The Peninsula Foundation

Category: Reports

  • The Catastrophe of Air India 171: An Inquiry Meant to Improve Safety — and an AAIB Report That Doesn’t

    The Catastrophe of Air India 171: An Inquiry Meant to Improve Safety — and an AAIB Report That Doesn’t

    The crash of Boeing 787 Dreamliner of Air India 171 flight (Ahmedabad to London), minutes after takeoff, led to the death of all onboard, save for the miraculous escape of one passenger. Over the last two decades, a series of accidents and failures has put a big question mark on Boeing’s work ethic and the reliability and safety of its planes. The Expose on the Boeing 737 Max fiasco have effectively driven Boeing’s reputation into the mud. The accident investigation into the AI-171 has raised a maelstrom of doubts, questions, and protests over the investigation’s reliability, as the preliminary report indirectly insinuated possible pilot error. This resembles Boeing’s influence in earlier investigations of accidents involving the 737 Max.

    Rachel Chitra is an investigative journalist who has worked at outlets such as Reuters, Forbes, and The Times of India, and was a Reuters Fellow (2021). Her reporting has uncovered issues with PM Cares Fund, CAA, migrant deaths during the COVID-19 lockdown, among other issues. Her investigative work has been cited by media outlets such as the BBC and GIJN, the Opposition in Parliament, and submitted as evidence before the Supreme Court. She has recently published a four-part investigative series for The Federal and an in-depth analysis for Frontline on the Air India 171 crash and its safety implications. This article raises very pertinent observations on India’s aviation safety.

    In the 15-page preliminary report, AAIB refers to fuel, fuel quantity, fuel control switches, fuel cut-off, or fuel-related behaviour at least 19 times, repeatedly steering interpretation toward a fuel-switch narrative.

     

    Nearly everyone on board Air India flight AI-171 died within seconds after take-off.

    In 32 seconds – one of the shortest flights in history.

    AI 171’s crew included Roshni Songhare, Saineeta Chakravarty, Shradha Dhavan, Aparna Mahadik, Maithili Patil, Manisha Thapa, Nganthoi Kongbrailatpam Sharma, Lamnunthem Singson, along with Deepak Pathak and Irfan Shaikh — men and women who had trained for years for a life in aviation. Many at the very beginning of their careers. Their goals, dreams and ambition – gone in 32 seconds like it was for the passengers on board – the elderly, infants, couples, entire families.

    The deadliest aviation disaster in India’s history, and the first fatal crash of a Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

    When tragedies of this scale occur, aviation investigations exist for one reason: to establish what failed, so it cannot happen again. Not to assign blame. Not to protect reputations. But to interrogate systems with enough honesty that future lives are spared.

    Yet six months after the crash, the official preliminary report into AI-171 raises a more disturbing possibility: that the investigation itself may be structured to prevent the most dangerous safety question from ever being asked.

    That question is this: Did the aircraft’s engine computer FADEC command a fuel cutoff seconds after liftoff — because flight computers went to “on ground” logic in the air?

    That question begins with a single line buried in the report’s take-off sequence.

    At 08:08:39 UTC, Air India flight AI-171 left the ground.

    The Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) states this explicitly in its preliminary report: “The aircraft air/ground sensors transitioned to air mode, consistent with liftoff at 08:08:39 UTC.”

    That sentence is the most important technical fact in the entire document.
    And it is never returned to again.

    Every subsequent line of the AAIB report is structured to ensure the reader does not ask the only question that matters after 08:08:39 UTC:

    Did the aircraft remain in “air mode” digitally after liftoff — or did it revert to “on-ground” logic while physically airborne?

    The AAIB report does not answer this question. It does not even acknowledge that it exists.

    And this matters because the engine computer — FADEC — is permitted to command a hard fuel cutoff only under two circumstances: engine overspeed protection, or Thrust Control Malfunction Accommodation (TCMA) — a protection mode that gets triggered only if the aircraft’s systems believe it is on the ground.

    TCMA is activated only when four conditions are simultaneously met: the aircraft is classified as on ground, airspeed is below 200 knots, altitude is below 17,500 feet, and commanded thrust (selected N1) exceeds a defined threshold.

