Round The World

New Delhi, 26 April 2024

Indian Parliamentary Elections

REBUTTING WESTERN MEDIA

By Prof. (Dr.) D.K. Giri

(Secretary General, Assn for Democratic Socialism) 

Indian elections are seldom influenced by international issues or reactions. But this time around, there is quite a bit of engagement with the western media and international institutions especially by India’s External Affairs Minister (EAM) S. Jaishankar. The EAM, coming from the Upper House, is not fighting the current elections but is stoutly defending India’s electoral process and its enduring democracy. 

He is doing it with a twin-strategy, one is to fulfil his mandate as the Foreign Minister, and second is to prevent the opposition parties from taking electoral advantage of the reactions from overseas. The silver lining in such debates on democracy is perhaps that India is taken more seriously than before by world powers. 

Let us note that there are three international agencies which occasionally assess democracies across the world and rank the countries in terms of their performance. One is the Economic Intelligence Unit of the leading media house of Britain, ‘The Economist Group’. It ranks democracies into three categories – fair, flawed and hybrid. India has been put as a flawed democracy. 

The second agency is V-Dem (Varieties of Democracy) located in Gothenburg, Sweden which had called India, “An electoral autocracy”. The third one is Freedom House, a non-profit organisation based in Washington D.C. which assesses maintenance of civil rights and liberties. It had ranked India ‘low’ in terms of upholding various freedoms. 

India’s ruling regime had reacted strongly to these observations. Now the Foreign Minister is engaging with these agencies and others on India’s democracy. In particular, he is extensively talking about the remarks made by spokesperson, Stephane Dujarric, for the UN Secretary General, “What we very much hope that in India, as in any country that is having elections that everyone’s rights are protected, including political and civil rights, and everyone is able to vote in an atmosphere that is free and fair”. 

The spokesperson said this in response to questions about political unrest in India ahead of the upcoming national elections, namely the arrest of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and the freezing of Congress Party’s bank accounts. Jaishankar strongly responded to these remarks, “I do not need the United Nations to tell me our elections should be free and fair. I have the people of India. The people of India will ensure that elections are free and fair. So, don’t worry about it.” 

Jaishankar was campaigning for his ministerial colleague and BJP candidate Rajeev Chandrashekhar in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala’s capital. Addressing a forum of nationalist thinkers, Jaishankar tore into the western media, saying, “I get a lot of these noises from the western press. If they criticise our democracy, it is not because they lack information. It is because they think they are also political players in our elections”. 

Admittedly, there are different versions and standards of democracies across the world. One can list the major ones – representative democracy, people’s democracy, socialist democracy, guided democracy, basic democracy and direct democracy (this is no longer in practice). Therefore, the parameters of democracy for each country may vary. So, it is easy to criticise one democracy by the other. One may also disagree with the variables that constitute an evaluation matrix used by above-said agencies. The buzz is that India might come up with its own evaluation criteria for democracies in the Global South. 

At any rate, let us engage with at least seven points Jaishankar makes in reference to the remarks on Indian democracy. One, he says these are on our domestic politics which is going global. The global politics feels they must now interfere in our electoral process. They think they ought to know who rules India. It is an open secret that the world powers try to influence the government formation in other countries. The gossip is that rich countries in the Middle-East finance those who seek to destabilise democracies. Jaishankar’s complaint is not misplaced. 

Second, “the west actually thinks they are part of our electorate. I think it is time today that we disabuse them and the best way to do that is by our self-confidence”. This seems to be an overreaction. The west has a condescending attitude towards Global South. But their comments on our democracy need not be overplayed. 

Third, “we need to stand up to these kinds of attacks and criticisms, and rankings and reports because they will question everything”. This is a display of cynicism. We cannot dismiss all rankings and reports. We need to be sensitive to them and use them as self-introspection. 

Fourth, “they will question our election system, our EVM, our Election Commission even the weather”. No international agency has commented on any of these so far. It is the opposition parties which are raising these doubts and questions. The main agency ECI is responsible for our elections including the use of EVM. Only they can clear these doubts and answer these questions. 

