|
|
|
|
|
|
Open Forum
Lord Ram Temple: THE GLOBAL RESPONSE, By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri, 26 January 2024 |
|
|
Round The World
New Delhi, 26 January 2024
Lord Ram Temple
THE GLOBAL RESPONSE
By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri
(Secretary General, Assn
for Democratic Socialism)
The consecration of Lord Rama in the newly built temple in Ayodhya
was done on 22 January with lot of pomp, grandeur and festivity. It was a day
for national celebration. As the din settles down, the debate raging across the
country is whether politics and religion should be mixed. In fact, such a debate
is taking place in several countries across the world. Two questions,
therefore, need to be addressed. One, is using religion in politics desirable?
Second, how does international community react to religions?
Mahatma Gandhi, who effectively used religion in his public
activities, had famously said, “Those who believe religion and politics are not
connected do not understand either”. Albert Einstein made a similar statement,
“Those who believe that politics and religion do not mix, understand neither”. It is true that, after the death of Karl Marks
and decline of Marxism, religion along with other social identities has come
back almost in a vengeance. On the positive side, religion is one of the potent
sources for morality. Politics and morality are inseparable. Therefore,
religion is used as a moral compass for people in public life, especially
politics.
In electoral politics, it is easier to mobilise people on religious
slogans, metaphors and messages. Mahatma Gandhi used to call for establishment
of Ram Rajya (governance on Lord Ram’s principles). Lord Ram is regarded as the
maryada purushottam (greatest man of virtues). He lived his life on the
basis of dharma (sense of duty). Many Indian politicians especially from
BJP refer to raj dharma (duty in governance). On the other hand,
religion creates emotionalism that drowns material issues facing the people. No
wonder, Napoleon Bonaparte had commented, “Religion is excellent stuff for
keeping common people quiet”. Politicians whip up religious emotions during
elections to evade other substantial issues impacting people’s lives.
Although religion can be a double-wedged political instrument,
religion cannot be completely separated from politics. Indian Constitution
includes secularism in its Preamble which does not prescribe a state religion,
nor does it encourage state leadership to be actively participating in
religious affairs. It was not practiced in letter and spirit by any government.
And now, under the present ruling dispensation, the state is actively
participating in religious activities. The Prime Minister Narendra Modi as the
Chief Host was the cause celebre of this occasion. The Chief Minister of Uttar
Pradesh, the PM and the Chief of RSS were the three main figures in the
consecration ceremony.
In this column and elsewhere, I have written several times on
substituting secularism with a more practical and operable concept encapsulating
religious pluralism. This should happen sooner than later to remove any
confusion in the country and beyond about the dichotomy between the precept of
secularism and the practice. The second question to engage with is the
international response to India’s new image after the mega event of 22 January.
Many common Indians would not know the efforts made by Indian
foreign policy apparatus to popularise the event across the world. Indian
embassies went into an overdrive to spread awareness about the temple. The Indian
embassies held live telecast of the ceremony in Ayodhya. The images of Lord Ram
and the newly-built magnificent temple were displayed in major areas of the
foreign cities, from Times Square in New York to Eiffel Tower in Paris.
The highlight of the celebration in the United States was a spectacular
car rally in New Jersey with 350 cars adorned with Lord Ram flags. The
Government of Mauritius granted a two-hour special break for Hindu officials to
actively participate in the festivities. In Paris, a grand rath yatra
was taken out during the pran pratistha celebration in Ayodhya. In
Canada, mayors of Oakville and Brampton in the state of Ontario have declared
January 22 as Ayodhya Ram Mandir Day. They emphasised the cultural, religious
and historical significance of the temple’s inauguration and encouraged the
residents to celebrate the event. Global streaming of the consecration ceremony
was made available to several countries in the world. In the USA alone, the
streaming occurred about at about 300 locations. The United Kingdom, Australia,
Canada and Mauritius did the broadcast live at 25, 30, 30 and 100 locations
respectively.
In Nepal, another Hindu-majority country pran pratistha
celebration was observed enthusiastically. Several temples across Sri Lanka –
Colombo, Sita Eliya, Jaffna and other places celebrated the occasion. A special
pooja was held at Sita Amman temple at Sita Eliya (formerly Ashok Vatika) where
Sita was believed to have been held captive by Ravana. In New Zealand, the
Minister for Ethnic Communities Melissa Lee, David Seymour MP and Indian High
Commissioner Neeta Bhushan attended an event in Auckland. A Lord Ram temple,
first of its kind, was inaugurated in Queretaro City in Mexico. The ceremony
was performed by an American priest with idols taken from India. A Japanese
company has produced an animated film “Ramayana: The Legend of Prince Rama” in
1992. The children performed a Ramayana play around the consecration ceremony
in Ayodhya.
