp groups where home-made remedies of lemon, honey, turmeric or any other ‘Ayurvedic’ cures are posted every day. And fourth, on lockdowns in India, where the news of lockdown being extended were spread even before the official announcements were made. Increasingly, there has been excess confusion over the surging numbers in India and whether or not governments give out the exact figures. Additionally, there is no clarity about government aid and funding towards the poor such as the internal migrants in the country.

    Kaye makes an important point as he says that the governments are using the pandemic as a smokescreen to carry forward their agenda and take actions that they have wanted to take for a long time.

    The UN Special Rapporteur David Kaye, talks to The Lawfare Podcast about his latest UN report Disease, pandemics and the freedom of opinion and expression. Kaye makes an important point as he says that the governments are using the pandemic as a smokescreen to carry forward their agenda and take actions that they have wanted to take for a long time. He gives an example from Hungary where the Press is under strict scrutiny of the government. Since the coronavirus is a recent occurrence, there is not a very large body of information available on it. The information keeps changing as cases increase or decrease, as there are multiple waves of it so the orders issued by the government are subject to change. He also particularly criticizes India for its treatment of Jammu and Kashmir since August 2019 and calls it “a real misuse of the situation”.

     Journalists and activists across the world have been arrested during this lockdown and India is no exception to this trend of suppressing free speech. Siddharth Varadarajan, Gautam Navlakha, Anand Teltumbde, Safoora Zargar, Umar Khalid, Dhaval Patel, Supriya Sharma among many others have either been arrested or served notice by the government during the lockdown. These journalists have either been arrested on the grounds of their reportage of the pandemic, during the pandemic or incidents that took place before the pandemic.

     An FIR was lodged against Siddharth Varadarajan, one of the founding editors of The Wire, an acclaimed media house, on the grounds of making unverifiable claims. Varadarajan tweeted on March 31st saying that UP Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath had given a go-ahead for the Ram Navami festival to be held from March 25th to April 2nd, in the middle of the lockdown and Yogi also said that “Lord Rama would protect the devotees from coronavirus”. As a matter of fact, it was Acharya Paramhans who gave out this statement and not CM Adityanath and Varadarajan tweeted a clarification the following day. On April 10, police from Ayodhya showed up at his doorstep in Delhi to serve him notice and his wife Nandini Sundar explained this instance elaborately in her tweets. However, this act only suggests the government’s misuse of power and tactics to pursue a culture of intimidation. It could be argued that the journalist was peddling unverified claims but CM Adityanath in fact supported the decision to have a Ram Navami mela. The Wire has published an elaborate FAQs list on this matter explaining every detail of it. It has also been condemned by the Editors’ Guild of India who have called this episode “an overreaction and an act of intimidation”.

     Journalists and activists such as Gautam Navlakha, Anand Teltumbde, Safoora Zargar, Umar Khalid, Sharjeel Imam etc. have been booked under the UAPA, Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. This Act was formulated as a law in 1967 to prevent any ‘unlawful’ activities or any measures which threatened the integrity and sovereignty of India. In 2004, the UPA government expanded on it further to target terrorist outfits or any organizations harming the state but not individuals. The 2019 Amendment of the Act has entrusted the government with identifying individuals who might be harming the integrity of the state, the definition of which the government decides. The contemporary term used for such people on social media and other platforms is ‘urban naxals’. Student activists and journalists have been booked under this act for protesting against oppressive government laws which promotes a narrative that dissent is by its very nature, ‘anti national’. There have also been cases where activists have been arrested, then granted bail and arrested again based on some other complaint. Safoora Zargar’s case is a particularly complex one in this regard where she was arrested after she was granted bail and was granted bail again recently on humanitarian grounds. Zargar is five months pregnant which was the basis of her bail but the discourse around this has been to release her not because of her pregnancy because dissent is a fundamental right.

    The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history – Hannah Arendt

     Praveen Swami makes a compelling argument in a FirstPost article about hate speech and freedom of speech. He opines that the response to hate speech is not censorship but plurality where opinions are allowed to coexist. In India, a large part of the Press is controlled and supported by the government leading them to produce streamlined biased news. According to him, alternatives need to come up for hate speech where the dominant narrative does not remain unchallenged.