Fifth, “one complaint is …. The BJP is so unfair, the BJP thinks it is going to win very big”. One can sympathise with EAM’s angst on this. It could be politics of envy. At the same time, it could also be considered as politics of arrogance as BJP initially claimed to cross 400 MPs in Lok Sabha. 

Sixth, the EAM said the decisions, this government will be making are not just for the five years, and will give India, its society, and the coming generations a very big vote of confidence. This is a statesman-like statement. The saying goes that a politician looks at next election whereas a statesman looks at the next generation. So, Jaishankar’s assertion is worthy of appreciation. 

Seventh, “it is the guarantee. The guarantee is an expression of confidence. It is an expression of confidence based on what we have delivered for the last ten years”. This is the politician Jaishankar speaking. Although, he is not a career politician, he has picked up some of the political lingua in the last ten years. 

Guarantee in the strict sense of the term is an irrevocable commitment. When you purchase a product in the market, there is a guarantee on it. If the product does not work, it is returnable. Will that work with the Prime Minister? If a certain promise is not delivered, will he resign? 

Coming back to the international criticism on our democracy and Jaishankar’s allegation of western press and powers wanting to influence our elections, it is not new. It has been happening one way or the other since elections began in India. Instead of being defensive, we should deepen our democracy to silence the critics. 

Any remark on democracy in any country is a matter of international concern. The corollary to democracy is solidarity within the country and across the world, of course while isolating the vested interests. India stands out in Asia for sustaining its democracy. Indians have proved time and again that they will not compromise on their democracy and diversity. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 25 April 2024

A NEW WAY TO COMBAT CORRUPTION

By Inder Jit

(Released on 10 October 1989) 

Corruption continues to grow --- and the corrupt continue to flourish and prosper. Each succeeding day spotlights some new scandal. Corruption is thus poised to become one of the major issues in the forthcoming poll battle, if not the principal issue. Not a few people in New Delhi disagree. They argue: “Most of our voters in the villages have not heard of Bofors, contrary to claims. In any case, few see anything wrong in the present day Rajas making money. Who else would? But those who have their ears to the ground are equally clear. The common man, they assert, is greatly agitated over mounting corruption, which has seeped down to the grassroots and is now pushing up prices. In fact, this point was boldly made at a recent meeting of the Congress-I Working Committee by a top State leader whose warning in regard to the 1977 poll proved prophetic. He told Mr. Rajiv Gandhi: “Bhrashtachar will be the main issue. We must have our answers.”

This raises a question which all of us and, more especially, those who swore loudly by Mahatma Gandhi last week need to ask: How would Bapu have reacted to the present state of corruption in the country and, equally importantly, to the present five-star life style and culture of the ruling classes? How would the Mahatma have tackled the problem of corruption? Alas, the thought does not seem to have occurred at all to those who made it a point to be seen at Raj Ghat (courtesy Doordarshan) or to speak at one meeting or another in Gandhian accents and idiom. Equally distressingly, few have come to give attention to another cancerous growth in India’s body politic: increasing criminalisation of public life. This raises one other question. What would Bapu have done to stop known criminals and convicts from taking India towards Pindari raj and destroying everything that the Father of the Nation and his chosen instrument, Nehru, espoused and stood for?

The Mahatma was fully conscious of the pitfalls ahead. Indeed, he not only advocated simple living for the Ministers and a salary of Rs 500/- p.m. but virtually outlined a code of conduct for them in his writings from 1937 to 1948. He wanted the Ministers to be watchful both of their personal and public conduct and said that “they have to be, like Ceaser’s wife, above suspicion in everything.” Offices must be held in the Government “with the spirit of service” without the slightest expectation of private gain for themselves or for their relations or friends. “There is beauty and an art in simplicity,” he said and added: “It does not require money to be neat, clean and dignified. Pomp and pageantry are often synonymous with vulgarity.” He wanted Ministership to be viewed as a crown of thorns, not one of jewels. Tragically, the Mahatma was snatched away before he could get free India’s new rulers to accept and practise his ideas.