Countries in South-East Asia have historically cultural links with
Lord Ram. Even the East Asian country South Korea has the myth that Queen Huh
Hwang-ok or Princess Suriratna was the princess of Ayodhya before she went to
South Korea and married King Kim Suro of Karak Clan. Israel’s Counsel General
in Mumbai visited the Ram Temple in Vadela in solidarity. At the same time, the
Israel Embassy’s spokesperson Guy Nir posted a picture of himself watching the
grand celebrations on television.
The global celebration of the Ayodhya Ram temple inauguration
underscores the universal appeal of Lord Ram’s life and his teachings. At home,
people from other religions also accept Lord Ram as one of their ideals. However,
the present government seems to project Ayodhya as the citadel of Hinduism akin
to Mecca for Muslims and Vatican City for Christians. Ayodhya city is being
developed accordingly with modern and sophisticated infrastructure like railway
stations, airport, roads and hotels. These will attract international tourists,
mainly Hindus, to the temple city of Ayodhya. World tourism would benefit the
economy. India was known for Taj Mahal, henceforth it should also be a tourist attraction
for the temple in Ayodhya.
So far so good. What worries the observers is that the euphoria caused
by the temple in Ayodhya at the birth place of Lord Ram where a mosque was
super-imposed by the marauding army of Babar should not lead to the oppression
of religious minorities. As the foreign policy maxim goes, a country’s image
abroad is a reflection of what happens at home. Likewise, the strength of
foreign policy of any country is a function of its assets within its
boundaries. Social harmony is one of the major assets.
It was disturbing to see the flag of Lord Ram put on the cross in a
church as the consecration ceremony was going on. This act of vandalism was
flashed on the social media. If it is true, are Hindus not doing the same as
Babar did to the temple in Ayodhya? Mahatma Gandhi made another profound
statement, “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians
are so unlike your Christ”. We should not let Christians and others from abroad
tell Indians, “We like your Lord Ram, but we do not like your Hindus”. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News
& Feature Alliance)
|
|
THE REPUBLIC IN BAD SHAPE. By Inder Jit, 25 January 2024 |
|
|
REWIND
New Delhi, 25
January 2024
THE REPUBLIC IN BAD SHAPE
By Inder Jit
(Released on 26 January 1982)
Several questions, wild and not so wild, are being
asked in New Delhi as India celebrates another Republic Day with traditional
pomp and pageantry. Will India be a new Republic by January 26 next year? More
explicitly, will India continue to be a parliamentary democracy or will it
switch over to a presidential form of government? The Prime Minister, Mrs
Gandhi, has stated more than once that she favours parliamentary
democracy and that there are no plans to go in for any change. But speculation
persists, thanks largely to her own partymen and the current atmosphere of
unparalleled suspicion and deep distrust. No one is sure about what anyone might
do, the Constitution and conventions notwithstanding. Even the President, Mr
Sanjiva Reddy, and the Prime Minister, Mrs Gandhi, are not spared. There is
talk of all manner of possible moves and counter moves. One thing alone is
clear. Our Republic today is in bad shape. The system needs urgent attention if
the structure is not to collapse.
The delicate balance between Parliament, the executive
and the judiciary, wisely provided in the Constitution, has been disturbed. The
executive has become all powerful, causing grave concern all round. Parliament
continues to be under attack and has been largely reduced to a rubber stamp on
the strength of a two-thirds majority. Ordinance raj, denounced by India’s
first Speaker, Mr Mavalankar, as undemocratic, has become the order of the day.
Last year, the Union Government even came forward with a virtual budget by
ordinance. Top legal luminaries, including former Chief Justices of India, are “deeply
troubled” over the present state of the judiciary and its ability to function
independently. Mrs Gandhi’s decision to move Mr Shiv Shankar out of the Law
Ministry has provided a breather. But the approach of Mr Jagan Nath Kaushal,
the new Minister of Law and Justice, has yet to be seen. Will he as an old
timer help restore health to the judiciary or will he, too, play political
ducks and drakes with it?
Not only that. The very basis of democracy is being
increasingly undermined. Democracy means rule of the people, by the people and
for the people. This is made possible through time-bound elections which are
free, fair and without fear. Yet there is an increasing tendency today in the
ruling party to avoid inconvenient elections, in sharp contrast to Mrs Gandhi’s
own attitude in 1977, which brought her kudos from the visiting British Prime
Minister, Mr Callaghan. Garhwal stands out as a bad example, made worse by
efforts on the part of the former Law Minister to defend the indefensible. The
ruling Congress (I) has, moreover, refused to hold a poll in Delhi for over two
years despite the Chief Election Commissioner’s repeated statements that he is
ready to hold the poll at short notice. West Bengal’s Marxist regime, headed by
Mr Jyoti Basu, has smartly outmanoeuvred New Delhi by recommending Assembly
poll in March. Quiet efforts are nevertheless on to get the poll postponed so
as to enable the Centre to somehow prevent the Marxists from returning to
power.
