The Peninsula Foundation

Tag: Constitution

  • An Outside View of the US 2024 Presidential Election

    An Outside View of the US 2024 Presidential Election

    What was the voter turnout?

    The big change is that Harris, so far, has lost 9 million voters since 2020, while Trump has gained only 1.2 million. Harris’s count of lost votes will decline as the final votes come in, but the bigger story remains that Harris lost more votes than Trump gained.

    Voter turnout is NOT final, but it is likely between 153 and 156 million, down from 2020 but still the second-highest percentage turnout in 100 years. At a minimum, 107 million adults did not vote (88 million of whom are “eligible” to vote). Thus, 41% or more of the adult population and 36% of the eligible voters did not vote.

    Using the percentage of voter groups who voted for Trump is misleading.  The news remains that the significant change is the loss of Harris voters.

    What were the economic issues?

    Daily survival has become a serious problem for the bottom 65% due, specifically, to the inflation of grocery items and increasing mortgage payments and rent. Aggregate figures don’t reflect this reality.

    Workers’ actual standard of living was worse under Biden than under Trump.

    Real wages in the US remain lower than they were a half-century ago.

    Are there differences between Democrats and Republicans?

    US electoral parties are NOT like those in Europe – they have always been a different version of bourgeois electoral systems. Both major US parties are corporations, not parties with memberships, ideologies, and programs. They are designed like a marketplace of individuals preening for the Presidency, much like the Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show, but only held every four years.

    The Democrats turned over their foreign policy to the CNAS group of neo-con warmongers who will now be displaced.

    The Republicans are also not an actual party; Trump proved this, and what is next for Republicans post-Trump is also uncertain.

    What are the class shifts in the US?

    There is a new stratification of the bourgeoisie, with billionaires as a new factor. The increasingly dominant discourse amongst the capitalist class has the wherewithal to exert its influence.

    Fifty Billionaires put 2.5 billion US dollars, 45% of the 5.5 billion total, into the Presidential election. Of this, 1.6 billion went to the Republicans, 750 million to the Democrats, and the rest to both. The total spent on the election, in all races, was 16 billion, a sign of a kleptocracy, not a thriving democracy.

    washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/biggest-campaign-donors-election-2024

    There is a concerted effort by a section of libertarian tech billionaires, including Thiel and Musk, to have their hands directly on the levers of the state to control the race for global domination of AI. They believe that they alone should control the advances in the AI space for the world and that the initial next step is what is called Artificial General Intelligence (AGI). These megalomaniacs believe this will begin the control of humans by machine intelligence and, perhaps, in their perverse dreams, the end of humanity.

    A growing number of lesser capitalists, such as multimillionaires, are now being lumped into the upper middle class and the wealthiest one-third of voters. One very important trend to note is that in the last fifteen years, the richest one-third have switched allegiance from Republicans to Democrats.

    Why did Harris lose 6 to 9 million votes?

    Workers were worse off, wages did not keep up, and inflation left a long, lingering impact.  Some of the youth vote left for economic reasons. Others were disillusioned and demoralised by the full-throated support of the genocidal war in Gaza by the Democratic Party. Muslims, while a small group, voted for a third party or Trump.

    Despite the fabrications of the Democratic Party corporate handlers, Harris was, in fact, inauthentic, unlikeable, shallow, and could not mask her history as a prosecutor who spent her life attacking the rights of the poor.

    Dissatisfaction with many Western elected parties is growing – Conservative in the UK, Centre Right in France, right-wing in Germany – all thrown out. Biden left a demoralised Democratic Party and left too late.

    Fear-mongering about fascism was core to the rhetoric of the Democrats, even though no one knows what the term means.  Some voters became annoyed at the harassment by the liberals to vote for them since they were the last rail of defence against fascism. Many people did not believe Trump was, in fact, a fascist, nor did they believe that every one of their family members who listened to Trump was a fascist.

    Apathy is growing and remains a real issue.

    Probably over a million stayed at home as they could not stomach the Democratic Party’s gleeful support for Genocide. Trump’s victory in Michigan was certainly due to this issue.

    Harris played to and fawned over the war criminal Dick Cheney, the architect of the invasion of Iraq and a historic right-wing enemy of the Democrats.  We don’t know how many voters left in disgust. 

    Why did Trump gain votes?

    Trump took advantage of working-class dissatisfaction. Even so, he only gained less than 2 million total new votes. There is no evidence of a widescale shift of working-class votes to the Republicans in this election.

    Working-class women voted for local candidates supporting abortion but voted for Trump for economic and other reasons. Others voted on local issues important to them and then voted for Trump as they felt that despite his unsavoury behaviours, he was more committed to “shaking things up”.

    The billionaire class made sure that Trump had ample funds. Elon Musk’s America Pac spent $118 million handling field operations for the Trump campaign, an unusual role for a super PAC.

    From 2008 to 2020, there was a decline in the percentage of voters supporting the Democrats amongst the bottom 1/3 of income earners in the US.

    ft.com/content/6de668c7-64e9-4196-b2c5-9ceca966fe3f

     

    Too little data is available now to provide a detailed answer about the relatively insignificant number of voters who voted Democrat in 2020 and Republican in 2024.

    What is the assessment of the new cabinet positions announced?

    Trump’s sixteen appointments to date are all vocal supporters of genocide in Palestine. In the United States, there are both Jewish and Christian Zionists. Trump has appointed several Christian Zionists. The majority are China hawks.

    When analysed from a US statecraft point of view, many are extremely underwhelming candidates. These include:

    • Secretary of State: Senator Marco Rubio: He is a rigid, fierce anti-communist.
    • Secretary of Defense: Pete Hegseth, an Army National Guard veteran and Fox News host: He is divisive and has no high-level military experience.
    • Attorney General: Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida: He has no experience in the Department of Justice and has had past legal controversies.
    • Director of National Intelligence: Former Representative Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. She has no intelligence background but is perhaps less rigid on international issues, a non-interventionist, and has a friendship with Indian Prime Minister Modi.
    • Ambassador to the United Nations: Representative Elise Stefanik of New York. She is an extreme Zionist, has near zero diplomatic experience, and has focused only on domestic issues, but is loyal to Trump.
    • Secretary of Homeland Security: South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem. She lacks national government experience, and her actions have veered toward radical anti-federalism.

    Due to some of these appointments, US stature in international affairs will likely diminish.

    Trump has brilliantly dismissed the extremely dangerous Pompeo. He has made it clear that few from the first inner group of his cabinet and advisors will return. The world will not miss them. Yet there is little evidence to suggest that Trump has the capacity to lead any group successfully for even an intermediate period. He is known for turning on people and turning them against each other.

    How do we interpret the vote?

    A significant section of the working class understandably abandoned the Democrats in this election.

    There is not a major right-wing shift in US attitudes, but there is a real base for the right.

    The Democratic Party elite is completely divorced from the masses. Parading the loyal royal cultural elite like Taylor Swift, Beyonce, and Bruce Springsteen reeked of wealth, opulence, and tone-deafness.

    Apathy should not be understated. At least 88 million didn’t vote, with a further 19 million disenfranchised.

    Third parties are structurally prevented from winning even a single state in a presidential election. They are structurally locked out of Congress. The United States has locked in a two-party system. Most voters have been captured by this belief.

    Small exceptions to this are wealthy candidates like Ross Perot in 1992 and Robert Kennedy Junior.

    There was huge intimidation at the end against supporters of third-party candidates, which depressed their vote even more than usual. In this just-held election, the Party for Liberation and Socialism Candidate Claudia Cruz received 134,348 votes so far.  Claudia Cruz’s 134 thousand votes is the highest number of votes for an explicit communist in American history. It exceeds the CPUSA’s William Z. Foster’s previous record of 120,000 votes in 1932. The 1932 vote was a higher percentage of the population as the US was smaller in 1932. These facts are a reminder of the long-term campaign of anti-communism within the US.

    Capital is clearly happy with Trump’s win, as evidenced by the November 6th celebration rally on Wall Street. They disagree with the liberal hype that he will bring an end to American society.

    Despite the lies of the liberals, the facts are that Trump formally initiated the New Cold War on China. His inner team are more fiercely anti-China than the Democrats, who are more bound to the Ukraine War.

    Trump has fewer restraints, controlling the Senate, House, Supreme Court, and Presidency.

    He could well launch a Third World War.  It would be a mistake to underestimate this danger.

    Other things people outside the US should know

    There is a tendency in some parts of the Global South to have a simplistic and false analysis that any enemy of the liberals is a friend of the Global South. This is a severely flawed argument. The imperialist far-right is not a good guy, a cultural conservative who wants to protect families and cultural life. Inside the US, conservative culture is tightly tied to slavery and genocide. It is misogynistic, racist, militaristic, and reactionary. We should not confuse the histories of Iran, Turkey, India, Ghana, and China with those of the US.

    Welcoming divisions in the enemy camp is often entirely correct. But Communists, socialists, and true democrats do not support reactionary views and always side with the people, not the far-right ideologues.

    There is also great confusion about MAGA and MAGA-Communism. First, Make America Great Again (MAGA) means returning (the second “A” in MAGA) to the full glory of the US industrial past. But what was that past? It was, in fact, the total economic, political, military, and racial subordination of the peoples of the Global South states to the US. It was the century of humiliation in China. This is not a return to be welcomed by history. MAGA is a profoundly reactionary, unacceptable outcome and concept.

    One of the greatest poets in the United States is Langston Hughes. One of his poems was called “Let America Be America Again.” But this was a parody as the actual statement was made in the refrain, “America Never Was America to Me”. The meaning of this poem was the false portrayal of the United States as ever having a glorious past, which was never true for the slaves or the working class.

    Second, there are a handful of personalities in the US who have taken the great word communism and sullied it with the idea of returning to this falsely idealised America. The old “strong” American industry was built on the backs of low-paid workers in the mines in Africa and elsewhere.

    Desiring a real communist path is a good thing. But tying it to an imperialist past, a past of violence, with reactionary views is the opposite path taken by Lenin, Mao, and Fidel.

    There is also a dangerous tendency to simply reject the liberal concepts of identity politics and embrace the values of far-right conservatism while lacking scientific thinking about the plight of women and other vulnerable groups.

    The CPC led the country in the first national Soviets in Ruijin in the struggle to abolish the prejudices of feudalism and emancipate women and national minorities in China. However, these rights have not yet been achieved in many countries, as there has been no communist revolution.

    True Communism is the path to advancing the overall interests of the working class in all countries, including women, national minorities, and other vulnerable groups.

    The Republican voter base in class-terms is the lower-middle class, which is overwhelmingly white, suburban, rural. It is amplified by fundamentalist Christians and the Republican regional strongholds.

    There are six “ideological” trends, all extreme right, in the Republican camp:

    1. Populist demagogues
    2. Extreme Libertarians
    3. Fanatical Christian-Zionists
    4. Virulent anti-communists
    5. Dangerous AI-obsessed Tech billionaires
    6. Complex conservatives

    The US economy will continue to perform poorly but better than the rest of the West. It will continue to use its dollar hegemony, reinforced with sanctions, to remove hundreds of billions from the Global South and to force Europe, Australia, and Japan to subordinate their economic interests to those of the US.

    The actual US budget for the military was $1.8 trillion last year. Significant cuts seem improbable.

    There is now a permanent Black upper middle class that produces a Black mis-leadership. This mis-leadership group has created two decades of Black war criminals and apologists for empire. The rise of this mis-leadership gang, however, should not overshadow the fact that most blacks remain oppressed and exploited.

    The anti-immigrant politics in the U.S. is directed primarily at undocumented immigrants from Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean.

    But there is a false belief that all immigrants in the US are working class and progressive – it is just not true. An important stratum of non-working-class immigrants in the US are amongst the most virulent defenders of US atrocities in the world.