Nehru and Lal Bahadur Shastri favoured a comprehensive code of democratic functioning and set up the Santhanam Committee on Prevention of Corruption, which submitted its report on March 31, 1964. In pursuance of this report, the Shastri Government announced in October 1964 a code for Central and State Ministers. This provided, inter alia, for furnishing to the Prime Minister/Chief Minister at the initial appointment and subsequently every year by a minister a declaration showing the details of the assets and liabilities and business interests of the minister and dependent relations of his family (wife or husband, minor children and dependent relations.) The details to be disclosed were to consist of particulars of all immovable property and the total approximate value of (a) shares and debentures (b) cash holding and (c) jewellery. But this has been implemented more in its breach. Few Ministers have cared to file any such return over the past decade.

The situation could have been transformed dramatically if Mr Rajiv Gandhi had accepted a suggestion made to him early in 1985 requiring himself and his Ministerial colleagues at the Centre and the Chief Minister and his team in the States as also all MPs and MLAs to declare their movable and immovable assets to Parliament and the State Assemblies respectively at the outset and annually thereafter. Benami assets were almost certain to be a problem. But this could be largely tackled by requiring the Ministers also to declare the assets of their sons, daughters, sons-in-law and other members of the family. True, Ministers at the Centre and in various States are already required to furnish a list of their assets to the Prime Minister or the Chief Minister respectively in accordance with the aforementioned code. But this has at best served the personal interest of the leader by enhancing his capacity to control and manipulate his colleagues and not the interest of the party or the nation.

Japan has succeeded where we in India have failed. It has eloquently and admirably shown the way of firmly tackling the ogre of public corruption. Two Prime Ministers have already had to quit -- Mr Tanaka in the shocking Lockheed affair and Mr Takeshita in the Recruit scandal. All this has been made possible by a firm commitment to certain minimum norms of public morality. At the same time, meaningful steps have been taken to ensure clean public life. Not many in India are aware that Japan gave itself in 1984 a new practice whereunder Cabinet and other Ministers in the Government are required to make public their assets in the form of land, houses, deposits, stocks and so on shortly after they take office. Since June this year, the Ministers are also required to declare the assets owned by their family members. Further, they are now required to disclose the amount of cash and other tangible assets held by them when they leave office!

Importantly, the declaration of assets by the Ministers in Japan is given wide publicity through a Government report. Some of the information made available by Kyodo news agency last week deserves to be shared with the reader. The Prime Minister, Mr Kaifu, and his wife hold assets worth 107 million yen (Rs 1.78 crores), placing him eighth among 21 Cabinet Ministers. (Mr Kaifu's house in Tokyo is now worth approximately 730 million yen, according to real estate sources. The Foreign Minister, Mr Nakayama, is the wealthiest member of Mr Kaifu's Cabinet. He and his family owned assets of over 666 million yen (Rs 7.16 crores) when he assumed the position on August 10 last. (The value of real estate and stock shares is calculated on the basis of official real estate register and face value of shares, which are substantially lower than the market prices.) The number of Ministers who reported more than 100 million yen in assets was eight, down from 12 in Uno’s Cabinet.

Can something be done at this stage? The answer is still a loud yes. Public opinion should require every candidate to declare his assets in a sworn affidavit and thereby come clean before the voters. Those failing to do so should be openly spurned and rejected. Some unscrupulous candidates might feel tempted to mislead. But this problem could be tackled by requiring every successful candidate to lay his affidavit on the table of the Lok Sabha. Public opinion could, in addition, require all the political parties to spell out their commitment to combating corruption. As proof of their bona fides, they should not only get their candidates to declare their assets but also to include in their respective poll manifestos a specific commitment to make three things obligatory for their Ministers: (i) declaration of assets on taking office; (ii) declaration to include assets owned by family members and (iii) declaration of cash and other assets at the time of leaving office.

Likewise, there is urgent need to get all the registered political parties to make certain specific commitments to prevent what is described as “criminalisation of politics.” All persons guilty of crimes and convicted so must be refused tickets. Equally, tickets should also be refused to those under a cloud in the public life for alleged crimes or otherwise. (Experience in Britain shows it is not always easy to get known criminals or corrupt publicmen convicted.) Provision should also be made for a candidate to secure more than half the votes polled to get elected. There should be provision too for a negative vote entitling a voter to cast his ballot against all the candidates listed. All in all, steps need to be taken in the next few weeks to combat both corruption and criminalisation of politics. Time is running out. Double talk and deception have been allowed to go on for too long. INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 24 April 2024

BJP’s Corruption Mantra

WILL IT WIN POPULAR SUPPORT?