     To conclude, Hannah Arendt’s cautioning words on freedom of press and misinformation are very relevant today and sounds the alarm bells:

    “The moment we no longer have a free press, anything can happen. What makes it possible for a totalitarian or any other dictatorship to rule is that people are not informed; how can you have an opinion if you are not informed? If everybody always lies to you, the consequence is not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history”

     

    Reference

    Bakshi, Asmita (2020, May 31) From Pinjra Tod to Kashmiri Journalists: What’s the Deal with UAPA?. Livemint. Retrieved from https://www.livemint.com/mint-lounge/features/from-pinjra-tod-to-kashmiri-journalists-what-s-the-deal-with-uapa-11590915249625.html

     

    Chakma, Suhas (2020, June 22) FIR Against Supriya Sharma is Emblematic of how the Law is Abused to Throttle Press Freedom. The Wire. Retrieved from https://thewire.in/media/supriya-sharma-fir-abuse-law-press-freedom

     

    Goldsmith, J (Host) (2016, May 16). The Lawfare Podcast: David Kaye on Free Speech During a Pandemic. (Audio podcast episode). In Lawfare. Retrieved from https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-podcast-david-kaye-free-speech-during-pandemic

     Khan, Nabeela (2020, June 12) Trends in Covid19 misinformation in India. Health Asia Analytics. Retrieved from https://www.ha-asia.com/trends-in-covid-19-misinformation-in-india/

     Scroll Staff (2020, April 21) Covid-19: India drops 2 places on World Press Freedom Index, as watchdog warns of pandemic impact. Scroll.in. Retrieved from https://scroll.in/latest/959816/covid-19-india-drops-2-places-on-world-press-freedom-index-as-watchdog-warns-of-pandemics-impact

     Scroll Staff (2017, December 4) Top ten things that Hannah Arendt said that are eerily relevant in today’s times. Scroll.in. Retrieved from https://scroll.in/article/856549/ten-things-hannah-arendt-said-that-are-eerily-relevant-in-todays-political-times

     Swami, Praveen (2020, April 27) Hate speech in the time of a pandemic: Answer to malevolent incendiary language is plurality, not censorship. Firstpost. Retrieved from https://www.firstpost.com/india/hate-speech-in-the-time-of-a-pandemic-answer-to-malevolent-incendiary-language-is-plurality-not-censorship-8295271.html

     The Wire Analysis (2020, April 19) FAQ: What are the UP Police FIRs Against The Wire Actually about? The Wire. Retrieved from https://thewire.in/media/faq-up-police-fir-siddharth-varadarajan

     

    The views expressed are the author’s own.

    Image Credit: Rhy Design and medium.com

     

  • India’s Agriculture: The Failure of the Success

    India’s Agriculture: The Failure of the Success

    It was around the mid-1960s when the Paddock brothers, Paul and William, the ‘prophets of doom’, predicted that in another decade, recurring famines and an acute shortage of food grains would push India towards disaster. Stanford University Professor Paul R. Ehrlich in his 1968 best selling book The Population Bomb warned of the mass starvation of humans in the 1970s and 1980s in countries like India due to over population.

    Their prophecies were based on a rising shortage of food because of droughts, which forced India to import 10 million tonnes of grain in 1965-66 and a similar amount a year before. Little did they know that thanks to quick adoption of a new technology by Indian farmers, the country would more than double its annual wheat production from 11.28 million tonnes in 1962-63 to more than twice that within ten years to 24.99 million tonnes. It was 71.26 million tonnes in 2007. Similarly rice production also grew spectacularly from 34.48 million tonnes to almost 90 million tonnes in 2007.

    Total food grains production in India reached an all-time high of 251.12 million tonnes (MT) in FY15. Rice and wheat production in the country stood at 102.54 MT and 90.78 MT, respectively. India is among the 15 leading exporters of agricultural products in the world. The value of which was Rs.1.31 lakh crores in FY15.

    India is among the 15 leading exporters of agricultural products in the world. The value of which was Rs.1.31 lakh crores in FY15.

    Despite its falling share of GDP, agriculture plays a vital role in India’s economy. Over 58 per cent of the rural households depend on agriculture as their principal means of livelihood. Census 2011 says there are 118.9 million cultivators across the country or 24.6 per cent of the total workforce of over 481 million. In addition there are 144 million persons employed as agricultural laborers. If we add the number of cultivators and agricultural laborers, it would be around 263 million or 22 percent of the population. As per estimates by the Central Statistics Office (CSO), the share of agriculture and allied sectors (including agriculture, livestock, forestry and fishery) was 16.1 per cent of the Gross Value Added (GVA) during 2014–15 at 2011–12 prices. This about sums up what ails our Agriculture- its contribution to the GDP is fast dwindling, now about 13.7 per cent, and it still sustains almost 60 per cent of the population.