    AI-171 met every one of those conditions seconds after liftoff — if, as the evidence suggests, its flight-control logic briefly reverted from air mode to on-ground mode while the aircraft was physically airborne. And if AI 171 did meet TCMA conditions, it becomes highly likely that this plane had a FADEC-commanded fuel cutoff.

    So now let’s go into how the AAIB’s narrative is hard at work to steer us away from the possibility of such an occurrence by looking first at the take-off sequence.

    How the real sequence begins — before the narrative takes over

    The AAIB’s own timeline establishes a clean, uneventful take-off sequence:

    • 08:08:33 UTC — V1 reached at 153 knots IAS
    • 08:08:35 UTC — Vr reached at 155 knots IAS
    • 08:08:39 UTC — air/ground sensors transition to air mode (liftoff)

    Up to this point, there is no anomaly. The aircraft is airborne, committed to flight, and operating within normal take-off parameters.

    Everything that follows occurs after the aircraft is already in the air.

    “Maximum recorded airspeed”: the first linguistic sleight of hand

    The AAIB then writes:

    “The aircraft achieved the maximum recorded airspeed of 180 knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC…”

    This line does two things simultaneously:

    1. It introduces the phrase “maximum recorded”, not “maximum achieved.”
    2. It uses IAS, a pilot-facing parameter, not the true air speed (TAS) or calibrated airspeed (CAS) — which is the calculated/synthesised value used by FADEC to command thrust with fuel control.

    In an aircraft still at take-off thrust, basic physics dictates that acceleration cannot stop instantaneously. As Newton’s First Law of Motion states: “An object will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.”

    At the point in time, the AAIB identifies as the aircraft’s “maximum recorded airspeed” — 180 knots IAS at about 08:08:42 UTC — no such external braking force is identified. Even if fuel flow were interrupted at that instant, the aircraft’s mass and momentum would require it to continue accelerating briefly, not plateau abruptly.

    A sudden halt at a “maximum recorded” value, therefore, is not evidence of the plane’s true “top airspeed.” It is more consistent with interrupted recording, logic disturbance, or power loss due to an electrical failure — precisely the kind of upstream event the AAIB does not interrogate. Instead, the report immediately pivots away.

    The pivot: fuel becomes the “event”

    The very next sentence reads:

    “…and immediately thereafter, the Engine 1 and Engine 2 fuel cutoff switches transitioned from RUN to CUTOFF position one after another with a time gap of 01 sec.”

    From this moment on, the report’s framing is locked.

    Fuel is now the main actor.

    In the 15-page preliminary report, AAIB refers to fuel, fuel quantity, fuel control switches, fuel cut-off, or fuel-related behaviour at least 19 times, repeatedly steering interpretation toward a fuel-switch narrative.

    This matters because fuel is downstream in a modern fly-by-wire aircraft. Fuel flow is not an independent cause; it is something commanded — by pilots, by automation, or by protection logic.

    And the report never interrogates the command path that resulted in fuel cutoff.

    Was it the fuel getting cut off? Or the autothrottle?

    Immediately after describing the fuel cutoff switches, the AAIB inserts a single paraphrased cockpit line:

    “In the cockpit voice recording, one of the pilots is heard asking the other why did he cut off. The other pilot responded that he did not do so.”

    The transcript does not say fuel.
    It does not say switch.
    It does not say engine.

    “Cutoff” is an effect, not a system.

    But by placing this sentence directly beneath the fuel-switch paragraph — after saturating the report with fuel references — the AAIB ensures that the reader supplies the missing noun.

    And readers think there was a fuel switch being cut off – when, for all we know, First Officer Clive Kunders could have been referring to the autothrottle, given the pre-existing electrical failures on the flight. And his question could’ve very well have been “Why did it cut off? – the “it” was lost in the blizzard of chimes and warnings from EICAS.

    So when the AAIB report gives us a paraphrased sentence about the cockpit conversation without context and data, it becomes damning. And as a petition in the Supreme Court puts it – “it’s narrative framing, not real evidence.”

    A Flight-Control Failure the AAIB Leaves Out — By Design

    Independent reporting and maintenance records show that AI-171 had already experienced a flight-critical failure two hours before the crash — one that directly involves the electrical architecture that the AAIB avoids examining.