    There is a belief that there is a conspiracy of some secret group of members of the military and government that decide most things, which they call the Deep State. This is a lazy concept. It denies that all states have a class character and permanent army. In the US, it has been estimated that over 5 million people have security clearance, and many have near-lifetime employment. There is no need for conspiracy theories. The US does have an advanced state that functions on behalf of capital. This state manages the affairs of the often-competing large capitalists and is now increasingly primarily favouring the billionaires amongst the capitalist class. Thus, a better way to see the US State is through the lens of Mao, Lenin, and Marx and not as some inexplicable conspiracy.

    There is a special relationship between the US and Israel, both extreme white-settler states. In the US alone, over 30 House, Senate, and cabinet members are dual citizens of the US and Israel. Israel does not control the US, BUT they are socially a duopoly.

    They are the CORE of Ring 1 of the Global North, the core of the imperialist bloc, along with the UK, Canada, and Australia.

    The long-term trend is clear – bourgeois liberal democracy is failing globally.

    What is the domestic consequence of the vote?

    Since 2016, the very top of the capitalist class has led and mobilised a neo-fascist movement. Increasing levels of force and lawfare will now be used internally inside the US.

    Trump himself is not a fascist per se. He is super-egoistic and believes he can act with near absolute impunity.

    But he is riding on, and a beneficiary of changing class phenomena.

    Fascism is not so much an ideology as a structural class relationship in which the lower-middle class, which has a revanchist ideology, is mobilized by big capital during a period of internal and external disequilibrium.

    The New York Times and Financial Times use the word fascism as a scare tactic to maintain their role and influence in the state. Neo-fascism is a more precise word than fascism at this moment to describe the changes in the US.

    Historically, there are a few things that are necessary to define a fully fascist state in imperialist countries. One is that the state uses methods of control it would typically use only for its colonies and neo-colonies, i.e., extreme widespread violence and force.  The other is that they resort to the overthrow of the constitution.

    The Constitution is unlikely to be changed directly. However, the original Constitution, an eighteenth-century document, has many gaps that can be exploited.

    Radical and extreme legal changes are thus probable. There will be a reversal of 70 years of civil rights.

    Overall, it remains to be seen how far the capitalist class is willing to go.

    State capacity in many areas other than defence and border police will be diminished. Trump 1 saw big cuts in the State Department.  Even with Rubio present, it is unlikely to be refunded to its old level.

    The Billionaires will play a direct role in key tasks, from meeting Zelensky to chain-sawing government departments. Some departments, like Agriculture, Education, and Health and Human Services, are, in fact, decrepit, corrupt and dysfunctional. But a billionaire-led revamp will result in an unsavoury privatized equally dysfunctional capitalist state bureaucracy.

    Trump is committed to a long-term isolationist strategy.  But the US has over 900 military bases abroad. It has fully supported the expansion of Israel’s War in the Middle East, building up its military in the process.

    Trump will not block the infrastructure projects that were voted in during Biden. The US recognises that its lost manufacturing capacity is a strategic deficit in military supply.

    The brunt of the cutbacks will still increase the suffering of the 150 million working-class poor in the US.

    The Left will be even more subjected to severe repression. Rubio is salivating.

    What are the possible international consequences?

    Despite the recent Zelensky meeting, the US will probably push a cease-fire and curtail the Ukraine war. Crimea is off the table. The current military lines will be the starting point. Doing this could reduce the immediate danger of a nuclear war. In April of this year, both Vance and Rubio voted against the 95-billion-dollar US military aid bill for Ukraine.

    With Israel, there are three main possibilities:

    1. Trump curtails Netanyahu and calls for an end to Lebanon, no regime change in Iran, and an unjust peace agreement.
    2. He falls prey to the Christian Zionists and continues Genocide against Palestine.
    3. He goes against his no-war statements and approves an escalation with Iran.

    We don’t know, but option one is not impossible. Trump wants a deal with Saudi Arabia.

    A few days ago, MBS was forced to call it a Genocide, a rare statement from a long-term US ally.

    With China, there are also three possibilities:

    1. Trump says tariffs are his favourite word in the English language and wants to increase them and eliminate domestic taxes.
    2. Rubio and other super China-hating cabinet members push him to escalate.
    3. US national security elements and US tech moguls like Peter Thiel push US military preparations.

    On the question of Taiwan, some in the Global South fall for the liberal messaging soundbite in the West that Trump, the dealmaker, will sell Taiwan for a fee. This would bring strong resistance from the US military and large sections of the anti-communist members of his core group. This is a very unlikely case.

    The world should not be confused if Trump does initiate a ceasefire in Ukraine and pressures Netanyahu to curtail the Genocide. Neither of these actions reverses the long-term trend of the US towards militarization against China. Nothing Trump does will turn around anaemic long-term US economic growth.

    China is still on target to surpass the US in current exchange rate GDP within 10 years.

    The US state is still on a long-term course to use its self-perceived military supremacy to destroy what it perceives as the Eurasian threat. It remains committed to dismembering the Russian Federation and overthrowing the CPC. The imperialists believe this is the path to a thousand-year reign of unilateral power.

    The US will continue, unabated, its strategy of seeking nuclear primacy and what is called the “counterforce” strategy, which plans on the use of a first strike or launch of nuclear weapons. Evidence of these dangerous changes in US military strategy can be seen by their unilateral withdrawal from the following treaties:

    • 2002 (Bush): the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty.
    • 2019 (Trump): the Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty
    • 2020 (Trump): the Open Skies treaty

    Tucker Carlson has Trump’s ear for now and is not a proponent of military conflict.

    In 2023, a four-star general, Minihan, claimed that the US would be in a hot war with China in 2025. These are not accidental statements.

    It is unknown if Rubio, some of the far-right libertarians, and CNAS-influenced military forces can overcome Trump’s dislike of military conflict.

    The US is likely to increase its attention on Latin America and increase support for the far right like Bolsonaro and Milei.

    Large-scale aid to Africa is not likely to happen. The Angola railway project is now improbable.

    Final comments

    The US state is still on a long-term course to use its self-perceived military supremacy to destroy the Eurasian threat.

    The US has adopted counterforce and nuclear supremacy as its prime military strategy.

    The threat of war has not changed due to a new administration. Only, perhaps, the speed at which it will be accomplished.

    The economic and political assaults against the US working class will escalate, especially against progressives.

    The state will continue to tighten its grip on the so-called bourgeois democratic freedoms by further restricting voting rights, civil rights, and freedom of speech.

     

    This article was published earlier on MRonline 
    The article is republished underCreative Commons  Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

    Creative Commons License

     

     

  • An Identity Crisis: Book Review of “The Battle of Belonging”

    An Identity Crisis: Book Review of “The Battle of Belonging”

    Book Name: The Battle Of Belonging: On Nationalism, Patriotism, And What It Means To Be Indian

    Author: Shashi Tharoor

    Publisher: Aleph Book Company

    Year of Publication: October 2020

    Pages: 462

     

     

    The cataclysm of Right-wing extremism has seized global politics. From the United States to Britain and New Zealand, the agenda appears dominant. Among them, in the present context, India is no exception. From cow vigilantism to scathing attacks on minority groups, the question of what it means to be an Indian is contested and debated as never before. Dr Shashi Tharoor, Member of Parliament for the Tiruvananthapuram constituency, in his latest book, ‘The Battle of Belonging’ attempts to redefine what exactly it meant to be an Indian and addresses the present identity crisis in India. Dr Tharoor writes about the subtle mechanism which provides more space for civic nationalism in India in the present times.

    From multiple angles, The Battle of Belonging comes out as a sequel to his previous books, ‘Why I am a Hindu’ and ‘The Paradoxical Prime Minister’. In this book, Tharoor addresses the concept of nationalism and patriotism. According to him, the concept of nationalism in India is flawed unlike the concept of nationalism enshrined in the Indian constitution. Through this book, the author asks the readers to dive into the Indian constitution and understand its rationale. He raises key questions such as, ‘has India’s nationalism really been reshaped?’ and stresses the pitfalls that India would face in the future as the plague of extremism spreads. He also envisions a space for civic nationalism, as envisioned by Mahatma Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, B R Ambedkar, and Rabindranath Tagore. The book is divided into six volumes and each section narrates the evolution of nationalism till the current phase.

    According to Tharoor, civic nationalism is cemented on the principles of liberal democracy and equality for all. However, ethnic nationalism or ethnocentric nations erode these principles and peddles a path for Majoritarianism.

    In the first phase, Tharoor unravels the evolution of the concept of ‘Nationalism’ and distinguishes it from the concept of ‘Patriotism’. To furnish a literary overview of the concept, the author espouses the visions of Kautilya, Thomas Hobbes, Ernest Hemmingway, Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, and Rabindranath Tagore. He also takes insights from his former diplomatic career. In this very section, Tharoor offers different typologies of nationalism. Among them ‘ethnic nationalism’ and ‘civic nationalism’ dominates the discourse. According to him, civic nationalism is cemented on the principles of liberal democracy and equality for all. However, ethnic nationalism or ethnocentric nations erode these principles and peddles a path for Majoritarianism. Throughout the book, he lashes out at the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) for breaking the fabric of civic nationalism.

    The second section of the book is vast and extensively researched. In this section, the author gleans several facts on the concepts of unity in diversity. The book also extensively discusses the difference between Hinduism and Hindutva, where the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is fabricating a new ethos of Hindu Dominance. The book also advances in a way all Indians are a minority in one way or other from a vantage point of view. The author raises the question of an individual’s right to choose his identity regardless of his caste, gender, or whatsoever criteria. 

    The third section explores the Hindutva version of India, investigating how right-wing fringe groups attempt to fabricate a dawn of Hindutva society, where minorities are pushed aside. Here in part, the author delves into the philosophies of Savarkar, Golwankar, and Deen Dayal Upadhaya and how they opposed the Indian constitution. B R Ambedkar envisioned a society that opened space for all. On the other hand, the aforesaid champions envisioned a ‘Hindu Rashtra’, that was contrary to the ideas of Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar, and Tagore. In this section, Tharoor speaks on one of his controversial comments, ‘Hindu Pakistan’. He expresses his prolonged anxiety about the possibility of India turning into an autocratic nation like Pakistan. Even though the concept is far-fetched, the ruling party’s majority in the lower house provides no guarantee in this matter.

    India has a prolonged history of accommodating persecuted minorities, whether it be Jews, Parsis and Bangladeshis, and offering them a platform to instil their roots in India and be a part of the nation.

    The fourth section of the book talks about recent events such as the abrogation of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir, the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the issue of the National Register of Citizens (NRC), the act of imposing Hindi on the non-Hindi speaking states and the case of the Ayodhya Ram temple. Tharoor condemns the act of imposing Hindi onto the shoulders of non-Hindi speaking states. He also questions the flag bearers of Hindi on whether they will dare to take up the challenge of learning another language other than Hindi.

    The CAA and the NRC shook the nation, creating a wave of panic among citizens. The author claims that the freedom struggle of India was to secure a nation that accommodated all, regardless of their identity. India has a prolonged history of accommodating persecuted minorities, whether it be Jews, Parsis and Bangladeshis, and offering them a platform to instil their roots in India and be a part of the nation. It is also an evident reality that the documentation system is a flawed mechanism and that the poor and uneducated who are not aware of this mechanism are the ones who will suffer in the process of NRC. Tharoor claims that these acts of the ruling party are against the concept of liberal constitutionalism.

    He later discusses the much-debated Kashmir issue. This piece clearly indicates just how well-versed Tharoor is in the Constitution of India. Tharoor strongly condemns the act of abrogating Article 370 without consulting the cabinet members and the manner it was passed in the parliament. The author sees it as a clear violation of democracy. Subsequently, the author discusses the Ayodhya dispute. He sees the verdict as dubious, where the demolition of the mosque is condemned as ‘criminal vandalism’ and on the other side, the land is awarded to the ones who perpetuated the act. He also sees this act as remoulding India against the backdrop of Hindutva ideology.

    India is a nation that accommodates all sorts of diversity, and it is a sheer act of intolerance, where a majoritarian idea is imposed over a minority group.