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

The first phase of polling over,it’s getting increasingly interesting to watch how far BJP and its star campaigner Prime Minister Modi will go to press the corruption button against the opposition, particularly the Congress. His crusade against corruption which he’s been emphasising at various election meetings across the country has apparently evoked cheers among the crowds,though targeting the Opposition leaders only would be viewed as ‘political vendetta’ sharpened this election season. 

Importantly, a recent interview with Asianet Newswas well utilised by Modi to flog the issue and give it some credence by focussing on the performance of the Enforcement Directorate (ED) before and after 2014, since NDA came to power. He said: “Until 2014, under PMLA, only 1,800 cases were registered. In the last 10 years, 4,700 cases have been registered." And while assets worth only ₹5,000 crore were attached until 2014, this figure has surged to over ₹1 lakh crore in the past decade.  

Moreover, the Prime Minister stated that before 2014, ED had seized only ₹34 lakh in cash, while under our government it has seized more than ₹2,200 crore in cash. “Imagine, if this money was invested in welfare schemes for the poor, how many people would have benefited, how many opportunities could have been created for the youth”. 

Modi acknowledged that such "exemplary work" is bound to cause problems for some individuals and entities. Taking a swipe at opposition parties critical of the ED's actions, he remarked, "And for the same reason, they are engaged in abusing Modi day and night. He further accused the opposition of "weaving dreams by calculating on paper," while asserting that his government has transcended mere dreams and delivered on guarantees. 

It may be interesting to note according to Modi only 3 per cent of the cases being probed by the ED are of politicians though, however, around 90 per cent of these are politicians from the Opposition parties. In response the INDIA bloc points out to BJP’s scam of electoral bonds as well as the disproportionate action against the opposition leaders in contrast to those who switched sides, joined the BJP, or allied with it. It has for example hit out at the closure of the corruption case against NCP leader, Praful Patel after he along with some others joined the BJP-led alliance. 

However, an important question arises what will be done with the money seized by the ED? Will it be used for the welfare of the poor or in building infrastructure that is used mainly by the rich and the upper middle-income sections? As Modi himself maintained, if the money seized is invested in welfare schemes, monitored strictly at the grass-root level, there would be considerable improvement in the lives of the poor and the underprivileged.  

While analysts are busy assessing how much the corruption issue will impact the possibility of Modi returning to power for the third term, some other developments need to be analysed. Firstly, whether BJP’s ‘Sankalp Patra’, which builds on Modi’s vision of India becoming a developed country by 2047 through acceleration of infrastructure creation in diverse ways such as expansion of bullet train network, launch of ‘new age’ trains and modern airports, construction of more expressways apart from developing the country into a global manufacturing powerhouse, would impress the masses. 

Though all these are mostly related to business activities, thereare points that have been aimed at the poor: (i) free ration to be continued for five years, (ii) free drinking water in all villages, towns and cities and (iii) free electricity to poor households under PM Surya Ghar Muft Bijli Yojana. But these get diminished in comparison to the charge of corruption levelled against the rivals. Even the resolve of creating more IITs, IIMs AIIMS and making available affordable houses for the middle-class by lowering construction and registration costs and strengthening RERA does not really touch the lower echelons of society. 

Considering the need to focus on the poor and marginalised sections and create jobs and opportunities, the political parties need to talk about changing strategy if brought to power where national income and wealth should not be concentrated by 5 or 10 per cent of the population. Besides, what about imposing a one per cent wealth tax to fund education and health in backward regions where lower castes and the extremely poor struggle for existence, as suggested by several experts and also by Oxfam.  

The issues no doubt will attract a sizeable section of voters, though as days pass analysts are of the opinion that Modi’s run will not be as easy as it was thought at the initial stages. As has been advocated by most political analysts, the pro-business attitude of Modi and his party has been well manifest with the opposition criticising him for the government’s failure to deliver on its past promises. Congress is flogging the point: “What happened to the promise of two crore jobs annually, doubling farmers’ income, giving MSP as per the formula of the Swaminathan commission, depositing Rs 15 lakh in every account”. 