The Election Commission itself is under attack from
leading lights of the ruling party. (Significantly, criticism of the Commission
has over the past few years come mainly from the Government and the ruling
party … and not from the Opposition). The Chief Election Commissioner’s firm
stand on the last Bengal Poll and his refusal to extend the date of filling
complaints beyond January 16 has directly irked the ruling party and there is
fresh talk of a three-member Election Commission. (The idea was originally
advocated by Jaya Prakash Narayan who envisaged a Commission which enjoyed the
full confidence of the Opposition. He, thereafter, wanted one of the three
members to represent the Opposition.) The Election Commission started
enumeration of electoral rolls in West Bengal from January 1980 and invited
complaints from September last year. Yet, the Congress (I) made little effort
to ensure correct rolls and until the end of December filed only three
complaints. In sharp contrast, Mrs. Gandhi made the astonishing statement that
30 per cent of the rolls were fudged!
What were the hopes and expectations of the father of
the Constitution, Dr. Ambedkar? Significantly, he had his anxiety about the
future as reflected in his masterly speech on the concluding day of the Constituent
Assembly. He asked will India lose its independence a second time, through the
infidelity and treachery of her own people. Will Indians place the country
above their creed or will they place creed above the country? What would happen
to her democratic Constitution? Will she be able to maintain it or will she lose
it again? India, he said, was not new to democracy. Time was when India was
studded with republics and even where there were monarchies, they were either
elected or limited. They were never absolute. Again, it was not as though India
did not know Parliaments. Not only were there Parliaments but the Sanghas knew
and observed all the rules of parliamentary procedures known to modern times. “They
had rules regarding seating arrangements, rules regarding motions, resolutions,
quorum, whip, counting of votes, voting by ballot, censure motion,
regularisation, res judicata etc.”
India had lost this democratic system, Dr Ambedkar
added and asked: will she lose it a second time? Significantly, he answered: “I
do not know. But it is quite possible in a country like India where democracy
from its long disuse must be regarded as something new --- there is a danger of
democracy giving place to dictatorship. It is quite possible for this new born
democracy to retain its form but give place to dictatorship in fact. If there
is a landslide, the danger of the second possibility becoming actuality is much
greater.” He next asked: If we wish to maintain democracy not merely in form
but also in fact, what must we do? “The first thing,” he said, “we must do is
to hold to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic
objectives.” It meant that “we must abandon the method of civil disobedience,
non-cooperation and satyagraha.” Where constitutional methods were open, there
was “no justification for unconstitutional methods.” These methods were nothing
“but the Grammar of Anarchy.”
Dr Ambedkar added: “The second thing we must do is to
observe the caution which John Stuart Mill has given to all interested in the
maintenance of democracy, namely, not to lay their liberties at the feet of
even a great man or to trust him with powers which enable him to subvert their
institutions.” There was nothing wrong in being grateful to a great man. But he
quoted the Irish patriot Daniel O’Connel to assert: “No man can be grateful at
the cost of his honour, no woman can be grateful at the cast of her chastity
and no nation can be grateful at the cost of its liberty.” This caution, he
pointed out, was far more important in the case of India than of any other
country. For in India, bhakti or hero-worship was “a sure road to degradation
and eventual dictatorship.” The third thing, he said, we must do is to make our
political democracy a social democracy as well. Political democracy could not last
unless there was at the base a social democracy as well. Social democracy
implied recognition of society, equality and fraternity as the principles of
life. The three formed a union of trinity. To divorce one from the other would
defeat the very purpose of democracy.
Equally important was what Dr. Rajendra Prasad had to
say as President of the Constituent Assembly: “We have prepared a democratic
Constitution. But successful working of democratic institutions requires in
those who have to work them willingness to respect the viewpoints of others,
capacity for compromise and accommodation. Many things which cannot be written
in a Constitution are done by conventions. Let me hope that we shall show those
capacities and develop those conventions. The way in which we have been able to
draw this Constitution without taking recourse to voting and to divisions in
lobbies strengthens that hope. Whatever the Constitution may or may not
provide, the welfare of the country will depend upon the way in which the
country is administered. That will depend upon the men who administer it... If
the people who are elected are capable and men of character and integrity, they
would be able to make the best even of a defective Constitution. If they are
lacking in these, the Constitution cannot help the country... India needs today
nothing more than a set of honest men who will have the interest of the country
before them.”
Mahatma Gandhi struggled hard to put some character
back into us. Over the past two decades and more, we have recklessly cast away
whatever little we had gained. Public morality has touched a new low. Accepted
norms have collapsed all round. Appearances were once sought to be maintained,
at least outwardly. Even the pretence is now shed. Conscience is no longer
troubled in doing something wrong. There is no sense of shame in being found
out. Lies are told brazenly and hawked as truth even in the country’s highest
temple of democracy. Might is once again right and, as boldly stated by Mr B.K.