    What the AAIB report also ensures is that the reader does not know that this aircraft did not enter take-off roll in a clean, stable flight-control state.

    Independent reporting and maintenance records show that AI-171 had already experienced a flight-critical failure two hours before the crash — one that directly involves the electrical architecture that the AAIB avoids examining.

    On the aircraft’s previous flight, AI 423 Delhi to Ahmedabad, AAIB report says, “the crew logged a Pilot Defect Report (PDR) for the status message “STAB POS XDCR” — a failure involving the stabilizer position transducer…troubleshooting was carried out “as per the FIM” by Air India’s on-duty Aircraft Maintenance Engineer, and the aircraft was released back to service at 06:40 UTC (12.10 PM IST).”

    What the report does not say — but what maintenance logs make clear — is that it wasn’t just a problem with the transducer or sensor – but with the entire right horizontal stabilizer electric motor control unit (EMCU). The entire unit failed and had to be replaced along with its wiring and sensors.

    And as per the maintenance log, this condition was detected by all three Flight Control Modules (FCMs). In other words, a flight-critical component under FCM command failed, was troubleshot, and the aircraft was returned to service.

    Then comes more crucial evidence, where again AAIB preserves a blanket silence.

    Precisely 15 minutes before take-off at 1:23 PM IST (7:53 UTC), all three Flight Control Modules (FCMs) – left, right and centre – started reporting faults, as per data from the plane’s satellite transmissions or ACARS data.

    That context is essential because this evidence has been presented to the Supreme Court. This aspect is discussed in an interview with Barkha Dutt on Mojo Story, where the sequence of pre-existing electrical and flight-control faults was publicly laid out. This was also summarised on LinkedIn.

    And this is where the Indian media should ask itself why aviation-safety evidence is being left to circulate on LinkedIn? What are the forces at play that prevent the publication of this evidence as front-page news?

    Why do we celebrate Netflix’s Downfall: The Case Against Boeing without imbibing its most uncomfortable lesson? That the reckoning happened only because Ethiopia bypassed Washington and took the black boxes to Europe, straight to EASA and Airbus. Today, the AAIB has done the exact opposite — flying to Washington in December to sit with the NTSB and Boeing for spectral analysis of the cockpit audio.

    If Ethiopia had done what India did, it’s highly doubtful there would be any Netflix film today about Boeing. And it’s also highly doubtful that Indian pilot Bhavye Suneja and his Ethiopian counterparts, Yared Getachew and Ahmednur Mohammed Omar would’ve been vindicated.

    Because in crashes, it’s not just evidence that matters – but the location. Where is the evidence getting interpreted? As this can be the deciding factor in whether the truth emerges at all.

    In today’s vacuum of reporting on the Air India crash, manufacturers and operators are winning by default — not because the evidence is weak, but because it is not being examined or amplified.

    And you can see this broader failure of scrutiny play out in the AAIB’s own preliminary report — not through what is stated, but through what is selectively reported.

    How the AAIB Curates Evidence to Signal ‘Nothing Went Wrong’

    The most revealing part of the AAIB report is not what it says, but when it chooses to quote digital data and when it avoids it.

    When digital data supports “normal flight,” AAIB quotes EAFR

    • Flap handle: “Firmly seated in the 5-degree flap position, consistent with a normal take-off flap setting…position was confirmed from EAFR.”

    • Thrust levers: “Both thrust levers were found near the aft (idle) position. However, the EAFR data revealed that the thrust levers remained forward (take-off thrust) until the impact.”

    These citations do important narrative work. They tell the reader:

    • configuration was normal,
    • thrust was commanded,
    • no stall,
    • no obvious mishandling.

    When digital data would expose air/ground logic, AAIB stops quoting EAFR

    Now compare that to how the report handles systems that determine ground vs air logic:

    • “The landing gear lever was in DOWN position.”
    • “The reverser levers were in the stowed position.”
    • “The wiring from the TO/GA switches and autothrottle disconnect switches were visible, but heavily damaged.”

    These are physical post-crash descriptions, not digital states.