    In the sixth section, the author addresses the ‘Anxiety of Nationhood’, where Indian nationalism is undergoing fundamental changes. Shashi Tharoor, in the first part of this section, narrates the stark contrast between the idea of Hinduism by Mahatma Gandhi and the current Hindutva ideology. Gandhi was a champion of inclusive nationalism.  He even went to the extent of declaring himself as an amalgamation of all religions. His views are very relevant in today’s climate of intolerance. Tharoor, then takes up the contest between the concepts of Bharat and India. The author strongly condemns fringe groups asserting their ideology. India is a nation that accommodates all sorts of diversity, and it is a sheer act of intolerance, where a majoritarian idea is imposed over a minority group. He also claims that the crux of Indian thought is liberal and tolerant in nature which accepts all faiths as its own.

    The author raises a key question on whether the constitution will be able to tame the Hindutva monologue in the present circumstances. Going further, Tharoor narrates how the right-wing groups condemned the constitution for being anglophone in context and their belief that the constitution does not resonate with the Hindu culture of India. Tharoor also raises his apprehension regarding a Hindutva infused constitution on the pile of a majoritarian ideologue. In the Conclusion, the author also explores how the internet has wrapped India into its network. It is indeed true that social media aids Indians to socialise and raise various issues with the public. However, on the flip side, the author also points out and condemns the social media groups that play an active role in spreading fake news and in inciting violence.

    In the final part, Tharoor speaks on how the soul of India can be reclaimed. Here, the author dwells on the ethos of Indian Nationalism that is built on the foundation of diversity and pluralism, and how it is now being tampered with, and how it can be retrieved. Tharoor raises the clarion call against ethno-religious nationalism, which would distort the future of India’s democracy. He also asserts that it is the responsibility of Indians to reclaim India’s diversity and plurality. He foresees an India that respects all regions with patriotism stemming from unity.

    Shashi Tharoor’s ‘Battle of Belonging’ would definitely interest those who love to analyse facts and information thoroughly. It is indeed a thoroughly researched book, and his arguments are supported by a vast amount of facts. The most interesting aspect of this book is the way Tharoor has sewed his thoughts with impeccable and strong language. To summarise, the book takes the reader through the soul and heart of India.

  • Gendered Politics at the Local Level: An Analysis of Tamil Nadu

    Gendered Politics at the Local Level: An Analysis of Tamil Nadu

    The institution of panchayat raj, a milestone in the journey of administrative institutions at the grass-root level, is not an exception to proxy candidature, caste-based violation of rights or gendered politics

    The political domain continues to be considered a male bastion, with women in politics often seen as a paradox. The domain is conspicuous by the very low presence of women, with very few of them making it to positions of power. Elizabeth I, Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi, and Golda Meir have often been regarded as minorities in politics despite being some of the most powerful women in domestic and international politics. In the minuscule group of women politicians, ‘self-made’ women are often considered an exception rather than a rule. The political transitions are short-term solutions to break the pattern of exclusion. From the suffragette of the 20th century up till now, feminists have fought a lengthy battle for women’s right to vote and hold office. With the development that is slow and choppy, women continue to be underrepresented in politics, and parliament. While we talk about women’s political participation, it is easy for us to imagine empty seats in the parliament. However, women in India have been involved in politics since pre-independent times even when they had no voting rights. The aspect of politics that has always held an uncertain position in our minds is the relationship between women and politics.

    Constitutional Provision

    The world of urban local politics associated with political decentralisation in India was constitutionalised in 1992 through the 74th Constitutional Amendment. It ensured a reservation of at least one-third of the total number of seats for women. Additionally, for the office of chairperson one-third of the seats are reserved for women in the Urban Local Body (ULB). However, the bill for the reservation of seats for women in parliament has remained pending for years. The Constitution allows 50% of seats to be reserved for women in the local body elections. In Tamil Nadu, the High Court has directed the State Election Commission to ensure that the reservation stays at 50% in ULB as mandated by law.

    Proxy Politics and Tamil Nadu

    Despite the reservation mandated by law, the participation of women in state and national politics has barely improved. Gender inequality, hierarchy, and stigma against women in politics along with structural, social, economic and cultural barriers continue to obstruct women’s effective participation in politics. Within the urban local body, it is witnessed that husbands or male relatives wield actual power and control even though women relatives or wives are the ones elected for the position and appointed officially. Men continue to control the wards while most elected women work as proxies. This is evident in the case of the Tambaram corporation where Nagarajan, husband of DMK councillor Geetha, took the chair on her behalf in official meetings, a clear violation of legislative procedures and law. In such cases, women are shadowed and they are not free to make their own decisions. Proxy politics is rampant at the grassroots level of panchayat and local body elections where women get posts filled with responsibilities but without effective power or control.

    The term ‘proxy women’ needs further elaboration. In the 2022 urban local body elections in Tamil Nadu, while women councillors were elected in accordance with the 50% reservation policy, the actual power and control were exercised by their husbands. Though the Greater Chennai Corporation has a majority of women in elected seats, it is effectively run by men. In a few wards, for instance, in wards number 24 and 34, it was the husbands who were attending to complaints, and deciding over issues, while operating the office. In some wards, husbands address themselves as councillors.  And while people in the ward complain of not having seen their councillor since her election to the post, it is to be noted here that this problem does not end with councillors. Even the top-most positions held by women in the municipal body continue to be dictated by her veteran politician family members or, they are in the hands of the political party itself. 

    Participation in PRI

    The institution of panchayat raj, a milestone in the journey of administrative institutions at the grass-root level, is not an exception to proxy candidature, caste-based violation of rights or gendered politics. Retired IAS officer Ashok Varadhan Shetty stated a case in Dindigul in 2008 where the husband of a woman member of block panchayat was caught participating in council meetings while she stayed at home. Even when the obstacles for women in politics and panchayats in specific are diverse, male dominance automatically tops the list of obstructing women’s participation in politics.

    Theories of Representation

    The gendered pattern of politics in most parts of India is deeply patriarchal with low sex ratio, patrilocal marriage, and patrilineal inheritance, with women being denied access to the public sphere. In Omvedt’s words, “Girls are socialised to be mothers, wives and domestic workers under other’s authority”. As literature explains, women in political bodies argue that mere representation is not sufficient. A formal seat is not the same as active participation. In India, most women are less educated, less exposed, and more dependent, and proxy women are more likely to be seen as token representatives in political organisations.

    Philip’s study of the political representation of women has set up a foundation to shift from ‘politics of ideas’ to ‘politics of presence’. The twin democratic principles of equality in politics and popular control, help in ensuring equal representation of men and women. He has presented four arguments for politics of presence: the importance of symbolic representation; the need to tackle exclusion inherent in ideas of the political party; the need for vigorous support to the disadvantaged groups; and the importance of politics of presence in arriving at policy options.

    Does the concept of proxy politics leave a mark on female politicians alone? Certainly not. Various male politicians act as mere mouthpieces of the political party. Hence, it is not just women who become prey to proxy politics, the practice is widespread at the lower level. But the difference that lies here is men are instructed while women are dominated. Gender equality is, thus, an essential element for the sustainable progress of any nation. The goal of all-round development can be achieved only through equal representation of all genders in various fields. In the Global Gender Gap Report, released by the World Economic Forum, based on the key dimensions of Economic Participation and Opportunity, Educational Attainment, Health, Survival and Political Empowerment, India has ranked 140 out of 156 countries slipping 28 ranks from the 2020 report. It is evident how deep and strong the roots of discrimination in the country are.

    References

    The Constitution 112th Amendment. (n.d.). Amendment to Article 243T of the Constitution to provide for 50 percent reservation for women in Urban Local Bodies. Retrieved August 9, 2022, from https://mohua.gov.in/upload/uploadfiles/files/243T_Constitution_15.pdf

    Mahanta, K. (n.d.). Home | Government of India. Retrieved August 9, 2022, from https://censusindia.gov.in/census.website/

    Menon, J. (2021, October 8). Tamil Nadu: Many women in panchayat race, but will they take the podium? | Chennai News. Times of India. Retrieved August 9, 2022, from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/tamil-nadu-many-women-in-panchayat-race-but-will-they-take-the-podium/articleshow/86858818.cms

    Omvedt, G. (n.d.). Women in governance in South Asia. Economic and Political Weekly.

    Phillips, A. (1998). The Politics of Presence. Clarendon Press.

    Sarpanch Pati Culture: DMK’S Women Councillors, Their Proxy Husbands, Relatives Abuse Power in TN. (2022, April 9). Times Now. Retrieved August 9, 2022, from https://www.timesnownews.com/videos/times-now/specials/sarpanch-pati-culture-dmks-women-councillors-their-proxy-husbands-relatives-abuse-power-in-tn-video-90747544

    Tamil Nadu Municipal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2016. (2016, February 27). TAMIL NADU GOVERNMENT GAZETTE. Retrieved August 9, 2022, from http://www.stationeryprinting.tn.gov.in/extraordinary/2016/56-Ex-IV-2.pdf

    Feature Image Credits: The Federal

  • Higher Judiciary Needs to Take More Suo Motu Action

    Higher Judiciary Needs to Take More Suo Motu Action

    The higher judiciary must proactively exercise its powers to intervene suo motu to deal with a spate of incidents that rip the country’s social and communal fabric.

    On 14 June, six former judges of the Supreme Court and different high courts, along with six senior advocates, urged the Supreme Court to take suo motu action on the recent cases of bulldozing and demolition of houses of protestors against the remarks about the Prophet made by spokespersons of the Bharatiya Janata Party.

    In the appeal, directly addressing state actions in Uttar Pradesh, the letter states:

    [I]n its role as custodian of the Constitution, we … urge the Hon’ble Supreme Court to take immediate suo motu action to arrest the deteriorating law and order situation in Uttar Pradesh, specifically involving the high-handedness of the police and state authorities, and the brutal clampdown on the fundamental rights of citizens…

    We hope and trust the Supreme Court will rise to the occasion and not let the citizens and the Constitution down at this critical juncture.

    This may seem like an unprecedented appeal coming from legal luminaries, but action by the Supreme Court is well within the judicial realm, as the higher judiciary in India has the mandate to initiate proceedings on its own, without being petitioned by a claimant or party.

    [powerkit_button size=”lg” style=”info” block=”true” url=”https://www.theindiaforum.in/article/higher-judiciary-needs-take-more-suo-motu-action” target=”_blank” nofollow=”false”]
    Read More
    [/powerkit_button]

  • The Inefficiencies of India’s Justice System

    The Inefficiencies of India’s Justice System

    The present system of justice delivery is inefficient precisely because it is meant to be manipulated by our rulers to achieve their goals.

    Aryan Khan’s case reflects what is wrong in India’s system of justice. He was caught for allegedly being part of a nexus with international or national drug dealers. Much hype followed since he is the son of a mega movie star. Media, political parties and the general public presented, commented and followed the case.

    As suddenly as the case erupted, it has been closed with the argument that no narcotic drugs were found. It is common knowledge that drugs flow in parties like the one that was planned on the ship. But, here a particular group of youngsters were targeted and it was not a general raid. What was the plan?

    Message and Extortion

    A Minister in the Maharashtra government accused the agency of using such cases for extortion. He was later arrested for having dealings with the family of a notorious don. If the allegations against him are true, he would know about use of drugs and the ways of functioning of the agency involved. So, his allegations about extortion are likely to be correct. The question then is, who was the real target and has a deal been struck?

    The public will never get to know the truth but, what an inefficient way of doing things. It cannot be that some officer initiated the case on his own for extortion and harassment of a high profile person. Could the extortion not have been done quietly without media hype and public exposure? Mafia is known to extort without advertising their action. For the powers that be, it was also necessary to send a message to their detractors. The case is symptomatic of what the system is capable of.

    [powerkit_button size=”lg” style=”info” block=”true” url=”https://thewire.in/political-economy/the-inefficiencies-of-indias-justice-system” target=”_blank” nofollow=”false”]
    Read More
    [/powerkit_button]

  • How Do We Make the Wheels of the Police and Criminal Justice System Run Faster?