Nehru recently, we have degenerated in one single generation from an honest
society into a dishonest one. Status and position today are determined not by
the character, calibre and culture of an individual but by the money one has
somehow amassed. Unbridled pursuit of wealth has consequently become the be-all
and end-all of all activity. India seems to be fast losing its soul in the rat
race for material progress --- and joining what Yehudi Menuhin aptly described
as the suicide gallop of the West.
Can something be done? Yes, undoubtedly. India has
encountered such challenges before and successfully overcome them. Much,
however, depends upon Mrs Gandhi in the first instance and on the people
themselves in the ultimate analysis. Mrs Gandhi today enjoys a position and
power which is unrivalled. None after her may have the same opportunity to pull
the country out of its deepening crisis. She did well to give the country
recently a new 20-point programme to put the economy back on its feet and
tackle the demon of inflation. But a lot else remains to be done. There is need
to reaffirm our commitment to the Constitution and give ourselves a code of
conduct and values -- values which all can share and values which will rekindle
trust between man and man. But mere commitment or a code will not do. An ounce
of practice is better than a tonne of precept. Mrs Gandhi herself and those
close to her will have to act according to the code and enforce it rigorously
if India is to become a strong, healthy and truly prosperous Republic. ---INFA
(Copyright, India
News and Feature Alliance)
|
|
Opposition Unity And V.P. Singh, By Inder Jit, 18 January 2024 |
|
|
REWIND
New Delhi, 18 January 2024
Opposition Unity And V.P. Singh
By Inder Jit
(Released on 11 October 1988)
All those
interested in seeing a strong Opposition emerge as a credible alternative to
the Congress-I at the national level will need to keep their fingers crossed.
The Janata, Lok Dal-B, Congress-S and Jan Morcha are due to meet at a
foundation conference at Bangalore today to launch their unified party to be
called Samajwadi or Rashtriya Janata Dal. High drama preceded this meeting
during the past fortnight and more. On occasions, the unified party appeared to
be coming through. On others, its formation looked like going up in smoke. It
was touch and go on Monday last week when the Steering Committee failed to
meet. Hopes revived when the Committee met a day later on Tuesday. But a
question mark again went up over its future by Friday night. Fortunately, Mr.
V.P. Singh, backed by Mr. R.K. Hegde, Mr. Biju Patnaik and many others,
persevered in their decision to hold the party’s foundation conference on
October 11, birth anniversary of Jayaprakash Narayan. Nevertheless, one
question remains. Will the leaders merely pay lip service to the Lok Nayak or
will they truly emulate JP and put the country before self?
The problem is
the unified party’s leadership has been resolved in favour of Mr. V.P. Singh,
notwithstanding some unnecessary and graceless remarks reportedly made by Mr.
Chandra Shekhar. Mr. Singh is undoubtedly the Opposition’s best bet today for
the next general election. He is widely viewed as a fine person and a man of
character and probity, unaffected by sharp Congress-I attacks on him and his
policies. But he has still to show that he has vision and qualities of
leadership required for guiding our huge country of over 800 million people and
for providing a good government. (Remember, self-government is no substitute
for good government!) Candidly, his popular image today no longer shines as
brightly as it did when he founded the Jan Morcha or impressively triumphed
over the Congress-I in the Allahabad by-election to the Lok Sabha in mid-June.
Even his friends and known supporters are concerned, if not worried. Willy
nilly, he seems at the moment to have needlessly reduced himself to the level
of the other Opposition leaders, most of whom have little charisma and even
less credibility.
Many
Opposition leaders feel that “VP” has not shown the decisiveness and boldness
expected of him as the new leader in the past few weeks. Mr. Singh, they argue,
was given full authority by the Janata, Lok Dal-B, Congress-S and Jan Morcha to
go ahead and form the unified party --- the SJD and a Steering Committee. But the
exercise has left much to be desired and, in the bargain, not only raised
doubts over the unity moves but even given a convenient handle to persons who
have been basking in his reflected glory during the past year to attack him
publicly. One can understand Mr. Singh’s desire to carry the leaders of all the
four parties with him in the footsteps of JP. I recall his telling me some time
back that the real art of politics lies in the management of disharmony and not
just of harmony. However, the outcome so far has been far from flattering. The
Steering Committee and its composition has not inspired much confidence, apart
from the fact that it has attracted avoidable flak and created an impression of
superficial ad hocism and absence of a national perspective. Surprisingly, Mr.
Singh failed to consult all those concerned.