    The report does not quote:

    • digital gear logic,
    • reverser command status,
    • TO/GA engagement state,
    • autothrottle logic state,
    • flight-control mode transitions.

    Yet these are precisely the parameters that would reveal whether the aircraft temporarily reverted to “on-ground” logic while airborne.

    The AAIB report by giving us EAFR data on thrust levers in forward and not EAFR data on “thrust reversers” is playing on the information asymmetry. Because not many people, even in the aviation world, are aware that GE and Safran changed the Boolean gating condition on the 70 GEnx engines (left engine GEnx-1B70/75/P2 and right engine GEnx-1B70/P2) to “OR”.

    For these engines, either forward thrust “OR” thrust reversers can be in “IDLE” for TCMA to activate.

    So, in its desire to divert attention away from the possibility of a TCMA-driven FADEC cutoff, what the AAIB report has inadvertently ended up doing is proving pilot innocence with its selective referencing of black box data. Because if “thrust” was in forward from take-off till crash – it clearly proves pilot integrity and pilot intent; no matter what the system decided otherwise.

    Why “on-ground logic in the air” explains the entire sequence

    Boeing flight-control computers are known to reboot under certain electrical fault conditions. And the FAA warned about this possibility as early as 2016. On reboot, systems enter a fail-safe default state — on-ground logic — before reassessing air/ground status.

    If this occurs after liftoff:

    • autothrottle and TO/GA can disengage,
    • thrust-logic protections can be triggered,
    • FADEC can command fuel reduction or cutoff under TCMA
    • cockpit indications can freeze or reset.

    This is not speculation. It is documented system behaviour.

    And it is the only mechanism that coherently explains:

    • normal liftoff at 08:08:39,
    • sudden loss of thrust logic seconds later,
    • asymmetric engine recovery
    • a cockpit exchange centred on “cutoff”
    • Seemingly “normal” pitch attitude and configuration with catastrophic energy loss.

    RAT: Precision – where safe, Vagueness – where dangerous

    Now, let’s look at how the report mentions emergency power, i.e. the behaviour of the Ram Air Turbine (RAT). The AAIB states that the RAT hydraulic pump began supplying hydraulic power at 08:08:47 UTC — a precise timestamp.

    Yet the AAIB does not give the time for when the RAT deployed, noting only that it appears on CCTV “during the initial climb immediately after lift-off.” In this dark fairytale, time seems selectively unavailable: CCTV footages have no timestamps, the EAFR remembers only some RAT functions but not others. And the moment when RAT started generating electrical power is when AAIB would like us to believe the EAFR turned human and suffered from short-term amnesia.

    The omission of the RAT deployment timestamp is crucial. As in the normal course of events, emergency power, i.e. the RAT, would deploy after the main engines failed. But if RAT deployed when engines were still running, that shows this plane has some underlying electrical disturbance. It also points more towards systems failure than pilot error.

    So, the AAIB uses precision when it does not threaten the fuel narrative. Vagueness appears when it might.

    FADEC: When the AAIB report stops investigating and starts teaching

    After documenting the switch transitions and relight attempts, the AAIB writes:

    “When fuel control switches are moved from CUTOFF to RUN while the aircraft is inflight, each engine’s full authority dual engine control (FADEC) automatically manages a relight…”

    This sentence is not investigative. It is protective.

    Rather than stating what FADEC actually did on AI-171, the report retreats into training manual language, describing how FADEC typically functions — and even mislabeling it as “dual” rather than “digital.” The effect is deliberate: it allows the AAIB to discuss FADEC without committing to any factual finding about its behaviour in this crash.

    In a case now before the Supreme Court, that distinction matters. By giving a generic system description for a specific event, the AAIB has plausible deniability.

    If evidence later emerges that FADEC commanded the fuel cutoff, AAIB can shield itself in the Supreme Court by arguing that it never asserted how FADEC behaved on AI 171 but only talked about how it is designed to behave. This rhetorical move shields the engine-control system from scrutiny at precisely the point where it needs the most investigation.

    This is not a neutral drafting choice. It is how responsibility is deferred without being denied.