    If we add the number of cultivators and agricultural laborers, it would be around 263 million or 22 percent of the population. As per estimates by the Central Statistics Office (CSO), the share of agriculture and allied sectors (including agriculture, livestock, forestry and fishery) was 16.1 per cent of the Gross Value Added (GVA) during 2014–15 at 2011–12 prices.

    With 157.35 million hectares, India holds the world’s second largest agricultural land area. India has about 20 agro-climatic regions, and all 15 major climates in the world exist here. Consequently it is a large producer of a wide variety of foods. India is the world’s largest producer of spices, pulses, milk, tea, cashew and jute; and the second largest producer of wheat, rice, fruits and vegetables, sugarcane, cotton and oilseeds. Further, India is 2nd in global production of fruits and vegetables, and is the largest producer of mango and banana. It also has the highest productivity of grapes in the world. Agricultural export constitutes 10 per cent of the country’s exports and is the fourth-largest exported principal commodity.
    According to the Agriculture Census, only 58.1 million hectares of land was actually irrigated in India. Of this 38 percent was from surface water and 62 per cent was from groundwater. India has the world’s largest groundwater well equipped irrigation system.

    There is a flipside to this great Indian agriculture story.The Indian subcontinent boasts nearly half the world’s hungry people. Half of all children under five years of age in South Asia are malnourished, which is more than even sub-Saharan Africa.

    More than 65 per cent of the farmland consists of marginal and small farms less than one hectare in size. Moreover, because of population growth, the average farm size has been decreasing. The average size of operational holdings has almost halved since 1970 to 1.05 ha. Approximately 92 million households or 490 million people are dependent on marginal or small farm holdings as per the 2001 census. This translates into 60 per cent of rural population or 42 per cent of total population.

    Approximately 92 million households or 490 million people are dependent on marginal or small farm holdings as per the 2001 census.

    About 70 per cent of India lives in rural areas and all-weather roads do not connect about 40 per cent of rural habitations. Lack of proper transport facility and inadequate post harvesting methods, food processing and transportation of foodstuffs has meant an annual wastage of Rs. 50,000 crores, out of an out of about Rs.370, 000 crores.

    There is a pronounced bias in the government’s procurement policy, with Punjab, Haryana, coastal AP and western UP accounting for the bulk (83.51 per cent) of the procurement. The food subsidy bill has increased from Rs. 24500 crores in 1990-91 to Rs. 1.75 lakh crores in 2001-02 to Rs. 2.31 lakh crores in 2016. Instead of being the buyer of last resort FCI has become the preferred buyer for the farmers. The government policy has resulted in mountains of food-grains coinciding with starvation deaths. A few regions of concentrated rural prosperity.

    The total subsidy provided to agricultural consumers by way of fertilizers and free power has quadrupled from Rs. 73000 crores in 1992-93, to Rs. 3.04 lakh crores now. While the subsidy was launched to reach the lower rung farmers, it has mostly benefited the well-off farmers. Free power has also meant a huge pressure on depleting groundwater resources.
    These huge subsidies come at a cost. Thus, public investment in agriculture, in real terms, had witnessed a steady decline from the Sixth Five-Year Plan onwards. With the exception of the Tenth Plan, public investment has consistently declined in real terms (at 1999-2000 prices) from Rs.64, 012 crores during the Sixth Plan (1980-85) to Rs 52,107 crores during the Seventh Plan (1985-90), Rs 45,565 crores during the Eighth Plan (1992-97) and about Rs 42,226 crores during Ninth Plan (1997-2002).

    With the exception of the Tenth Plan, public investment has consistently declined in real terms (at 1999-2000 prices) from Rs.64, 012 crores during the Sixth Plan (1980-85) to Rs 52,107 crores during the Seventh Plan (1985-90), Rs 45,565 crores during the Eighth Plan (1992-97) and about Rs 42,226 crores during Ninth Plan (1997-2002).

    Share of agriculture in total Gross Capital Formation (GCF) at 93-94 prices has halved from 15.44 per cent to 7.0 per cent in 2000-01. In 2001-02 almost half of the amount allocated to irrigation was actually spent on power generation. While it makes more economic sense to focus on minor irrigation schemes, major and medium irrigation projects have accounted for more than three fourth of the planned funds
    By 2050, India’s population is expected to reach 1.7 billion, which will then be equivalent to nearly that of China and the US combined. A fundamental question then is can India feed 1.7 billion people properly? In the four decades starting 1965-66, wheat production in Punjab and Haryana has risen nine-fold, while rice production increased by more than 30 times. These two states and parts of Andhra Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh now not only produce enough to feed the country but to leave a significant surplus for export.