The Steering
Committee, intended to be the nucleus of the new party, is dominated by persons
from UP and the rest of the Hindi States. True, the Hindi heartland is crucial
for winning the next poll battle. Nevertheless, the Committee needed to be more
representative of various regions and special interests such as the minorities,
women and youth. Surprisingly, the South is represented only by Mr. Hegde and
Mr. K.P. Unnikrishnan, who hails from Kerala. Maharashtra, Punjab and West
Bengal, too, are unrepresented. (Prof. Madhu Dandavate has been included only
as a special invitee) Equally surprisingly, women are conspicuous by their
absence. Several names come to mind easily, especially those of Mr. Mrinal Gore
and Mrs. Premila Dandavate. The Committee’s strength could have been increased
to at least 2 and even to 31 and not limited to 17, a figure which had no special
sanctity. Advantage should have been taken of the experience and approach of
the pre-independence Congress. Its Working Committee normally comprised 21
members plus some special invitees, if necessary.
The Opposition leaders have none but themselves to blame if their image
has slumped and fresh doubts have arisen about their ability to provide
credible alternative to the Congress-I. Far too many among them have been
speaking out of turn --- often at cross purposes. Far too many meetings have
been handled tactlessly, leading to avoidable heart-burning. A case in point is the meeting of the Steering Committee, which failed
to be held on October 3. It should have been convened only after differences
had been ironed out and ground work completed. Failure to hold the meeting only
tarnished the image of the Opposition at a time when it desperately needs to
win friends and influence people. Mr. Singh should have striven to ensure that
there was no confusion over the Jan Morcha’s stand in regard to the basic issue
of unity, leading to messy situation in which Mr. Ram Dhan felt emboldened
to publicly attack Mr. Singh as well as the entire leadership of the Janata,
Lok Dal-B and Congress-S and denounce it in astonishingly strong terms.
Not a little
of the blame must go to Chandra Shekhar. Undoubtedly, Mr. Chandra Shekhar is a
man of ideals and has not few other admirable qualities which made JP choose
him as the youthful President of the Janata Party in 1977. Sadly, however, he
has allowed his unrequited ambition to run away with his better sense and the
ideal of selflessness advocated by his mentor --- JP. Instead of helping the
Opposition parties to come together in response to popular demand, he has been
dragging his feet and seems to have left no stratagem untried to block unity
and “VP”. Mercifully, he did turn up at the Steering Committee meeting on
Wednesday last even if he was late by an hour. He also greed to the
persuasion of Mr. Singh and Mr. Hegde to head the Sub-Committee set up to
draw up the SJD’s policies and programmes. But his attitude at the meeting and
subsequently has left on observers the clear impression that he has been out to
“delay if not sabotage” the birth of the unified party at its foundation
conference on October 11. At one stage, he even wanted it called only the
“sponsoring conference.”
Mr. Chandra
Shekhar was theoretically correct when he said some weeks back that the
Opposition should seek to provide an alternative to the Congress-I and Mr.
Rajiv Gandhi and not merely substitute. He, therefore, insisted that the
proposed unified party and its policies and programmes were more important than
Mr. Singh as the new leader. But this stand ignored certain practical realities
in a country like India which continues to be soaked in feudal ethos. What ultimately counts here is the individual who leads a
party and not the party and its policies and programmes. Nothing
illustrates this more than the great success which the Congress achieved under
the charismatic leadership first of Mahatma Gandhi, and thereafter under Nehru,
Indira Gandhi and Mr. Rajiv Gandhi. The Janata Paty, too, won its great victory
in 1977 because of JP and his leadership. Equally illustrative is the
dismal failure of the CPI and CPM to make any great impact. The CPM has, no doubt,
continued to achieve remarkable success in West Bengal. But the credit for this
goes mainly to the personal popularity of its top leader, Mr. Jyoti Basu.
In retrospect,
many wish that Mr. Singh had heeded the advice of some of his trusted friends
and founded a new party, instead of taking on the sticky job of unifying the
Opposition. He could have transformed the Jan Morcha from what Mr. V.C. Shukla
smartly described as “a transit lounge” to a full-fledged party with a
constitution and a policy. He could then have invited individual members of the
Opposition as also intellectuals, academicians and professionals to join the
new party. Alternatively, he could have invited the Opposition parties to merge
with the Jan Morcha. In other words, he could (and should) have called the
shots. There is little doubt that most of the rank and file of these parties
would have gladly jumped on to his bandwagon, leaving their leaders high and
dry. Mr. Singh could have thereby saved himself the trouble of having to knock
time and again on the doors of Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Mr. Bahuguna and some
others. In essence, he would have taken over the Opposition armies and forced
their Generals either to surrender or take retirement.