    The concealment pattern is quite clear, as the AAIB report:

    • States the aircraft entered air mode at 08:08:39 UTC.
    • Never examines whether it stayed there.
    • Uses EAFR data when it supports “normal take-off”.
    • Avoids EAFR data when it would expose air/ground logic
    • Documents that the aft EAFR’s wiring and connectors were charred — despite the tail section being largely intact — yet offers no causal analysis whatsoever
    • Withholds any forensic findings on soot or residue from the aft EAFR, even though such analysis could distinguish between post-impact fire and a pre-impact electrical arc — a distinction central to determining whether a systems failure occurred before dual engine shutdown
    • Repeats fuel references to steer interpretation
    • Inserts an ambiguous cockpit conversation
    • Substitutes system description for system behaviour when discussing FADEC.
    • Concludes with “no recommended actions” for manufacturers.

    This is not a neutral omission. It is narrative architecture.

    Conclusion: The Human Cost of What This Report Is Written to Hide

    Once the aircraft is acknowledged to be airborne at 08:08:39 UTC, every downstream question should interrogate system logic continuity. The AAIB report does not do that.

    And this is not an abstract failure.

    It has a human face.

    That face belongs to 88-year-old Pushkaraj Sabharwal — a former senior official of India’s Directorate General of Civil Aviation. He gave a lifetime of service to an institution that’s today failed his son – Captain Sumeet Sabharwal; with an AAIB report that’s high on omission and as high on “weaponising selective disclosure of data” – as he puts it.

    At 88, Mr. Sabharwal should have been at peace; in retirement. Instead, he is in court, fighting.

    Fighting not only for his dead son, but also for First Officer Clive Kunders and for the 258 other families who lost a loved one in the first fatal crash of a Dreamliner.

    After 30 years with the DGCA, he knows better than us how accident investigations are supposed to work. And he is asking the right questions. The hard ones like “Why is AAIB giving Boeing and GE a seat at the very table investigating their planes and equipment? Why give them a clean chit?”

    As a former DGCA official, he knows when questions are being avoided, when systems are being protected, and when language is being used to create deniability rather than truth.

    He is watching a preliminary report used to shape public perception before facts are fully disclosed.

    And he is fighting it. Because, as he says, this is about data and due process.
    It is about whether the truth still matters when it is inconvenient.

    Accident investigation is not a bureaucratic exercise. It is a nation’s promise to the dead that their lives will mean something — that lessons will be learned honestly, and that safety will not be sacrificed, as he says to “commercial interests.”

    For India — a founding member of the International Civil Aviation Organisation — this is not acceptable.

    Unless India corrects the course of its investigation, AI-171 will be remembered not only as a catastrophic systems failure in flight, but as a catastrophic failure on the ground — in the very institutions entrusted with the truth.

    For 260 families, this is not justice.
    For global aviation, this is not safety.

    As there are still 1,100 Dreamliners with the same electrical architecture that continue to fly unreviewed and unexamined.

    Because among the people who had faith and trust in India’s aviation regulator to keep our skies safe – were Roshni Songhare, Saineeta Chakravarty, Shradha Dhavan, Aparna Mahadik, Maithili Patil, Manisha Thapa, Nganthoi Kongbrailatpam Sharma, Lamnunthem Singson, Deepak Pathak and Irfan Shaikh – the crew of AI 171 who’d engaged in flight safety demonstrations just a few minutes before the crash.

     

    Feature Image Credit: thenewsminute.com

  • Five Years without an Elected Administration: Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir

    Five Years without an Elected Administration: Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir

    [powerkit_button size=”lg” style=”info” block=”true” url=”https://admin.thepeninsula.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/FHRJK-2023-Report-August-2-2023-Final-Edit-1.pdf” target=”_blank” nofollow=”false”]
    Download
    [/powerkit_button]

    The Forum for Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir comprises an informal group of concerned citizens who believe that, in the prevailing situation in the former state, an independent initiative is required so that continuing human rights violations do not go unnoticed.

    This is the fourth annual report issued by the Forum, which has also issued two midterm and/or thematic reports). It has largely been compiled from government sources, media accounts (carried in well-established and reputed newspapers or television), NGO fact-finding reports, interviews, and information garnered through legal petitions. The various sources listed have been fact-checked against each other to ensure the information is as accurate as possible, and only that information has been carried that appears to be well-founded. Where there is any doubt regarding a piece of information, queries have been footnoted.