    How Do We Make the Wheels of the Police and Criminal Justice System Run Faster?

    The system of law enforcement in India encourages illegality and checks it only when it is in the interest of the rulers.

    The end of April 2022 saw three significant news items about justice delivery in the nation.

    Attorney General K.K. Venugopal said that 4.8 crore cases are in the courts and it had become a hopeless situation since “… litigants’ fundamental right to speedy justice lay in tatters …”.

    The Chief Justice of India, at the conference of chief ministers and Chief Justices, said that courts are burdened since the executive and the legislature are not doing their job.

    Finally, Barpeta District Court Judge while granting bail to Gujarat MLA Jignesh Mevani castigated police functioning. He appealed to the high court to “prevent registration of false FIRs like the present one… Otherwise, our state will become a police state.” He suggested that policemen be required to wear body cameras and CCTV cameras installed in police vehicles to prevent fake encounters and registration of false cases.

    These three news items are interlinked. A large number of cases in the courts are a result of the lack of proper functioning of the executive, poorly drafted laws, and worse, their misuse. The Mevani case points to the registration of a false case. Anticipating that he may get bail, a false case was lodged in advance to arrest him as soon as he got bail.

    Clearly, politics was at play which ended up wasting the time of the judiciary and the executive. The case was perhaps meant to send a signal to other opponents of the ruling dispensation, and as the judge noted, it weakens the “hard earned democracy”.

    [powerkit_button size=”lg” style=”info” block=”true” url=”https://thewire.in/government/how-do-we-make-the-wheels-of-the-police-and-criminal-justice-system-run-faster” target=”_blank” nofollow=”false”]
    Read More
    [/powerkit_button]

  • Change in IAS (Cadre) Rules – Policy Brief

    Change in IAS (Cadre) Rules – Policy Brief

    [powerkit_button size=”lg” style=”info” block=”true” url=”https://admin.thepeninsula.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Change-in-IAS-Cadre-Rules-1.pdf” target=”_blank” nofollow=”false”]
    Download – Change in IAS (Cadre) Rules
    [/powerkit_button]

    Executive Summary:

    The Centre’s proposal to amend the IAS Cadre Rules has sent shockwaves through the State governments and the bureaucratic community. Although the Centre already has the preponderance of power over the State government, it has always been the convention to depute All India Services (AIS) officers with the concurrence of the State government(s) and the Central government and the consent of the officer concerned. By providing overriding powers to the Central government, the proposal poses a fundamental risk to the federal structure of the Constitution. Not only should the proposal be recalled, but the annual intake of the IAS officers should be increased to address the issue of staff shortage, while recruiting suitable personnel from other Central Civil Services. The empanelment process also needs to be reformed to ensure transparency, objectivity and to uphold the principles of natural justice.

    The Centre’s proposal is a reflection of the long overdue need for the complete overhaul and reform of the Indian civil service system. These piecemeal amendments and a myriad of executive orders are not only unproductive to the civil service system but also counterproductive to the basic structure of the Constitution. A high-level committee should be established to undertake a holistic study to reform the Indian civil service system not only to bring in better performance and accountability but more importantly, to get rid of the colonial legacy once and for all.

    What is it?

    Deputation of IAS officers is governed under Rule 6 of The Indian Administrative Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954. Rule 6(1) mandates that the deputation of cadre officers to the Centre must be done with the concurrence of the concerned State government(s) and the Central government.

    The provision to Rule 6(1) states that in case of any disagreement, the Central government’s decision will prevail, and the State governments shall give effect to it.

    The proposal attempts to amend the Central Deputation rules by giving overriding powers to the Centre to transfer and post Cadre officers without the consent of the State government.

    Proposed Amendments (Singh, 2022)

    1. ‘Within a specified time’

    The proposal amends the proviso mandating the State governments to give effect to the final decision of the Central government within a specified time as decided by the Central government.

    2. ‘Officer shall stand relieved’

    In case, a State government delays a cadre officer’s deputation to the Centre and does not give effect to the Central government’s decision within a specified time, the concerned ‘officer shall stand relieved from the cadre from the date as may be specified by the Central government’.

    3. ‘Number of officers’

    Another change proposed is that the actual number of officers to be deputed to the Centre shall be decided by the Central government in consultation with the State government which is required to provide a list of eligible names.

    4. ‘Public interest’

    In a specific situation, if the need arises for the services of a cadre officer to be utilized by the Central government in the public interest, the State governments shall give effect to it within a specified time.

    The abovementioned amendments were sent to the State governments in a letter dated 12th January 2022 by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) seeking comments until 25th January. The DoPT had earlier sent three similar letters (dated 20th,27th December and 6th January) which were strongly opposed by six States (including BJP ruled States) (Singh, 2022). As of now, more than 7 States have written to the DoPT opposing the proposed changes and other states such as Maharashtra, Kerala and Tamil Nadu have also raised their opposition. The CMs of Chhattisgarh and Rajasthan have also written to the PM opposing the proposed amendments to the cadre rules.

    Why is it a problem?

    The proposed amendments are essentially an attack on the federal structure of our Constitution since it derogates the State government’s power in posting and transferring its cadre officers without its consent. In spite of the rules giving preponderance of power to the Centre, it has always been the convention to depute officers to the Centre in concurrence with the State governments and the consent of the officer concerned (Dhingra, 2021).

    Mamata Banerjee, the CM of West Bengal wrote a strongly worded letter to the PM opposing this move and calling it a ‘unilateral decision’ which was ‘historically unprecedented and wholly unconstitutional’.

    The trigger for this move by the Centre is most likely the result of the tussle between the Centre and West Bengal over former IAS officer Mr. Alapan Bandhopadhyay. Given his experience in handling the Covid-19 crisis as the Chief Secretary of West Bengal, the State government had requested the Centre to extend his tenure and the latter acceded by extending his term for 3 months (24th May 2021). However, the Centre on 28th May 2021 did a complete 180° and issued an order to Mr. Bandhopadhyay informing him that he has been placed with the Government of India ‘with immediate effect’. Following this, the State government opposed the order and did not relieve him and the concerned officer also opted to retire from the services and is now appointed as the advisor to the CM. The Centre then issued a show-cause notice to Mr. Bandhopadhyay for his failure to report to the DoPT. There have been other similar tussles in the past between the Centre and Tamil Nadu government (2001) and West Bengal government (2020) (Agnihotri, 2021), but when the States refused to relieve the concerned IPS officers, the Centre upheld the convention of State government concurrence and did not insist on deputing them anyway.

    Shortage of officers in the Centre

    The DoPT cites the shortage of AIS officers in Union Ministries as the driving factor for these proposed amendments since the ‘States are not sponsoring an adequate number of officers for Central Deputation’. While this is true, it is pertinent to note that State governments also have been suffering from a shortage of officers, especially during the pandemic and have requested the DoPT multiple times to increase the cadre strength of IAS officers (West Bengal, Rajasthan, Bihar).

    Senior IPS officers advise that the problem of shortage of AIS officers has been perennial and does not warrant a knee-jerk reaction at the cost of violating the basic structure of our Constitution. The problem of shortage must be seen as secondary to upholding the federal structure especially since there are other ways to address this problem without seizing the State governments’ authority. While only AIS officers come under the common purview of both the Central and State governments, there are other Central Services with ample human resources over which the Central government has sole authority and the shortage can be filled by deputing these Central services officers.

    The Empanelment Process

    The empanelment process of AIS officers in India has been infested with executive arbitrariness and a lack of transparency. The procedure for empanelment is laid down in the Central Staffing Scheme which does not have any legislative sanction and is instead governed by a slew of Executive Orders (E.O), the primary dated 5th Jan 1996 (NO.36/77/94-EO(SM-I)). The flawed Annual Confidential Report system was replaced by the Annual Performance Appraisal Reports (APAR) system following a Supreme Court ruling to ensure more transparency.

    However, the additional layer of review with the 360° appraisal system or the Multi-Source Feedback system introduced by PM Modi in April 2015 allows the panel to override the recommendations of the APAR system.

    The 92nd Report of the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice in 2017
    reprimanded the 360° system for its opacity and lack of objectivity, thereby leaving the empanelment process ‘susceptible to manipulation’. Former Upper-level Secretaries have also been critical about the 360° system due to its

    ▪ Lack of transparency
    ▪ Absence of an appeal process
    ▪ Susceptible to bias and discrimination.
    (MS, 2018)

    The absence of legal backing for the empanelment procedure has led to the arbitrary exercise of power by the executive. Usually, officers start their career after training in State cadres and it would take up to 9 years for an officer to occupy Central government positions. But the present government has started a practice of appointing newly recruited officers, fresh from training, as Assistant Secretaries in the Union Ministries. Although this move was said to increase exposure for the new officers, it also may as easily be detrimental to their careers. This new pattern, initiated by the Modi govt, is characterised by a lack of transparency and establishing a core group of loyalist officers at the cost of building experience, knowledge, and performance. The loyalty of the officers of the civil services must be to the Constitution alone and not to any political party or even government of the day if it violates the constitutional provisions.

    Already, the AIS officers are in a bind where the State government and Central government are governed by opposing parties. The lack of fairness in the empanelment process has further discouraged and disheartened officers from Central Deputation. Although salaries and incentives remain the same, the State governments use transfers and postings as de facto punishment for AIS officers who do not follow suit with the State government’s decisions. Similarly, the Central government beguiles AIS officers with the temptation of post-retirement postings. The proposed amendments grant overreaching powers to the Central government which could be used to harass and corrupt an
    unwilling officer.

    Conclusion:

    In conclusion, the proposed amendments derogate the consent of State governments and the officer concerned. This not only gives rise to a lack of transparency and increased bias, but also has the potential to disintegrate the delicate federal structure that has been upheld since Independence. The Supreme Court has on many occasions emphasized that federalism is a part of the basic structure of our Constitution, and even a Constitutional amendment cannot do away with it. The Supreme Court has also affirmed cooperative federalism as a ‘cherished Constitutional goal’. Therefore, the Central government must look at other ways to overcome the issue of staff shortage, without granting itself overarching powers in direct violation of the Constitution.

    Recommendations:

    ▪ Recall the proposal amending the IAS (Cadre) Rules which will fundamentally damage India’s federal structure, thereby undermining national integrity and security.

    ▪ Shortage of officers can be addressed, in the short term, by recruiting suitable personnel from other Central Services such as IRS, Indian Defence Accounts service, Customs, etc. Alternatively, well-known professional experts in various fields can be inducted at senior positions, which will not only address the shortage but also the need for professional competence and experience in specialist departments as against the oft raised complaint of generalist nature of the IAS.

    ▪ Keeping in mind the demands of the Covid-19 pandemic, increase the annual intake of IAS officers to address the shortfall of 22 per cent in IAS posts.

    ▪ Increase Lateral recruitment for Central posts on a contract basis in the short term.

    ▪ The empanelment process, especially the 360° Appraisal system must be completely reformed to ensure equal opportunity and better transparency.

    ▪ The Centre’s proposal is a reflection of the long overdue need for the complete overhaul and reform of the Indian civil service system. These piecemeal amendments and a myriad of executive orders are not only unproductive to the civil service system but also counterproductive to the basic structure of the Constitution. A high-level committee should be established to undertake a holistic study to reform the Indian civil service system not only to bring in better performance and accountability but more importantly, to get rid of the colonial legacy once and for all.