Popular
opinion increasingly favours a strong Opposition. Even those who continue to
stand for Mr. Rajiv Gandhi feel that such an Opposition would be in the best
interest of the ruling Congress-I and the country. Much ultimately will depend
upon the quality of leadership Mr. Singh is able to provide and the success
with which he and his supporters can neutralize the mischief of those who are
unreconciled to his leadership and are certain to prevent him from functioning
effectively. Bangalore could help resurrect JP‘s dream provided the Lok Nayak’s
not remembered only ritually. He needs to be followed in practice and in
action, in sharp and distressing contrast to the happenings after the Janata
Government came to power in 1977. As we all know, JP died a sad and
disillusioned person. Mr. Chandra Shekhar, Mr. Bahuguna and several others owe
it to the Lok Nayak to give the country a credible alternative to the
Congress-I, having failed to prevent the collapse of the Janata Government in
1979. It is time for them and other veterans to see the writing on the wall
and, like Mr. Devi Lal, make way for the younger leaders --- and the new
heroes. ---INFA
(Copyright, India News and
Feature Alliance)
|
|
Poverty Data: CONCOCTED, FOOLING PUBLIC?, By Dhurjati Mukherjee, 24 January, 2024 |
|
|
Open Forum
New Delhi, 24 January 2024
Poverty Data
CONCOCTED, FOOLING PUBLIC?
By Dhurjati Mukherjee
A very
recent discussion paper released by Niti Aayog titled ‘Multidimensional Poverty
in India since 2008-09’, authored by member Ramesh Chandra and senior
adviser Yogesh Suri, claimed that nearly 24.82 crore Indians have been lifted
out of poverty over the last decade. The paper showed a decline from 29.17
percent in 2013-14 to 11.28 percent in 2022-23. The Multidimensional Poverty
Index (MPI), based on Alkire and Foster (AF) method, identifies people as poor
based on universally acknowledged metric designed to assess acute poverty,
providing a complimentary perspective to conventional monetary poverty
measures.
Several
economists have questioned the assessment based on the MPI as also the method
of calculation. They contended that the MPI, which mainly measures possessions
and access to certain services, is a poor and inaccurate method of estimating
poverty, traditionally measured through household expenditures on certain goods
and services.
The
projections of the report are based on the National Family Health Survey (NFHS)
for which data was collected before the pandemic. Based on the overall numbers,
it concluded that Uttar Pradesh managed to get 5.9 crore out of poverty
followed by 3.8 crore in Bihar, which is the home to the highest share in the
country.
Recall
that the last poverty estimation was done in 2011-12 by applying the Tendulkar
methodology after price indexation and based on the last consumption pattern
data from the NSSO survey. As per that estimate, 21.9 percent of the population
were below poverty line in 2011-12. Meanwhile, it is indeed surprising that
poverty reduction has been announced though the government has not
released the Household Consumer Expenditure Survey report for 2017-18, citing
high divergence between the survey findings and administrative data. Many
economists pointed out that MPI is not used as a measure of poverty and
deprivation. They maintained that the MPI simply shows the percentage of people
unable to access facilities provided by the government.
Just on
the heels of this report, the Oxfam came out with a more revealing and
judicious report. it came out with the startling revelation that ending
poverty, the target for which is 2030 under the SDGs may not be possible
for another 229 years. This has been in sharp contrast to the Niti Aayog report
that predicted India is likely to achieve Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
of “halving multidimensional poverty well before 2030”.
Oxfam
observed that runaway inflation across the world has destabilised governments
and pushed people to desperation but if there’s one thing that has grown faster
than prices of bare necessities it is the wealth of the ultra-rich. It found
that the “super charged surge” enjoyed by the wealthy in the last three years
has meant that billionaires are $3.3 trillion richer than in 2020; their wealth
growing three times faster than the rate of inflation. In fact, there has been
114 percent jump in wealth of the richest men since 2008. Their combined wealth
has more than doubled – going from $406 billion in 2020 to $869 billion now. Moreover,
one percent of wealthy people own 43 percent of all global financial assets.
Mention
may also be made of Oxfam India’s ‘Survival of the Richest: The India
Supplement’ that reveals some stark findings proving that the gap between
the rich and the poor is indeed widening. Some of the key findings from the
India supplement are:-
the top 1 percent in India now owns more than 40.5 percent of total wealth in
2021 while the bottom 50% of the population (700 million) has around 3 per cent
of total wealth.
While these
contrasting reports of the government and Oxfam make interesting reading, it is
surprising that why the present dispensation is trying to project things in a
distorted manner. If one delves deep into the matter and considers other
international surveys, there is little justification in the data projected as
also the laughable estimation of the elimination of poverty by the year 2030.
One
cannot doubt the fact that the ground reality presented a stark rebuttal.
Former finance Minister, P. Chidambaram expressed concern over Modi
government’s alleged tendency to manipulate research and data. It was pointed
out that the fact that the government manipulated data showing only 15 crore
poor in India, then there has possibly been no justification of giving free
ration to 80 crore people. Supriya Shrinate of the Congress pointed out that
the Niti Aayog has measured poverty based on the government’s flagship
programmes, ignoring the standard parameters adopted the world over.