    Executive Summary

    In an additional counter-affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in July 2023 against petitions challenging the constitutionality of the Presidential Orders of August 5, 2019 (reading down Article 370 of the Indian Constitution), as well as the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of August 9, 2019, the union Ministry of Home Affairs claimed that that the changes wrought by the two actions had ‘brought unprecedented development, progress, security and stability to the region.’

    The facts, however, suggest otherwise. In its three annual and two thematic reports, the Forum has documented over three dozen economic, political and social rights that have been violated between August 2019 and July 2022, including economic losses of over Rs. 50,000 crores at a conservative estimate, vitiation of land and domicile rights, marginalisation and even purges of local personnel in the civil and police services, questionable arrests under draconian legislation, communication bans, media intimidation, and routinised curbs on the freedom of expression and movement. Equally glaring, the right to representation has been denied for five years, as of June 2023.

    This report on the state of human rights in Jammu and Kashmir between August 2022- July 2023 finds that while there has been improvement on some parameters, human rights violations continue on most. Its findings are as follows:

    1. Civilian insecurity persists. Targeted attacks on Pandits and migrant workers – both Hindu and Muslim – continue. While the number of lives lost due to armed attacks and counter-insurgency operations was lower than in the previous year, the number of police personnel who died, including Central Reserve Police Forces (CRPF), continues to be unacceptably high. 71 CRPF troops were killed in the four years between 2019-2022, twice as many as in the previous four years, 2014-2018, when 35 died. By comparison, in the four years between 2012-2015, which can be categorised as an uneasy interregnum between the post-peace process years and the rise of conflict in the BJP-PDP coalition, 27 CRPF troops were killed.

    2. A high volume of small arms. In 2023, it was found that Jammu and Kashmir had the largest number of licensed gun holders amongst union territories and the highest per capita amongst states as well as union territories, at 500,105 in June 2023, or four per hundred people.

    3. Resurgence of militancy in Jammu. After decades of peace, the bordering areas of Poonch and Rajouri districts in Jammu division are re-emerging as a locus for militancy with cross-border support from Pakistani-held territories of the former state. The 2022 delimitation of fresh legislative constituencies, adding Poonch and Rajouri to Kashmir’s Anantnag, may have added to the alienation that these Muslim-majority areas face with the sharpening of communal divides in Jammu. Increasing weaponisation through Jammu’s village defence guards, a problematic policy that the Forum highlighted in its 2022 report, has added further insecurity in the region. As has the 2023 Jammu and Kashmir Scheduled Tribes (Amendment) bill, which has pitted Paharis against Gujjars and other listed scheduled tribes of the region.

    4. Continuing civil rights abuses. There has been no improvement in gross violations of the freedom of expression and movement, especially the rights of the media to a safe working environment. Arrests under draconian legislation such as the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Public Safety Act (PSA) continue, despite judicial attempts to limit their application. Along with Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir has the highest rate of undertrials as a proportion of its prisons population, at 91 percent, considerably higher than the national average of 76 percent.

    5. Custodial deaths and overcrowded prisons. The Jammu and Kashmir courts have flagged overcrowding and negligence as causes of custodial deaths. The region’s prisons can house a total of 3,629 inmates, but they lodged 5,300 as of June 2023.

    6. Denial of political rights. Two issues of political rights dominate this year’s report. The demand for an assembly election in Jammu and Kashmir; and the demand for a legislative assembly in Ladakh, along with rights under the sixth schedule of the constitution of India.

    Elections. It has been nine years since the last legislative election in Jammu and Kashmir. The union administration accepted the delimitation commission’s report a year ago and it is eight months since fresh electoral rolls were prepared. All the preparations for an election have thus been completed, but the election commission has yet to announce dates for it. Despite their valid criticisms of the delimitation commission’s report, Jammu and Kashmir’s political parties have demanded that the election be held this year (2023). Fresh reservations to woo new constituencies through four bills scheduled to be introduced in the monsoon session of parliament will, if enacted, entrench caste-based voter mobilisation. One of them was debated on July 26.