    References:

    1. Agnihotri, S. (2021, June 4). Centre’s tussle with Bengal over chief secretary Reeks of uncooperative federalism. The Wire. Retrieved January 25, 2022, from https://thewire.in/politics/centres-tusslewith-bengal-over-chief-secretary-reeks-of-uncooperative-federalism

    2. Dev Dutt v. Union of India & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 725

    3. Dhingra, S. (2021, June 7). Centre vs states, rules vs convention – who really controls IAS officers. ThePrint. Retrieved January 26, 2022, from https://theprint.in/india/governance/centre-vs-statesrules-vs-convention-who-really-controls-ias-officers/672013/

    4. Mishra, N. (2021, June 7). Explained: Chief secretary appointment controversy. TheLeaflet. Retrieved January 25, 2022, from https://www.theleaflet.in/explained-chief-secretary-appointmentcontroversy/

    5. MS, N. (2018, August 29). Why India’s civil servants are disaffected with the 360-degree empanelment process for top central government posts. The Caravan. Retrieved January 25, 2022, from https://caravanmagazine.in/government-policy/why-indias-civil-servants-disaffected-with-360-degree-empanelment

    6. Rajya Sabha, 92nd Report, Appraisal and Empanelment of Civil Servants under the Central Government, Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice, August 2017, available at http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20Personnel,%20PublicGrievances,%20Law%20and%20Justice/92.pdf

    7. Saxena, N. C. (2022, January 24). Who should control where IAS officers serve? The Wire. Retrieved January 25, 2022, from https://thewire.in/government/who-should-control-where-ias-officers-serve

    8. Singh, V. (2022, January 20). States weigh options on IAS cadre rule changes. The Hindu. Retrieved January 25, 2022, from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/states-weigh-options-on-iascadre-rule-changes/article38293886.ece

    9. The Quint, Centre proposes new IAS Cadre Rules: What are they? why are they being opposed? (2022, January 21). Retrieved January 25, 2022, from https://www.thequint.com/news/india/ias-cadrerules-mamata-banerjee-narendra-modi-centre-states#read-more

    10. Yadav, S. (2022, January 22). Explained: IAS officers and central posting. The Indian Express. Retrieved January 25, 2022, from https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/ias-cadre-rules-amendmentswest-bengal-explained-7734310/

    Featured Image: Press Information Bureau (PIB)

    [powerkit_button size=”lg” style=”info” block=”true” url=”https://admin.thepeninsula.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Change-in-IAS-Cadre-Rules-1.pdf” target=”_blank” nofollow=”false”]
    Download – Change in IAS (Cadre) Rules
    [/powerkit_button]

  • Democracy in Retreat: India’s declining Parliamentary Practices and Debates

    Democracy in Retreat: India’s declining Parliamentary Practices and Debates

    Abstract

    The Indian Political climate is always one of enormous diversity and vibrancy. In recent times it has tended to become politically charged with extreme ideologies. In 2014, the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power with a landmark majority, which it sustained in the following 2019 general elections. In the time that the Bhartiya Janata Party has been in power, there have been popular protests and reports that give rise to apprehensions that the democratic practices of India are in serious decline.  This paper analyses whether the government led by the BJP is functioning more as a majoritarian entity that disregards democratic norms. In doing so it aims to answer the primary question of whether there is erosion in adherence to constitutional mechanisms in policymaking and carries out a review of the educational realm with regards to allegations of bypassing democratic and constitutional norms. The research is based on primary and secondary sources and mixed methodology: collation and analysis are based on already existing data with a mixed focus on quantitative and qualitative aspects. For the former, numerical data has been gathered from official government sites while the latter is drawn from pre-existing literature, published research papers and journal articles. The paper concludes by affirming the thesis and supports the argument that anti-democratic trends are indeed present in the Indian Governmental apparatus.

     

    Introduction

    Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power gaining a spectacular single-party majority in the general elections of 2014, the first in nearly three decades (Jaffrelot, 2019). This success was replicated in the Lok Sabha elections of 2019 which marked two full consecutive terms of the BJP regime for the first time. This is also the first time in nearly three decades that a single-party majority government is in power since 2014.

    India is, for long, seen as the World’s largest Democracy. Although this is a well-known tag bestowed to India, with the vast diversity of thought, ideologies and practices adopted by different governments there have been times in Indian political history where the actions of governments do not align with the overarching democratic values at large.

    A relevant instance of the same is the 1975 declaration of Emergency under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Dubbed as one of the darkest times of Indian democracy, this period witnessed civil liberties being harrowingly curbed and journalistic freedom and opposition faced a draconian crackdown. Gyan Prakash, a historian and a scholar, reflects upon this event under Congress rule in a way that has significance when analysing the political happenings of contemporary times.  The essence of his work is that the Emergency was brought on by a larger reason than an individual’s quest for power (Prakash, 2019); he asserts that Indian democracy’s strained relationship with popular politics is to blame. There is then merit in assessing how Indian Democracy may be vulnerable to subversion and the extent to which structural issues in the democratic framework are being exploited currently by the BJP, the party in power.

    The decline in adhering to Democratic norms under the BJP Rule

    In the recent past, three international reports have suggested that the democratic nature of the Indian nation-state is on a decline.
    Freedom House, a non-profit think tank located in the United States, downgraded India from a free democracy to a “somewhat free democracy” in its annual report on worldwide political rights and liberties. The V-Dem Institute, based in Sweden, in its most recent study on democracy, claimed that India has devolved into an “electoral autocracy. Additionally, India fell two spots to 53rd place in The Economist Intelligence Unit’s recent Democracy Index (Biswas, 2021).

    These reports, however, are of international origins and subject to an ethnocentric view of what constitutes democracy and democratic practices. Although they are worth mentioning, their evaluation cannot be fully accepted at face value.

    The sentiments of this report however do find echoes on the national front. A recent event wherein the ruling government was criticised internally for showcasing a lack of democratic conduct was with regards to the new National Education Policy.

    National Education Policy 2020 was unveiled on July 30, 2020. In 2017, the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) formed a committee chaired by Dr K. Kasturirangan (former chairman of ISRO) to review the existing education policy and submit a new proposal (Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, 2020). The committee circulated a draught NEP for public comment in the year 2019, the edited version of the same is expected to replace the decades-old 1986 Policy on Education.

    Some key features of the NEP 2020 include restructuring and reform of school curriculum, changes to curriculum content, the aim to achieve foundational literacy, and ensure that the children who enrol in schools are retained in the system and finish their schooling rather than dropping out and more (Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India, 2020) .

    The reforms and restructuring that the NEP suggests have the potential to elevate India to the status of a desirable educational hub. It offers a welcome and refreshing change from the rote learning patterns and administrative limitations that have so far dominated the educational realm.

    The policy thus cannot be denied credit where it is due. There are, however, some strong critiques levelled against the NEP by scholars, educators, opposition and students alike. The nature of these critiques signals the idea that some anti-democratic elements underlie the policy and its construction.

    The first of these criticisms is against the centralisation of education while the second criticism concerns itself with the lack of commitment to a secular curriculum. The Constitution had mandated education as a state subject, which was later amended to make it a concurrent subject thus bringing in a stronger role for the Union government. This amendment is seen as a blow to the federal structure of the country. The NEP is fully dominated by the Centre thus making the states mere bystanders.

    Opposition ruled states have questioned the need for the NEP to take effect during the Covid 19 pandemic and levelled a range of accusations. The Delhi Education Minister stated that the NEP lacks mention of the government-run school system and that he believes the policy will pave the way to privatize education, which is a concern as it will create a situation where not all can have access to high-quality education. The Chhattisgarh chief minister commented along similar lines alleging that the fine print of the NEP displayed no space for state concerns nor any tangible improvement in educational quality.  In Rajasthan, a three-member committee was formed to analyse and evaluate the NEP, working off their findings Rajasthan’s Education minister expressed concern regarding the funding of the policy and raised the question of lack of clarity regarding the 6% GDP being attributed to the educational realm (Sharma, 2020).

    The contention regarding NEP also stems from the fact that Education is on the concurrent list. The Sarkaria commission, set up in 1983 by the central government stated that to pass a law on a concurrent list subject, the union government should ensure that the states have been adequately brought into the folds of discussion and weight is given to their opinions during consultation. The NEP 2020 is, however, not a law and is a policy, therefore it does not fully fit into the ambit of this suggestion.  It is perhaps the content of the policy that has created furore from the states regarding not being adequately consulted (Menon, 2020).

    The educational sector is one where the states have had tremendous sway and many practicalities fall within the state jurisdiction, additionally, 75-80 per cent of the expenditure is accounted for by the state (Jha, 2019).

    The NEP in contrast to previous national policies was approved by the Union Cabinet and did not go through the parliament. Thus, the level to which states accept it and subsequently the larger question of how well Indian federalism is operating comes under scrutiny.

    Prior to the 42nd Amendment in 1976- Education remained on the state list. Through an amendment made in 1976 to Schedule VII of the constitution, education was shifted to the concurrent list upon the recommendation of the Swaran Singh Committee. This move was regarded as an avenue to empower the centre with centralised policymaking advantages.

    Some experts find parallels between the dark Era of Democracy, the period of emergency under Indira Gandhi, and the current government under the BJP. The 1976 provisions under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi saw the transfer of five state subjects to the concurrent list, including the education sector. This has been identified as the foundation on which NEP stands and thereby has been interpreted as having a basis that does not align with constitutional democratic values (Raveendhren, 2020).

    The relationship between the States and the Union government concerning all educational policies from the eve of independence until the NEP 2020 has undergone noticeable changes. NEP 1968 gave a primary role to the state while the union government committed to assisting states (Menon, 2020). On the other hand NEP 1986, in the aftermath of the Emergency and on the recommendation of the Sarkaria committee, put forth a vision for partnership between the union and the states. NEP 2020, mentions neither of these, assumed to have taken the approval of the states for granted.

    The second major critique of NEP that implies an anti-democratic approach brings to the forefront the proposed curricula for moral values. The Indian Nation state adopted a form of secularism that rested on the strategy of non-interference. This form of secularism espouses that the state and religion are not completely and wholly separated. Instead, it proposes an equidistance of the state from all religions and accordance of equal respect to them without favour or priority being given to one over another.

    One of the ways in which the ideal of Indian secularism is affirmed is through the education system. According to article 28 of the Indian constitution Governmental educational institutes in India do not permit the dissemination of religious instruction, however, they do not prohibit religious text or books from being used in the classroom (Gowda C. , 2019). This is most often noticeable in the literature curriculum where devotional poetry is present. Tulsidas, Kabir to Malik Muhammad Jayasi to even John Henry Newman are all often included and studied. The inclusion of various religious poets and works from a variety of religions reflects the attempt made by the Indian educational system to embody the constitutional ideal of secularism. It is of course debatable and subject to change the extent to which each school adheres to upholding this secular and diverse teaching, although there is a commitment to the ideal, nonetheless.

    The second critique against NEP can be understood against this background. In a section termed inspiring lessons from the literature and people of India, stories of Panchatantra, Jataka, Hitopadesha etc are mentioned. Critics assert that these stories come from an unequivocal Hindu background and a secular curriculum should ideally have included Aesop’s Stories and Arabian Nights as an equal part of Indian folklore.

    They emphasize the importance of this measure to ensure that all students, no matter their faith feel represented and included in the classroom and the moral imagination of pupils are shaped to respect diversity and tolerance.

    Education: Policy Changes in Academia

    The NEP controversy hints at some concerns in the larger system of education. The BJP government which has been in power since 2014 has enacted several policies, laws and acts, and much like all governments has garnered appreciation and criticism alike. It is the content of the critical claims that warrant discussion, for much of the disapproval claims that democratic and secular ideals of the Indian nation are being cast aside.

    A recent contention arose due to the decision of CBSE to reduce the curriculum to alleviate student pressure on the line forum. The Central Board of Secondary Education announced a 30 per cent reduction in the curriculum. One of the concerns is that under this provision, chapters on federalism, secularism, democratic rights need not be taught in class 12 (Sanghera, 2020). Class 10 political science syllabus also saw the removal of chapters such as “popular struggles and movements” and “democracy and diversity”.

    These omissions have invited considerable disapproval from scholars and experts across fields. The former director of the National Council of Education Research and Training commented that the cuts have rendered some remaining topics “incomprehensible”. Educators on the ground state discontent with the removal of topics for they believe it to promote self-reflection and criticality (Sanghera, 2020).