According
to her, “The government’s recent growth figures suggested the consumption
growth was 4.4 percent. If people are getting more money, why are they not
buying basic stuff such as soap, hair oil, toothpaste, biscuit and so on?” Some
economists and even the Congress are of the opinion that the government is
compelled to rely on such manipulated data after its 10-year tenure because it
has somewhat failed to solve the country’s economic problems.
Let us
turn to a recent UN estimate which found that over a billion people in India
could not afford a healthy diet in 2021 and this puts a question mark on
the government’s recent estimate of decline in poverty levels. The 2023 report
on food security and nutrition released by five UN agencies earlier this week
stated that 74.1 percent of Indians or 1043 billion people were unable to
afford a healthy diet in 2021. The report also estimated India’s proportion of
undernourished population at 16.6 percent during 2020-2023. Comparatively 66
percent of people in Bangladesh, 82 percent in Pakistan and 30 percent in China
were unable to afford a healthy diet in 2021. The report from FAO emerged amid
what some food security advocates and nutrition experts view as the Indian
government’s efforts to deny the persistence of food deprivation and poor
nutrition among large sections of the population.
Meanwhile,
one may also refer to the Global Hunger Index (GHI) which ranked
India as low as 111 among 125 countries though the government alleged that it
was “an erroneous measure of hunger with serious methodological issues” that
displayed a “a malafide intent”. Some experts pointed out that though the
government has been bragging about its food aid programmes and challenged the GHI,
but it is quite surprising that its own estimate of 813 million people need
food aid contradicts the government’s contention.
Thus,
the present estimation is not quite justified and does not reveal the true
picture of the poor in India. The basics of decent livelihood which consists of
nutritious food, potable water and a permanent shelter is possibly not
available to at least 15 percent of the population. The government’s attempt to
bring forward concocted data may not be acceptable to the really educated
sections though the aam janata can be swayed with such irrelevant
findings.---INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
Ram Lala’s Consecration: OPP HINDUISM VS BJP HINDUTVA, By Poonam I Kaushish, 23 January 2024 |
|
|
Political Diary
New Delhi, 23 January 2024
Ram Lala’s Consecration
OPP HINDUISM VS BJP HINDUTVA
By Poonam I Kaushish
Circa September 1984:
Vishwa Hindu Parishad begins campaign against Ayodhya’s Babri Masjid threatening
to break open locks. Two years later then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi acquiesces
and Hindus enter mosque.
Circa 1989: Rajiv allows temple shilanyas and begins Lok Sabha campaign from Ayodya promising Ram Rajya.
Circa 25 September
1990: BJP President Advani becomes “charioteer” of rath yatra from Gujarat’s Somnath temple which culminates in
Ayodhya October. Asserting he did not imagine response would be so overwhelming whereby yatra took the monument out of its
religious context and gave it a potent political thrust for installing Hindu
nationalism as India’s dominant political credo. Followed by kar sevaks demolishing Masjid 6 December
1992.
Circa 9 November 2019: Supreme Court in a historic unanimous
judgment says rights of 2.77 acres disputed
Ayodhya plot where Babri Masjid stood is Lord
Ram’s birthplace
and will be handed
over to Ram Lalla, one of the three
litigants in the case. Muslims will get “alternate land” a five-acre plot
elsewhere for a mosque, thereby putting to rest Sunni
Waif Board claims
the mosque was built by Babar.
Circa 20 January 2024: Congress’s leaders
Sonia Gandhi, President Mallikarjun Kharge decline , invite calling it “an
RSS/BJP event.” Ditto other INDIA bloc Opposition leaders. While TMC’s Mamta dubs
it a “political gimmick,” NCP’s Pawar is more circumspect, “I will go later,” “so
will I” coos SP’s Akhilesh, RJD’S Lalu and AAP’s Kejriwal, DMK’s Stalin states
cannot accept temple built after razing mosque and BJD’s Patnaik who has
maintained equidistance from all inaugurates a grand parikrama of Puri’s Jaganthnath temple.
A triumphant BJP slams decision
saying “Opposition feels jealously, malice and inferiority complex” towards
Prime Minister Modi.” For the Party the consecration is a masterstroke, a
seminal moment, an act of faith and assertion of Hindu identity. The road to attaining
political nirvana in the upcoming polls.
From a mere two seats in 1984 to 303 in 2019 it hopes to total over 400+ now.
Circa 22 January
2024: Undeniably, Modi has established the centrality of religion in today’s
politics, an embodiment of belief. Proved post Ram Lala’s pran
pratishtha that he knows aam aadmi’s pulse
as the tidal wave in support of Ram temple underscores Lord Ram resonates in
people’s hearts. More important its construction and consecration finally rests
centuries-old dispute. Ironically, Congress opened the lock but BJP got the key
and will go down in history as its legacy to transform India to Ram Rajya.