    Ladakh Kargil and Leh, the two districts of Ladakh, have united around the demand for an elected administration with substantive powers over economic and social development such as those provided under the Sixth Schedule of the Indian constitution, or, alternatively and it seems preferably, the grant of statehood. The union administration has repeatedly promised to discuss the inclusion of Ladakhis in the sixth schedule, but little has resulted. Given Ladakh’s geo-strategic location, bordering both Pakistan and China, the union administration might prefer to govern the union territory directly. However, direct administration has resulted in alienating Ladakh’s elected councillors as well as its people, both of which impact negatively on Indian democracy as well as national security.

    7. A record year of tourism in 2022 boosted the economy, but it still lagged behind the national average on per capita income and rates of growth. The multidimensional poverty index for 2023 showed an impressive reduction in the proportion of its population living in poverty from an estimated figure of 12.56 percent in 2015-2016 to 4.8 percent between 2019-2021, but it ranked sixth out of eight union territories on the sustainable development goals (SDG), with Ladakh at seventh. Its forest cover decreased from 39.66 percent to 39.15 between 2020- 2021.

    8. Unemployment and drug abuse. At 23.1 percent in March 2023, unemployment was almost three times the national average of 7.8 percent. According to the union ministry of health, Jammu and Kashmir are among the top two states and union territories for drug abuse, with an estimated 900,000 habitual drug users, roughly 1 in 130.

    9. Data scarcity. There is a paucity of readily available figures for the former state. Though the 2023 budget presentation for parliament forecast a NSDP growth rate of 14.9 percent for Jammu and Kashmir in 2022-2023, the economic survey of 2023 said that figures for its per capita NSDP were not available from 2019 to date, as did the 2022 Reserve Bank of India statistics on states.

    Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak (Retd) is a Distinguished Fellow and a member of the Governing Council of The Peninsula Foundation (TPF). He is a member of the Forum for Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir.

    Disclaimer: The views represented herein are those of the Forum and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Peninsula Foundation, its staff, or its trustees.

    [powerkit_button size=”lg” style=”info” block=”true” url=”https://admin.thepeninsula.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/FHRJK-2023-Report-August-2-2023-Final-Edit-1.pdf” target=”_blank” nofollow=”false”]
    Download
    [/powerkit_button]

  • Right to Work: Feasible and Indispensable for India to be a Truly Civilized and Democratic Nation

    Right to Work: Feasible and Indispensable for India to be a Truly Civilized and Democratic Nation

    Executive Summary of
    Report of People’s Commission on Employment and Unemployment
    Set up by Desh Bachao Abhiyan

    Introduction

    When society faces a problem and is unable to resolve it, it implies that something basic is wrong. One needs to look for its basic causes to solve the problem. The causes may lie in the system that has evolved over time and which conditions the dominant social and political thinking in society. The onus of finding the solution and rectifying the problem is on the rulers. Their failure to do so over time implies a lack of motivation/commitment to solve the problem.

    All this applies to the issue of employment generation and unemployment in India which has been growing over time and affects the vast majority of the citizens.

    The Basic Issue

    Gandhi said that India is the only country capable of giving a civilizational alternative. The time has come to take this seriously since unemployment has become a critical issue that needs to be urgently tackled. The issue is multi-dimensional since it is a result of multiple causes and has widespread implications. It impacts the growth of the economy, inequality, poverty, etc. It has a gender dimension and impacts the marginalized sections adversely reflecting a lack of social justice. It is entrenched among the youth. The more educated they are greater the unemployment they face. Consequently, it has political and social implications, like, social relations.

    The rapidly growing incomes of the top 1% in the income ladder indicate that the economy has the resources but they are mal-distributed. The rich at the top has created a system that enables them to capture most of the gains from development with little trickling down to the rest.

    This Report presents a framework that spells out the causes, consequences, and possible remedies. Further, it looks at the historical process underlying the evolution of policies so as to understand how they can be changed.

    If any form of distortion persists over a long period, as unemployment in India, its origins lie in society’s perceptions and priorities. In India, these can be traced to the adoption of state capitalism and persisting feudal tendencies of the elite policy makers who in their own self-interest adopted a trickle-down model of development.