However, it remains to be said that infrastructure development which has been moving at a fast pace under the present dispensation is no doubt noteworthy. Moreover, indigenisation has led to spurt in business of organisations like Hindustan Aeronautics ltd. {HAL}, Garden Reach Shipbuilders & Engineers Ltd. (GRSE), RVNL, IRCON etc. and it is expected that in the third term, the pace would continue unhindered. 

At the same time, what needs attention is more funds for welfare and a rural focus to the new government’s plans and programmes. Education and health have to be taken up by the government in the right spirit with adequate funds so that the backward districts are not devoid of functional health centres, higher secondary schools and colleges. This must be the primary focus of the next Modi government, if it comes back to power.  

It is here that Modi’s chief adversary, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, through his yatras across the country has highlighted --the problems of the common man in the light of rising prices and costs of living. The situation is obviously more pathetic in rural areas. Rahul’s simple style of message may have an impact to a select section, specially the educated ones, but Modi’s over-powering rhetoric and mannerisms with the strong cadre base of the BJP clearly putsBJP in an advantageous position.   

Finally, the present policy of authoritarianism, spread of hate and bigotry and lack of civility, compassion and fellow feeling among individuals due to perversion and jealousy in society has to change. BJP has been critical of parivarvadbut authoritarianism, as being increasingly feared,is not healthy for a vibrant society. There’s need for correction, particularly in public life as country’s social fabric and relationships between individuals and communities are unfortunately steadily eroding.----INFA

                       (Copyright, India news & Feature Alliance

Political Diary

New Delhi, 23 April 2024

Love Jihad

HOLIER THAN THOU POLL WAR

By Poonam I Kaushish 

In this heated poll season, India is once again caught in a battle royale between the Gods, another Love Jihad (LJ) which is raising temperatures. LJ, a convenient political tool and de rigueur wrapped in welfare schemes and development that helped bring BJP to power at the Centre twice over. Whereby, ishq-mohabat-shaadi cutting across caste and religious boundaries inter-meshed with forced conversions churned the political cauldron resulting in an unholy clash between the ‘holier than thou’!

The latest Love Jihad outcry has its genesis in murder of a Karnataka college girl by her former classmate in Hubballi which has ignited a political firestorm in the State, with the girl’s family alleging the accused had been pressuring her to religiously convert and marry him. Naturally, the BJP termed it a case of ‘love jihad,’ hitting out at the Siddaramaiah-led Government, accusing it of playing politics of appeasement at the expense of law and order. With the ruling Congress staunchly denying the allegation, asserting “it was a mutual relationship.” Thereby, reopening the can of worms of the old familiar enemy, country wide.

Resulting in the Hindutva brigade bandying Bahu-Beti Bachao Sangharsh Samitis and unleashing an aggressive, systematic campaign to create “awareness” and combat LJ with the BJP being the driving force behind anti love-jihadists legislations across States ruled by it. Wherein, any action taken against the perpetrators is justified, even if it means taking law into their hands. Said UP Chief Minister Yogi, “those who conceal their identity and play with the honour of our sisters and daughters, if you don’t mend your ways, your ‘Ram naam satya’ journey (final trip) will begin.”

Congress accuses BJP for engineering Hindu majoritarian communal style of politics by using tactics like attempting to electorally marginalise Muslims to patronising communal violence, especially around the emotive ‘love jihad’ issue and bringing anti-conversion laws in States ruled by it.

The BJP retaliates by blaming Congress and its State Government of failing to take action against the Muslim boy slamming it as a ‘Muslim Party’ part of the “tukde-tukde gang” which protects terrorists and follows politics of appeasement “working on Pakistan’s agenda.”

As for other Opposition Parties despite taking the Hindutva brigade to task over their anti-minority plank and opposing aggressive Hindutva consolidation, they do not want to be labeled as “pro-Muslim.” Reading the ‘Muslim mind’ as an anti-BJP phenomenon on which they base their political strategy.

Who does one fault? Given our netas have perfected intemperate language to inject poison in society over the years. Alas, politics has meandered into narrow confines of polarisation and appeasement rhetoric, rabble rousing abusive, devoid of any substance, spreading hatred but also tilted towards widening the communal divide pitting Hindus against Muslims.