In
the midst of Opposition-BJP tu-tu-mein-mein
over who is a true blue Ram bhakt vs 'seasonal
Hindu' and religion is a personal affair. Congress’s Rahul contends “temple’s unveiling
is timed deliberately close to elections soon. While Hinduism is not about
persecuting people belonging to different faiths, Hindutva is. Hinduism is not
about beating a Sikh or a Muslim, Hindutva of course is.”
Alas,
Congress and Co does not have a language on Hinduism for people. By staying
away from pran pratishtha follows
their dismal pattern of me-too and boycott politics. Even as they profess to be devout
Hindus and visited temples in respective States
on 22 January so as not to be seen as anti-Hindu, yet most are perceived as indulging in appeasement politics, part of
the “tukde-tukde gang” which favours
Muslims.
Worse, they did not checkmate BJP by launching
an equally vigorous counter campaign or made any attempt
to invoke secular ideals or Constitutional values to strike a cord among those
who share their views on politicization of temple and strict separation
of religion and State to run a multi-cultural country like India. Also, they do
not seem to have the wherewithal for a mass connect programme.
Clearly,
in the ongoing tussle between Hindus and ‘extreme Hindus’ the onus of deciding
what one expects from one's religion --- whether it should be command-driven
and enslaved to a Party hunting for power in the religion's name, or not --
rests with Hindus.
Questionably, is
Hindutva same as Hinduism? According to Encyclopedia of Hinduism, Hindutva as
defined in the classic statement of its ideology, is the “culture of the Hindu
race” where Hinduism is but an element and "Hindu dharma is a religion
practiced by Hindus as well as Sikhs and Buddhists.” The Merriam-Webster's
Encyclopedia of World Religions, Hindutva is a concept of “Indian cultural,
national and religious identity. The term conflates a geographically based
religious, cultural and national identity: a true ‘Indian’ is one who partakes
of this ‘Hinduness.’
In the early 1920s RSS
ideologue Sarvarkar wrote the Essentials of Hindutva whereby he sought to
define these as common nation (rashtra), common race (jati) and common culture or civilisation (sanskriti). Indian culture as a manifestation of Hindu values; this
concept grew to become a major tenet of Hindu nationalist ideology.
Interestingly, he
defined his idea of Hindu resurgence in political terms, not religious. The
nation, he said, was based on the unifying Hinduness of its people. Hindutva
refers to “cultural nationalism” and is “not a religious or theocratic
concept.” He called as much for a combative spirit as a cohesive one, if India
were to retain its essence, which in his opinion was its Hindu civilization and
Hindu way of life.
Besides, Hindutva and
Hinduism have been a part of several Supreme Court judgments. In 1966 Court
held, “Hinduism is impossible to define and is complex. Historically it has an
‘inclusive nature’ and can be described as a way of life. The theist and
atheist, sceptic and agnostic may all be Hindus if they accept the Hindu system
of culture and life. Hindutva is not hostility to any organised religion nor
does it proclaim its superiority of any religion to another.”
Plainly, Opposition
needs a more imaginative, more political and bold response. They need to frame
an alternative idea and politics, do hard political labour, communicate it to
people in a language that is persuasive, appealing and uplifting, not just
react to agendas set by BJP. As running away isn’t nimble politics.
Undeniably, the Sangh Parivar has
amplified Ram Lala’s narrative by resurrecting enormous Ram literature, Ram bhajans, mythical stories of Ram through
social media to start a new chapter in Indian history, a 'new world order'. 22 January
is modern India’s national carnival as there has been no event this size which can
be dismissed as BJP's propaganda only. It symbolises India’s transformation
from a Constitutional State to a civilizational State distinguished by
different levels of culture and heritage
Time now, for Parties
to close ranks and re-dedicate themselves to a truly secular nation and focus
on matters pertaining to governance, development, social and economic
prosperity. They need to remember that India is a
pluralistic society where Hindus and Muslims have to live and die together.
In fact, the temple is
a symbol of national unity as all castes and communities were involved in
rebuilding it. Those at the helm of governance must
desist from showing a bias towards any faith as it could seriously strain
inter-religious relations. After all, it was none other than Mohammad Iqbal who hailed
Ram as Imam e Hind.
Undoubtedly, our
polity has to desist from playing ducks and drakes with the aam aadmi’s religious beliefs, be it Ram Bhakti or Rahim Bhakti. It is only through sheer force of political will and
authority that a Government and Opposition can bring about communal harmony for
the betterment of a future India. Can it deliver? --- INFA
(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)
|
|
| | << Start < Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next > End >>
| Results 100 - 108 of 6004 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|