    The rewriting of textbooks has persisted at state levels before the 2014 elections and is not a novel phenomenon. In BJP ruled states it can be noted that a counter idea of history is underway in educational texts. In this exercise, some ideologically conservative Hindu organisations have been accorded more space and appreciation for their contributions, however, the educational attention accorded to ideals of secularism and so forth has been minimized.

    In Gujrat for instance as far back as 2000, there was a move that made it compulsory for teachers to attend Sanskrit training camps in preparation for when the subject would be made mandatory.

    The focus on the educational sphere and the changes that occur in it are of significance because the policies of the state in such realms are not divorced from the Indian climate and foster a culture of tolerance at large.

    In recent times, experts have raised some concerns regarding the qualifications of those in high governmental positions. The Prime Minister of the country stated his belief regarding the roots of cosmetic surgery and reproductive advancements of modern times as having already existed in ancient India (Rahman, 2014). Drawing upon the Sanskrit epic of Mahabharata, he spoke of genetic science as an explanation for the birth of Karna and cosmetic surgery as an explanation for the physique of Ganesha- an elephant-headed Hindu God. The Minister of Science and technology in 2018 stated at the 105th edition of the Indian Science Congress, that Stephen Hawking went on record to assert that the Vedas, a body of Indian scripture, had a theory that superseded Einstein’s famous E=mc2 theory of relativity (Koshy, 2018).

    In contrast, the first National Democratic Alliance headed by Atal Bihari Vajpayee demonstrated an affinity for learning and scientific rigour. M.M. Joshi, the Human Resource Development Minister for instance had completed a doctorate in physics. George Fernandes, Yashwant Sinha and Lk Advani are among some other examples of cabinet ministers who were profoundly involved with academia on public policy and history. Some members of the government such as Jaswant Singh and Arun Shourie also authored some works (Guha, 2019).

    Since it is noticeable that some policies of the ruling government have garnered critique, perhaps the logical next step is to evaluate the process of policymaking as it has shaped up in the last 7 years.

    Institutional norms and parliamentary procedures in India, especially for legislation making are designed to ensure space for debate, discussion and dissent. This operates as a system where all decisions are subjected to scrutiny by the people’s representatives. To that end, adherence to parliamentary procedure is an indicator of a government’s treatment of and respect for democracy. To carry out any analysis of this sort in an objective manner, one must first ascertain what exactly constitutes an ideal parliamentary procedure.

    Parliamentary Procedure on Legislation Making: How Does A Bill Become An Act?

    Acts usually start as bills which simply put, is the draft of a legislative proposal. This bill may be introduced by public members or private members and requires passing in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha as well as the president’s assent to become a law.

    There are (Lok Sabha Secretariate, 2014) three stages through which a bill is passed in the parliament: these are known as the first, second and third reading respectively.

    For the First Reading, the speaker puts forth the request for leave of the house, which if granted is used to introduce the bill. Following this stage is the second reading which entails general discussion. It is during this stage that the House may choose to refer the bill to a parliamentary committee for further input or even circulate it to gauge public opinion. During the second reading, parliamentary procedure states that a clause-by-clause reading must proceed, and it is during this time amendments are moved. The second reading concludes with the adoption of ‘Enacting Formula’ and ‘Long Title of the Bill’. The next stage is the third and the last reading. At this Juncture, debates for and against the bill take place. For an ordinary bill, only a simple majority of the members present, and voting suffices, however for a constitutional amendment bill, in keeping with article 368 of the constitution, a majority of the house’s total members and at least 2/3rd members present, and voting is deemed necessary. Once this process is complete, the bill is sent to the other house of the parliament and goes through the same stages after which is referred to the president for his assent.

    Analysis of Parliamentary Procedure under the BJP Government

    With the great furore over the recent Monsoon session of the parliament, opposition leaders and journalists have expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s treatment of parliamentary procedure.

    The monsoon session of the parliament is one example where a couple of mechanisms that have increasingly been used as of late signify a subversion of the democratic process (Brien, Autocratic Government doesn’t want Parliament to Function, 2021).

    The first of these is the misuse of Article 123 also known as the Ordinance Route. Article 123 of the constitution permits the president to enact a temporary law in the event of urgent and unavoidable circumstances.

    During the first 30 years of our parliamentary democracy, for every 10 bills in the parliament, one ordinance was issued. In the following 30 years, this number went to 2 ordinances per every 10 bills. In the BJP Government’s first term from 2014-2019, this number went up to 3.5 ordinances per every ten bills. For perspective, while 61 ordinances were issued under the UPA government spanning ten years the BJP-led NDA government issued 76 ordinances in a time frame of 7 years spanning from May 2014 to April 2021. It is also useful to note that ten of these ordinances were issued right before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections (Gowda M. R., 2021).

    As many as 11 ordinances have been passed since March 24th, 2020, which is when the lockdown was imposed. Five of these relate to covid 19, two to the health sector, every other ordinance such as the Banking Regulation Amendment and the Agriculture bills do not have anything to do with the coronavirus pandemic (Brien, The ordinance raj of the Bharatiya Janata Party, 2020).

    Another practice that raises serious concern relates to the issue of repromulagation. However, it is important to note that the recourse to ordinance route and repromulgation is not an exclusively BJP action. Before the year 1986, no central government was known to have issued a repromulagation and this method came into view during the Narasimha Rao government in 1992. This was the landmark time frame that one can trace the trends of repromulagation as originating from.

    As far as the ordinances are concerned, they are an emergency provision, however, many governments have used them with an almost immoral frequency (Dam, 2015). According to PRS Legislative Research’s reports, average ordinances issued could be placed at around 7.1 per year in the 1950’s while in the 1990s there was a marked increase to an average of 19.6 per year. The 2010s witnessed a dip in the trend with an average number of ordinances being 7.9 per year (Madhvan, The Ordinance route is bad, repromulgation is worse, 2021). This number has unfortunately risen again in recent years with an average number of ordinances numbering 16 in 2019 and 15 in 2020.

    The issue of repromulagation of ordinances was brought up in the Supreme Court and was deemed as an unconstitutional practice in January of 2017 by a bench of seven judges. This judgement decisively stated that repromulagation of ordinances was an unconstitutional practice that sought to subvert the constitutionally prescribed legislative processes (Madhvan, The Ordinance route is bad, repromulgation is worse, 2021).

    States have also used ordinances to pass legislation. A non-BJP ruled state Kerala, for example, published 81 regulations in 2020, whereas Karnataka issued 24, and Maharashtra issued 21. Kerala has also re-promulgated ordinances: between January 2020 and February 2021, one ordinance to establish a Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation, and Technology was repromulgated five times (Madhvan, The Ordinance route is bad, repromulgation is worse, 2021).

    Although previous administrations and other states have utilized ordinances to undermine the constitutional process, the problem is decidedly amplified under the present rule with regards to the number of ordinances produced per given period.

    This sort of rise in ordinances being issued points to a trend of avoiding in-depth critical evaluation and discussion on proposals by rushing them into becoming acts.

    One of the most controversial ordinances in the recent past pertains to the three farm laws which now stand repealed after year-long demonstrations and protests at the Singhur border by farmers. The reason for not introducing these proposals in the parliament and instead enacting ordinances is unclear for there seems to be no urgent link to the covid 19 pandemic. Additionally, the farm bills not being subjected to any discussions nor being referred to parliamentary committees for any further report making has led to removing any possibility for amendment. These laws provide a useful avenue to assess why the bill was not passed through a proper parliamentary process and instead rushed through the ordinance. This assumes critical relevance since agriculture is essentially a state subject, and the States were not consulted on the farm laws.

    The ordinance culture has also extended to BJP run states, for instance, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat adopted ordinances weakening labour laws without consulting workers’ unions or civil rights organisations during the lockdown. Moreover, this was followed up on 15th March 2020, when colonial-era legislation was enacted as an Ordinance. This was the Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property ordinance which would heavily fine any damage to property, public or private during a protest.

    Under the BJP-led NDA rule, there has been slim or no involvement of parliamentary committees. Parliamentary committees are key in assessing a proposal with necessary scrutiny and expertise.  These committees provide a place for members to interact with subject experts and government officials while they are studying a bill (Kanwar, 2019).

    60 per cent of proposals were referred to Standing or Select Committees during the United Progressive Alliance’s first term. During the UPA-II administration, this rose to 71 per cent. Modi’s first term from 2014-19 had a 27 per cent reference rate, while his second term so far has only a 12 per cent rate (Gowda M. R., 2021). Not only is there a blatant and marked disregard for referring bills to parliamentary committees, but the administration has also actively worked to hinder committee work. A meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology on July 28, 2021, had to be cancelled owing to a lack of quorum when 15 BJP members refused to sign the attendance register. It is speculated this was to avoid the discussion on the Pegasus scandal.

    Monsoon Session of Parliament 2021 and other Statistics

    Adherence to the parliamentary procedure can be gauged through a wide avenue of categories including but not limited to hours lost to disruptions, adjournments, the productivity of each session, time spent on deliberation and so on.

    A record number of 12 bills were passed by the parliament in the first 10 days of the monsoon session. All these bills were passed by a voice vote which is widely viewed as a largely inaccurate mechanism to assess supporters of a particular proposal. None of these 12 bills nor the overall 14 bills was referred to standing committees for in-depth analysis.  According to TMC leader (Brien, 2021), Derek O’Brien in the monsoon session bills were rushed through and 12 bills were passed at an average time of under 7 minutes per bill (Brien, Indian Express, 2021). In the same vein, BSP MP Danish Ali commented that the Essential Defence Services Bill was passed in less than 10 minutes (Nair, 2021).

    Since 2014, the 2021 monsoon session of the parliament ranks the third highest in terms of time lost to forced adjournments and interruptions. In this session, the number of sitting hours was, unfortunately, lower than the number of hours lost to disruptions which came to be around 74.46 hours.

    The lack of debates on bills has become a major controversy. With a per bill time of fewer than 10 minutes, 14 new bills were passed in the monsoon session, a worrying number that indicates no involvement of the parliamentary committees, and no sustained debates, a feature essential to provide checks to freehand power (Radhakrishnan, 2021).

    The time accorded to bill discussion is another avenue to assess the functioning of parliamentary procedure. In 2019, the average time spent on bill discussion stood at 213 minutes. At present, it stands at 85 minutes. Furthermore, in the 16thand 17th Lok Sabha, which subsumes the two terms of the Bhartiya Janata Party, 27% and 12% bills respectively were referred to parliamentary committees. In contrast during the 14th Lok Sabha (17 May 2004 – 18 May 2009) 60% of the bills were referred to parliamentary committees, and 71% of the bills were referred to the parliamentary committees for discussion in the 15th Lok Sabha (2009-14).

    With regards to the passing of bills, around 18% of the bills were introduced and passed in the same session in the 15thLok Sabha. In the 16th Lok Sabha (2014-2019) this number jumped to 33 per cent while in the 17th one it increased drastically to 70%, indicating the lack of debate.

     

    Conclusion

    This paper has attempted to evaluate primarily the basic question of whether constitutional methods have been followed in policymaking under the Bhartiya Janata Party’s tenure. In doing so it has analysed the educational realm beginning from the recent criticisms against the NEP. These critiques highlighted that a centralised decision-making structure that is detrimental to federal values is visible alongside a lack of focus on secular education. Additionally, statements from top officials, policies of CBSE, and those responsible for the change in curriculum hint that policies of late seem to have an aim of fostering educational sensibilities that further an ideological agenda of the ruling party. The paper also attempted to broaden its lens to assess the larger process of policymaking and legislation. Herein it was determined that there is an incongruity between the parliamentary procedures of recent years and the constitutional norms. This includes the statistics that highlight a growing recourse to ordinances, the curtailing of question hour, minimal involvement of parliamentary committees and the excessive use of voice vote. The state of affairs in India at the moment stands to suggest that parliamentary procedures do not adhere to constitutional norms, and thus there is a reason for apprehension as this trend could give way to majoritarian politics and set precedent for unethical conduct in the political realm at large.