    Further, Capitalism has globally taken the form of marketization which promotes `profit maximisation’. But is it then legitimate to keep workers unemployed? It implies loss of output and therefore reduces the size of the economy which leads to a lower level of profits. So, by the logic of individual rationality, the system should create productive employment for all.

    The market’s notion of `efficiency’ is status quoist since it seeks to perpetuate the historical injustice in society. `Consumer sovereignty’ implies that individuals should be left free to do whatever they wish. The collectivity should not intervene in their choices no matter how socially detrimental they may be. It promotes the notion that if I have the money I can do what I like. The ratio of incomes is 10,000 times and more between the big businessmen and the poor workers. The market sees nothing wrong in this; in fact, society has come to celebrate it.

    Marketization is determining society’s choices through its principles penetrating all aspects of society. One of these principles is the `dollar vote’. The policy makers accept it and prioritize the choices of the well-off over those of the marginalized. The well-off dictate the social judgments of policy makers. Consequently, not only equality is not on the agenda even equity is not.

    With marketization stripping off the social aspect of life, individuals become automatons. Their individual distress and situation in life are no one’s or society’s concern. Unemployment becomes just a switching off of a machine. No social concern need to be attached to it. In fact, capitalists welcome unemployment as an efficient’ device to discipline labour and neo-classical economics considers it as natural. Inflation further weakens large numbers of workers as they lose purchasing power.

    In essence, whether or not society should aim to give productive employment to all reflects its view of individuals. Society needs to choose what is more important – profits or the welfare of the marginalized majority. The Gandhian view, largely rejected by the Indian elite, was `last person first’ which defined what the priority should be.

    [powerkit_button size=”lg” style=”info” block=”true” url=”https://admin.thepeninsula.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/PCAU-Executive-Summary-of-Report-1.pdf” target=”_blank” nofollow=”false”]
    Read the Full Executive Summary
    [/powerkit_button]

    Disclaimer:

    The views represented herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Peninsula Foundation, its staff, or its trustees.

    The report’s executive summary is republished with the permission of the author.

    Feature Image:

    Economic and Political Weekly

  • Three Years as a Union Territory: Human Rights in J&K

    Three Years as a Union Territory: Human Rights in J&K

    [powerkit_button size=”lg” style=”info” block=”true” url=”https://admin.thepeninsula.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Our-Annual-Report-Human-Rights-JK-2022_compressed-1.pdf” target=”_blank” nofollow=”false”]
    Download
    [/powerkit_button]

    The Forum for Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir comprises an informal group of concerned citizens who believe that, in the prevailing situation in the former state of Jammu and Kashmir, an independent initiative is required so that continuing human rights violation do not go unnoticed.

    The aim of the Forum is to highlight, report and seek action. It will primarily focus on human rights protected by the constitutions of India and Jammu and Kashmir, as well as those identified in international treaties/instruments which India has ratified. It will research evident violations, and may take suo moto notice of any violation, irrespective of whether or not a formal complaint is received.

    The Forum for Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir will receive information/materials on human rights violation to its email hrforumjk@gmail.com and through other means, and it may report/forward complaints to relevant authorities with recommendations for action. Please note that this is not an anticipatory body.

    This is the fourth report issued by the Forum. It has largely been compiled local first-hand accounts, governments sources, media accounts (carried in well-established and reputed newspaper or television), and NGO fact-finding reports. The various sources listed above have been fact-checked against each other to ensure the information is as accurate as possible, and only that information has been carried that appears to be well-founded.

    The members of the Forum for Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir take allegations of inaccuracy, bias, or any other criticism founded in fact, very seriously. Criticism of this nature will be considered and responded in real-time.

    Air Vice Marshal Kapil Kak (Retd) is a Distinguished Fellow and a member of the Governing Council of The Peninsula Foundation (TPF). He is a member of the Forum for Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir.

    Disclaimer: The views represented herein are those of the Forum and not necessarily reflect the views of The Peninsula Foundation, its staff, or its trustees.

    [powerkit_button size=”lg” style=”info” block=”true” url=”https://admin.thepeninsula.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Our-Annual-Report-Human-Rights-JK-2022_compressed-1.pdf” target=”_blank” nofollow=”false”]
    Download
    [/powerkit_button]