All to sway sentiments before elections in all religions whereby every Party is stoking the fire, hoping it would gain dividends underscoring the games politicians play at the altar of political expediency. To keep their gullible vote-banks emotionally charged so that their own ulterior motives are well-served.

Undeniably, post its defeat in the State Assembly polls, BJP is using its new Hindutva rajneeti post Ayodhya consecration and Hindu cultural renaissance to make inroads into areas and regions even with little or no significant minority presence as it revolves around its pet slogan Sab Ka Saaath, Sab Ka Vikas, Sab Ka Vishwas es baar 400 paar. Yet it realizes the ‘Muslim mind’ is still problematic.

Last year various right-wing outfits undertook Hindu Jan Akrosh rallies to press for laws against ‘love jihad,’ ‘land jihad’ and ‘Hindutva is in danger’ card. Opposition Parties accuse the Saffron Sangh of playing out divisive issues: how Muslim population’s growth rate threatens the primacy of the “Hindu” nation with a cynical eye on electoral gains. Notwithstanding, this dog whistle politics spells bad news for communal harmony.

Not many are aware the LJ programme started in 1996 with blessings of some Muslim organizations in Kerala, though the term was first heard in the State’s Pathanamthitta district in September 2009 and used in a Kerala High Court judgment three months later. Dubbing it ‘an alleged Muslim plot to forcefully convert young brilliant Hindu girls to Islam by having Muslim boys entrap them in love affairs’, it asked the State Government to consider enacting a law to prohibit such “deceptive acts of LoveJihad”.

Notwithstanding denials by Islamic fundamentalist outfits like National Democratic Front (NDF) and ‘Campus Front’ of Popular Front of India (PFI), the Kerala Government said that 2,667 women had converted to Islam in the State since 2006. Police figures on the other hand total over 8000 conversions in the last four years alone. Add to this another 60,000 girls have been converted in Karnataka alone according to the Hindu Janajagruti Samiti.  In the last six months  UP registered over 20 LJ cases.

Turn North, South, East or West, the story is the same. Religion is turning out to be a question of money, big money. Recall, flush with funds from their headquarters in the US, a number of church groups allegedly converted hundreds of Hindus to Christianity in Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Kashmir and Karnataka by giving them money and jobs in the decades post Independence.

On the flip side, the VHP and Bajrang Dal too established groups of armed youth, called Raksha Sena, in every village of Chhattisgarh, in order to stop conversions to Christianity.  And where conversions had taken place another movement called the Ghar Wapsi (“Return Home”) was launched in Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Gujarat and Orissa for reconverting the tribal Christian back to Hinduism.

To put an end to this five States: Rajasthan, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Gujarat have enacted anti-conversion laws that bar conversions but allow re-conversions to Hinduism. Jharkhand has declared its intention to enact a similar law.

Fortunately, the Supreme Court settled this matter in 1973 wherein it distinguished between the right to proselytize and the right to convert. Upholding the Constitutional validity on anti-conversion laws enacted by Orissa and Madhya Pradesh in 1967-68, it ruled: “What the Constitution grants is not the right to convert another person to one’s own religion, but to transmit or spread one’s religion by an exposition of its tenders.” The Court also observed that organized conversion was anti-secular and that respect for all religions was the essence of India’s secularism.

It is time now for our leaders to spare a thought for all those who have lost their lives in the meaningless Love Jihad over the years and delink religion and divisive grammar from politics, consider a ban on divisive politics and open a “mohabbat ki dukan in a nafrat ka bazaar.”

Importantly, they need to understand that by playing Hindus and Muslims against each other they are only serving their vested interests. The aim should be to raise the bar on public discourse, not lower it any more. Parties and fringe elements need to realize the collateral damage it causes will be permanent. Neither Lord Ram nor will Allah forgive the polity for playing havoc in its name.

Let us not reduce LJ to a political gimmick. Our leaders need to do a cost-benefit analysis and put a stop to converting religious gush into political slush. True Love Jihad, anyone? ----- INFA 

 (Copyright India News & Feature Alliance)