     

     

    Works Cited:

    Biswas, S. (2021, March 16). Electoral autocracy’: The downgrading of India’s democracy. Retrieved November 15, 2021, from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-56393944

    Brien, D. O. (2020, September 11). The ordinance raj of the Bharatiya Janata Party. Retrieved October 29, 2021, from https://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/the-ordinance-raj-of-the-bharatiya-janata-party/story-NlVvn0pm6updxwYlj0gSvJ.html

    Brien, D. O. (2021, August 7). Autocratic Government doesn’t want Parliament to Function. (NDTV, Interviewer)

    Brien, D. O. (2021, August 5). Indian Express. Retrieved October 31, 2021, from https://indianexpress.com/article/india/parliament-monsoon-session-bills-passed-derek-obrien-7440026/

    Dam, S. (2015, June 3). Repromulgation Game. Retrieved October 30, 2021, from https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/legal-eye-column-repromulgation/article7275518.ece

    Gowda, C. (2019, June 26). Missing secularism in National Education Policy. Retrieved November 7, 2021, from https://www.livemint.com/education/news/missing-secularism-in-new-education-policy-1561564775831.html

    Gowda, M. R. (2021, August 16). The 2021 Monsoon Session Is Proof of Modi Govt’s Disregard for Parliament. Retrieved October 31, 2021, from https://thewire.in/government/the-2021-monsoon-session-is-proof-of-the-modi-govts-disregard-for-parliament

    Guha, R. (2019, April 28). Modi Government’s surgical strike against science and scholarship. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://thewire.in/education/the-modi-governments-surgical-strike-against-science-and-scholarship

    Jaffrelot, C. G. (2019). BJP in Power: Indian Democracy and Religious Nationalism. Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

    Jha, J. a. (2019, September 10). India’s education budget cannot fund proposed education policy. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://www.indiaspend.com/indias-education-budget-cannot-fund-proposed-new-education-policy/

    Kanwar, S. (2019, September 19). Importance of Parliamentary committees. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://prsindia.org/theprsblog/importance-parliamentary-committees

    Koshy, J. (2018, March 16). Stephen Hawking said Vedas had a ‘theory’ superior to Einstein’s thesis, says Harsh Vardan. Retrieved November 10, 2021, from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/stephen-hawking-said-vedic-theory-superior-to-einsteins-science-minister-claims/article23272193.ece

    Lok Sabha Secretariate, N. D. (2014, May). How a bill becomes an act. Retrieved October 28, 2021, from Parliament of India – Lok Sabha: http://164.100.47.194/our%20parliament/How%20a%20bill%20become%20an%20act.pdf

    Madhvan, M. (2021). Ordinance route is bad repromulgation is worse. PRS Legislative research. Retrieved October 27, 2021, from https://prsindia.org/articles-by-prs-team/the-ordinance-route-is-bad-repromulgation-worse

    Madhvan, M. (2021, April 19). The Ordinance route is bad, repromulgation is worse. Retrieved October 27, 2021, from https://prsindia.org/articles-by-prs-team/the-ordinance-route-is-bad-repromulgation-worse

    Menon, S. (2020, August 11). Imposing NEP on the states. Retrieved October 30, 2021, from https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/comment/imposing-nep-on-states-124964

    Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India. (2020). National Education Policy 2020. New Delhi: MHRD, Government of India.

    Nair, S. K. (2021, August 3). The Hindu. Retrieved November 3, 2021, from https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/opposition-cries-foul-as-12-bills-were-passed-in-10-days-of-monsoon-session/article35707105.ece

    Prakash, G. (2019). Emergency Chronicles. Princeton University Press.

    Radhakrishnan, V. S. (2021, August 17). 2021 Monsoon session: LS passed 14 Bills after discussing each less than 10 minutes. Retrieved October 30, 2021, from The Hindu: https://www.thehindu.com/data/data-2021-monsoon-session-ls-passed-14-bills-after-discussing-each-less-than-10-minutes/article35955980.ece

    Rahman, M. (2014, October 28). Indian prime minister claims genetic science existed in ancient times. Retrieved November 15, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/28/indian-prime-minister-genetic-science-existed-ancient-times

    Raveendhren, R. S. (2020, August 19). New education policy and erosion of state powers. Retrieved November 1, 2021, from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/new-education-policy-and-erosion-of-states-powers/articleshow/77624663.cms

    Sanghera, T. (2020, August 6). Modi’s textbook manipulations. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/08/06/textbooks-modi-remove-chapters-democracy-secularism-citizenship/

    Sharma, N. (2020, August 18). New Education Policy an attempt to centralise education: Opposition-ruled states. Retrieved October 21, 2021, from https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/new-education-policy-an-attempt-to-centralise-education-opposition-ruled-states/articleshow/77604704.cms

     

     

  • The Scylla and Charybdis of Duty Discharge: Military Dilemma with undemocratic Leaders

    The Scylla and Charybdis of Duty Discharge: Military Dilemma with undemocratic Leaders

    A week after the attack on the U.S. Capitol, the joint chiefs of staff issued a memorandum to the joint force condemning the assault on Congress and the constitutional process. They re-affirmed Joe Biden’s electoral victory and re-iterated their commitment to protecting and defending the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This re-iteration came on the heels of another. In the summer of 2020, senior military leaders in the United States were alarmed at the Trump administration’s use of military force to deter civilian protestors gathering in American cities to voice their discontent about racial discrimination and police brutality towards minority communities. Retired officers and seniors in the Defense Department warned against the politicization of the military and cautioned civilian leaders against using the military to achieve partisan goals. The Concerned Members of the Gray Line — a coalition of over 1,000 West Point alumni from six decades of graduating classes who had collectively served across ten presidential administrations — wrote a letter to West Point’s class of 2020 cautioning the graduates that while “the principle of civilian control is central to the military profession … it does not imply blind obedience.”

    These are just two examples of unprecedented steps taken by active and former senior military professionals in the tumultuous civil-military relations that characterized the Trump administration. Another example of an unprecedented action came to light recently in the form of revelations from Bob Woodward and Robert Costa’s forthcoming book, Peril, which suggest that the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark Milley, took “good faith precaution” to secure America’s nuclear weapons from what he believed to be a worryingly likely scenario of the president “going rogue” and initiating a military strike against China. In the weeks leading up to the inauguration, Milley feared that the outgoing president would either try to use the military to “prevent the peaceful transfer of power” or that he would unleash nuclear war to maintain power. To avert nuclear Armageddon, he inserted himself into the nuclear chain of command — an authority that he does not have by law and doctrine — and reaffirmed with other senior military officials the elaborate procedures that need to be followed in the event of an executive order to launch nuclear weapons. In so doing, Milley positioned himself as a bulwark to thwart a potentially calamitous chain of events set in motion by an increasingly erratic and bellicose leader. His actions have invited an array of responses, ranging from those who support himand defend his conduct to those who demand his resignation and implore that he be court-martialled for treason. In his testimony to the Senate Armed Forces Committee, Milley defended his loyalty to the nation and asserted that he acted well within his statutory role of being in the “chain of communication” as the president’s primary military adviser

    Milley’s conduct, while deserving of public awareness and scrutiny, needs to be understood in the context of the unprecedented dilemma that he faced. What can military leaders do when the norm of military subordination to civilian control clashes with their adherence to the constitution and the rule of law? Milley was a military professional confronting a civilian executive with a penchant for undermining democracy — obeying this leader would risk jeopardizing his oath to defend the constitution and the rule of law, while disobeying would threaten the norm of civilian supremacy and the military’s democratic accountability.

    In recent years, democratic backsliding has affected nascent and mature democracies alike. To preserve and extend their authority, leaders in the United States, Poland, Hungary, the Philippines, Brazil, Nicaragua, Turkey, and India have used and/or threatened to use the military to advance partisan goalslike enforcing controversial immigration policies, detaining journalists, repressing protests, arresting civil society activists, overturning election results or preventing elections from being held at all, and detaining opposition leaders. Understanding military behavior in other countries threatened by democratic erosion can help to contextualize the situation that Milley confronted and the actions that he undertook.

    Democracy and Civil-Military Relations

    The principal dilemma of all civil-military relations, as explained by civil-military relations scholar Peter Feaver, entails the cultivation of a military strong enough to do what civilian leaders ask yet subordinate enough to do so only when asked. Civilian control over a professional subordinate military is a quintessential element of democratic regimes. Non-democracies, on the other hand, are characterized by politically influential militaries that have either overthrown civilian leaders and usurped power through coups or have acted as powerful allies for civilian autocrats like in Syria and North Korea. Comparative politics scholar Dan Slater demonstrates how in many postcolonial regimes, militaries are powerful and effective brokers in ensuring authoritarian durability. As such, curbing the military’s politically aggressive tendencies involves bolstering civilian oversight mechanisms. For example, by punishing disobedient officers, monitoring the appropriate implementation of civilian orders, controlling their purse strings, and ensuring their accountability through public hearings, civilians could keep a check on the military.

    Whereas politically aggressive militaries used to be the dominant cause of democratic decline in the Cold War period, the decades after the Cold War became characterized by executive aggrandizement. This involves a gradual rollback by elected leaders of citizens’ power and rights. Societies with high levels of inequality, when saddled with political institutions that are unable to deliver opportunities for economic advancement, are particularly prone to being captured by demagogues. These “assassins of democracy” like Donald Trump, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Jair Bolsonaro, Narendra Modi, Viktor Orban, Daniel Ortega, and Rodrigo Duterte, among others, use the very institutions of democracy to kill it.

    In this context, the military’s actions are critical to further enhancing or eroding democracy. In dealing with undemocratic leaders, democratic militaries face an unenviable dilemma brought on by their tradition of subordination to civilian control. If they follow orders from an undemocratic leader, they become complicit in democratic erosion. If they disobey, they risk disrupting military cohesion. Populist leaders who are prone to using the military to further their partisan agendas end up affecting the military’s internal cohesion by creating supporters and detractors of their actions within the military. These fissures between supporters and opponents will inevitably paralyze decision-making, threaten the military’s operational effectiveness, and ultimately jeopardize national security.

    This was the dilemma confronted by the Indian military in the 1970s. Like the American military, the Indian armed forces are a professional subordinate institution, beholden to the precept of civilian control and obedience to the constitution and rule of law. And like their American counterparts, the Indian military have played a critical role in protecting India’s fragile postcolonial democracy through the vicissitudes of India’s chaotic politics.

    “India is Indira. Indira is India” 

    On June 25, 1975, the Indian president, Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed, declared a state of internal emergency upon the advice of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, citing a right-wing conspiracy that aimed at preventing the democratically elected government from functioning. Prior to the announcement of the emergency, India was in the throes of nationwide protests, with agitators clamoring for Gandhi’s resignation after her conviction for electoral malpractice by the Allahabad High Court, which unseated her and nullified her candidature and 1972 electoral victory. The emergency declaration had an immediate effect — 900 arrests were made within 24 hours, 300 of whom were political prisoners including Gandhi’s leading opponent, J. P. Narayan. During the 18-month emergency, Gandhi disempowered state governments, censored the press, banned public meetings, and postponed the national election, tarnishing India’s democratic credentials.

    The opposition implored the Indian army to dethrone Gandhi. Gandhi asked the army to support the implementation of the emergency. They did neither. In a massive rally organized on June 25 in the nation’s capital — New Delhi — Narayan appealed to “the police and armed forces not to obey the illegal and immoral orders of her [Gandhi’s] government” [emphasis added]. This was Gandhi’s last straw, leading to her swift and stealthy imposition of an emergency, as she acutely feared military intransigence and being overthrown in a coup. In a telling incident from 1969, Gandhi candidly asked former field marshal Sam Manekshaw if he planned to oust her. The military, however, refused to heed Narayan’s appeals and did not overthrow her. As explained by Aqil Shah, “the Indian military’s actions were shaped by institutional standards of appropriate behavior which made the notion of a constitutionally prescribed civilian supremacy inviolable and legitimate.” Not only did the military’s organizational beliefs and culture reinforce the norm of civilian supremacy, they also imbibed a learned behavior from their neighbor about the futility of political meddling. In Shah’s interviews with Indian Army officers: “many were typically surprised, and in some cases offended, by any comparison with other ‘political’ armies, including Pakistan. They found it profoundly difficult to countenance actions that constituted subversion of civil supremacy.”