    Since food production is no longer the issue, putting economic power into the hands of the vast rural poor becomes the issue. The first focus should be on separating them from their smallholdings by offering more gainful vocations.

    Farm outputs in India in recent years have been setting new records. It has gone up from 208 MT in 2005-06 to an estimated 251 MT in 2014-15. Even accounting for population growth during this period, the country would need probably around 225 to 230 MT to feed its people. There is one huge paradox implicit in this. Record food production is depressing prices. No wonder farmers with marketable surpluses are restive.

    India is producing enough food to feed its people, now and in the foreseeable future. Since food production is no longer the issue, putting economic power into the hands of the vast rural poor becomes the issue. The first focus should be on separating them from their smallholdings by offering more gainful vocations. With the level of skills prevailing, only the construction sector can immediately absorb the tens of millions that will be released. Government must step up its expenditures for infrastructure and habitations to create a demand for labor. The land released can be consolidated into larger holdings by easy credit to facilitate accumulation of smaller holdings to create more productive farms.

    Finally the entire government machinery geared to controlling food prices to satisfy the urban population should be dismantled. If a farmer has to buy a motorcycle or even a tractor he pays globally comparative prices, why should he make food available to the modern and industrial sector at the worlds lowest prices?
    Why should Bharat have to feed India at its cost?

    Image: Kanyakumari farm lands during onset of monsoon. 

     

  • Some Crucial Lessons as we Prepare for ‘Lock Down 3.0’

    Some Crucial Lessons as we Prepare for ‘Lock Down 3.0’

    Category : Democracy & Governance/Public Health
    Title : Some Crucial Lessons as we Prepare for ‘Lockdown 3.0’
    Author : M A Kalam  02-05-2020Covid-19 is a jolt to the way we work and live. India has been under, what IMF has called, “The Great lockdown”. As India moves into ‘Lockdown 3.0’, M A Kalam explores, in his opinion piece, the challenges faced by different segments of the Indian population. The economic impact is seen to be huge, and as we return to work and business gradually, we will witness huge behavioural changes that will necessitate how we address the new economic challenges.

    Read More

  • Going for Broke

    Going for Broke

    Category : Democracy & Governance/Public Health

    Title : Going for Broke

    Author : Deepak Sinha 21-03-2020

    Spanish flu of 1918-20 was the worst and biggest pandemic in the modern age. By various estimates it killed 50-100 million people worldwide. In India the death toll was 17.5 million. This was at a time when vaccines and antibiotics were not yet widely used and the pandemic exploded in the wake of a globalisation of different sort, returning soldiers of World War I who carried the flu from the battlefields to all parts of the world. The world survived it. Covid-19 threatens a similar fate which calls for concerted effort from the global community as Deepak Sinha observes in his article.

    Read More

  • Think tanks’ role growing: Is that a good thing?

    Think tanks’ role growing: Is that a good thing?

    Category : Education/Think tanks/Policy Research

    Title : Think tank’s role growing: Is that a good thing?

    Author : Mohan Guruswamy 20.01.2020

    The word “think tank” owes its origins to John F. Kennedy, America’s 35th President, who collected a group of top intellectuals in his White House – people like McGeorge Bundy, Robert S. McNamara, John Kenneth Galbraith, Arthur Schlesinger and Ted Sorenson, among others, to give him counsel on issues from time to time. In India, while the number of think tanks are now increasing, neither the government nor the think tanks have a culture of serious and in-depth research that would aid government’s policy making. Mohan Guruswamy analyses the think tanks and their culture in India.

    Read More

  • Tectonic shift in US’ Attitude

    Tectonic shift in US’ Attitude

    Category : International Affairs/ USA-Iran

    Title : Tectonic Shift in US attitude

    Author : Deepak Sinha 18-01-2020

    The targeted execution of a serving Iranian General and war hero, Qasem Soleimani, while on an official visit to Iraq raises serious questions of sovereignty, morality, ethical conduct and can never be justified in any civilised society. It is a blatant act of aggression in clear violation of international law and a war crime, made even more heinous because neither America nor Iran is at war with each other. Deepak Sinha comments on American motives and likely impact of this assassination.

    Read More