    The army also remained uninvolved in the emergency’s implementation. Gandhi asked the then Indian army chief, Gen. T. N. Raina, for troops to aid civilian authorities in the implementation of her directives. According to retired Maj. Gen. Afsir Karim, who was serving in the army headquarters at the time and was involved in daily official dealings with the army chief’s office, Raina resisted Gandhi’s request and communicated to the military rank and file that “[they] are not a part of the emergency and [should] keep away from politics.” This refusal, however, contravenes their constitutionally prescribed function of obeying civilian authority. How did the army not become complicit in Gandhi’s authoritarian takeover when refusal to obey her meant the subversion of civilian control?

    In this dilemma, the Indian army feared a disruption to their organizational integrity and internal cohesion. Gen. G.G. Bewoor, another former chief of army staff, opined that the army “must protect itself against political influences that could shatter its professional cohesion and erode its capacity to defend the state against external aggression or internal conflict.” [emphasis added] To maintain cohesion and ensure that his troops remained unsullied by politicization, Raina circumvented the issue of obedience versus disobedience by relying on his operational training and professional experience as a trained soldier. When approached by the civilian Ministry of Defence, he instructed the army headquarters to follow the Union War Book, a voluminous classified document that contains detailed instructions for every government department on how to function in the event of war. Invoking the Union War Book implied a deployment for war. This was along the lines of the military’s well-established repertoire of action — the large-scale use of force as dictated by the army’s conventional offensive doctrine that has shaped their crisis behavior and strategy in all security crises since India’s independence. A mobilization on this scale meant the relocation of troops away from India’s restive western and eastern border regions to the national capital and other parts of the country as desired by civilian policymakers. However, the Defence Ministry rejected the army’s proposal, viewing it as “unnecessary for the purposes of an internal Emergency.”

    Raina confronted an elected leader who centralized authority, suspended judicial hearings on constitutional provisions, and undermined democracy. This example is illustrative of how democratic militaries can navigate the dilemma posed by subordination in the context of democratic erosion. The Indian army rejected the opposition’s attempts to co-opt them by reinforcing the norm of civilian supremacy. Simultaneously, they circumvented being used as a pawn in Gandhi’s authoritarian machinations by re-affirming their cardinal function — maintaining national security.

    On Jan. 7, 2021, Milley faced a similarly exceptional conundrum. In his attempt to not let the military be used in a partisan manner by the president and to avert a potential military confrontation with China, he exercised his professional judgment in a manner similar to Raina. Like its Indian counterpart, the U.S. military is organizationally and normatively well-versed in maintaining civilian supremacy, ensuring that coups are never countenanced as a way of expressing disapproval with civilian leaders.

    However, fearing further instability and threats to national security, Milley’s outreach to his Chinese counterpart and his insertion into the nuclear chain of command both leveraged his traditional training and professional experience in averting conventional wars. As argued by Tom Nichols, “Milley, invoking his personal relationship with his Chinese counterpart, told Li that he would hear about any military action from Milley himself. This is what reassurance and transparency looks like in a crisis.” Milley’s knowledge of and personal relationship with Gen. Li Zuocheng can be thought of as a critical wartime resource — both would also have come in handy in the event of an actual military operation. His backchannel reassurances to his Chinese counterpart helped to thwart a nuclear confrontation. In so doing, he stayed true to his higher calling of defending the nation, even when that seemed to undermine civilian supremacy.

    Exceptional circumstances beget exceptional responses. While military officers have a general duty to obey civilian control, they also take an oath to protect the constitution. When compared to other states that have experienced violent civil-military interactions, the United States has benefitted from a relatively stable relationship between its civilian leaders and its military. Obedience to civilian control implies obedience to constitutional and lawful orders. However, the former president delighted in upending norms in politics and civil-military relations, creating situations where obedience to civilian control clashed with protecting the rule of law. In this unprecedented situation, Milley relied on his best understanding of protecting the state — one that was honed through decades of professional experience and service. Shortly before his inauguration, Biden told the general, “we know what you went through. We know what you did.” The president’s confidence in his chief military adviser is a testament to Milley’s professional conduct in upholding American democracy.

     

    This article was published earlier in War on the Rocks.

    Feature Image Credit: theemergingindia.com 

     

  • Democracy and Legislation: Lack of Parliamentary Debates negates the Constitution and accountability to the People

    Democracy and Legislation: Lack of Parliamentary Debates negates the Constitution and accountability to the People

    Democratic principles have long been accepted as the cornerstone of Free India. Reaching beyond a mere organizational setup, democracy has been treated as the ideal through which equality and justice are sought to be ensured for the people.

    Despite the well-recognised principles of equity and transparency in the practice of democracy, it is well established that various Governments, on many occasions in independent India’s history, have resorted to flouting constitutional democratic principles for personal gain; the widely criticized imposition of emergency under Indira Gandhi is one such example. It evident that the Indian people are once more confronted by a situation where the government of the day is guilty of flouting of democratic norms. This article examines various instances of current parliamentary practices in this context.

    60 per cent of proposals were referred to Standing or Select Committees during the United Progressive Alliance’s first term. During the UPA-II administration, this rose to 71 per cent. NDA’s first term from 2014-19 had a 27 per cent reference rate, while it’s second term, so far, has only 12 per cent rate.

    Institutional norms and parliamentary procedures in India, especially for legislation making are designed to ensure space for debate, discussion and dissent. This operates as a system where all decisions are subjected to scrutiny by the people’s representatives. To that end, whether a ruling party adheres to parliamentary procedure speaks volumes about the respect accorded to to the constitution and democracy at large. To analyse whether the current government is adhering to parliamentary procedures and by extension, if it is truly democratic, one must first ascertain what exactly constitutes the ideal parliamentary procedure.

    Parliamentary Procedure on Legislation Making: How Does A Bill Become An Act

    Acts usually start as bills which simply put, is the draft of a legislative proposal. This bill may be introduced by public members or private members and requires passing in the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha as well as the president’s assent to become a law.

    There are three stages through which a bill is passed in the parliament: these are known as the first, second and third reading respectively.

    For the First Reading, the speaker puts forth the request for leave of the house, which if granted is used to introduce the bill. Following this stage is the second reading which entails general discussion. It is during this stage that the House may choose to refer the bill to a parliamentary committee for further input or even circulate it to gauge public opinion. During the second reading, parliamentary procedure states that a clause-by-clause reading must proceed and it is during this time amendments are moved. The second reading concludes with the adoption of ‘Enacting Formula’ and ‘Long Title of the Bill’. The next stage is the third and the last reading. At this Juncture, debates for and against the bill take place. For an ordinary bill, only a simple majority of the members present, and voting suffices, however for a constitutional amendment bill, in keeping with article 368 of the constitution, a majority of the house’s total members and at least 2/3rd members present and voting is deemed necessary. Once this process is complete, the bill is sent to the other house of the parliament and goes through the same stages after which it is referred to the president for his assent.

    Modi Government’s track-record of Passing of Bills

    Leaders of opposition and Journalist reports have alleged that the aforementioned procedure has been cast aside by the current regime in favour of bulldozing the bills without debates. This argument is not without merit and one can identify some central ways in which the ruling party has violated parliamentary procedure.

    The first and most grievous is the misuse of Article 123 also known as the Ordinance Route. Article 123 of the constitution permits the president to enact a temporary law in the event of urgent and unavoidable circumstances. It is clear that the Article 123 has been exploited by the current government.

    During the first 30 years of our parliamentary democracy, for every 10 bills in the parliament, one ordinance was issued. In the following 30 years, this number went to 2 ordinances per every 10 bills. During the period 2014-2019 of the BJP government, this number went up to 3.5 ordinances per every ten bills. For perspective, while 61 ordinanceswere issued under the UPA government spanning ten years, the government led by the BJP issued 76 ordinances in a time frame of 7 years spanning from May 2014 to April 2021. It is also useful to note that ten of these ordinances were issued right before the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

    Astonishingly, as many as 11 ordinances have been passed since March 24th, 2020, which is when the lockdown was imposed. Five of these relate to covid 19, two to the health sector, every other ordinance such as the Banking Regulation Amendment and the Agriculture bills do not have anything to do with the coronavirus pandemic.

    States have also used ordinances to pass legislation. A non-BJP ruled state Kerala, for example, published 81 regulations in 2020, whereas Karnataka issued 24, and Maharashtra issued 21. Kerala has also re-promulgated ordinances: between January 2020 and February 2021, one ordinance to establish a Kerala University of Digital Sciences, Innovation, and Technology was promulgated five times.

    Although previous administrations have utilized ordinances to undermine the constitutional process, the problem is decidedly amplified under the present rule with regards to the number of ordinances produced per given period.

    This sort of rise in Ordinances being issued points to a trend of avoiding in-depth critical evaluation and discussion on proposals by rushing them into becoming acts.

    One of the most controversial ordinances in the recent past pertains to the three farm laws. The reason for not introducing these proposals in the parliament and instead enacting ordinances is unclear for there seems to be no urgent link to the covid 19 pandemic. Additionally, the farm bills not being subjected to any discussions nor being referred to parliamentary committees for any further report making has led to removing any possibility for amendment. These laws provide a useful avenue to assess why the bill was not passed through a proper parliamentary process and instead rushed through the ordinance.

    The ordinance culture has also extended to BJP run states, for instance, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and Gujarat adopted ordinances weakening labour laws without consulting workers’ unions or civil rights organisations during the lockdown. Moreover, this was followed up on 15th March 2020, when colonial-era legislation was enacted as an Ordinance. This was the Uttar Pradesh Recovery of Damages to Public and Private Property Ordinance which would heavily fine any damage to property, public or private during a protest.

    Moreover, the current administration can be observed violating the parliamentary procedure for there is very little or no involvement of parliamentary committees. Parliamentary committees are key in assessing a proposal with necessary scrutiny and expertise.  These committees provide a place for Members to interact with subject experts and government officials while they are studying a bill.

    60 per cent of proposals were referred to Standing or Select Committees during the United Progressive Alliance’s first term. During the UPA-II administration, this rose to 71 per cent. Prime minister Modi’s first term from 2014-19 had a 27 per cent reference rate, while his second term so far has a 12 per cent rate. Not only is there a blatant and marked disregard for referring bills to parliamentary committees, but the administration has also actively worked to hinder committee work. A meeting of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Information Technology on July 28, 2021, had to be cancelled owing to a lack of quorum when 15 BJP members refused to sign the attendance register, it is speculated this was to avoid the discussion on the Pegasus scandal.

    Monsoon Session of Parliament

    The most recent monsoon session of the Parliament is an apt depiction of how the administration has bypassed the norms and rules of parliamentary procedure, endangering the democratic processes that citizens invest faith in.

    A record number of 12 bills were passed by the parliament in the first 10 days of the monsoon session. All these bills were passed by a voice vote which is a tremendously inaccurate mechanism to assess supporters of a particular proposal. None of these 12 bills nor the overall 14 bills were referred to standing committees for in-depth analysis.  According to TMC leader Derek O’Brien, the government rushed through and passed 12 Bills at an average time of under 7 minutes per bill. In the same vein, BSP MP Danish Ali commented that the Essential Defence Services Bill was passed in less than 10 minutes.

    Be it the ordinance route, curtailing zero hour, the excessive use of voice vote or the bypassing of parliamentary committees, all point towards the same and devastating trend, the lack of adherence to parliamentary procedure. This must compel citizens to take stock of whether India needs a reminder on how democratic proceedings should proceed and accountability to the people be restored.

    Feature Image: medium.com