I wonder if I am infringing copyright in using the title of this article: this phrase was often used by a former Chief Minister of Karnataka, who shall remain unnamed. When quizzed by the press about any political development, he would reply with an expansive smile “What does it matter?” He probably took his removal from office within a few months philosophically as well.
As one nears the biblical Rubicon of three score and ten years, close friends merge into the mists of time. The past few months and years have been marked by the passing away of those with whom one shared so much time in earlier years, bringing to mind, in a different context, the haunting words of the song from the film Kagaz Ke Phool: बिछड़े सभी बारी बारी.
Being fully aware of the tenuousness of life, why do we take it so seriously? When we look back at our life as it unfolded over six decades and more, it is difficult not to be wonderstruck by how events which, in retrospect, seem so insignificant dominated our thought processes and dictated the way we led our existence. We are free beings for roughly the first three years of our lives, till we become gradually aware of our distinct, separate identity: the “me”/ego/ahankara. Thereafter, Rousseau’s famous words characterise our existence: “Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”. Social conditioning dictates most of our actions. Our families and parents, in most cases, set our thought patterns along specific lines. Teachers in our education system play an important role in further straitjacketing our minds. The average child is subjected to a fifteen year indoctrination on the criticality of succeeding in life, starting with outcompeting her/his peers in securing the highest marks. Subjects which will often play no role in the individual’s future life — algebra, trigonometry, calculus, physics — are drilled into the student’s head, with no thought as to whether s/he is suited mentally to receive such instruction. The educational rat race continues unabated, with anxious parents, especially in India, trying desperately to get their wards seats in medical or engineering colleges, either through coaching classes and/or payment of exorbitant fees.
And then starts the feverish rush to create a career — for most, the job market, for some, entrepreneurship and, for a chosen few, the political arena. In my case and those of my confreres in government service, it involved many hours on the job, often at the cost of family priorities. I wonder if the many hours spent in the secretariat were really worth it, rehashing cabinet notes and attending boring meetings. But it is at that stage of life that one is tempted by the lure of fame, glory, money and personal advancement. As the years advance, the “success” of peers, the open stench of corruption and the moral decay one observes all around — in professions, politics and social life — engender scepticism followed by cynicism (more on these in a later blog). In due course comes the day of retirement, when the organisation has no further need for your services. And realisation then dawns: what did I go through all this for?
With life expectancy rising, the superannuated individual spends a lot of time reflecting on the remaining portion of her/his sojourn on this earth. It is here that three basic maxims can help the individual lead a peaceful life, free of internal strife. Accept what comes: Old age brings with it attendant problems. That aching back, those knee problems, diminishing eyesight and hearing, unsteady locomotion, are inevitable accompaniments. The exit of near and dear from this earth brings to mind John Donne’s prophetic words: “Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee”. The gradual distancing from old friends and acquaintances, the preoccupation of people with their own lives and the realisation that you have to face crises largely by yourself are hard realities that confront you in your later years. Live in the present: Taking each day as it comes and handling challenges with aplomb are the mark of an evolved individual. Let life flow in its natural course and take pleasure in the small joys it brings — the chirping of the bird that greets you as you wake up, the first refreshing cup of tea or coffee, the greetings exchanged with a neighbour and the music and books that add colour and meaning to your life. Have no expectations: We generally forget that the world does not owe us a living. And yet we pin our hopes and fears on what we expect others to do for us or what we expect a munificent providence to provide us. Post-retirement years bring home to us the not always palatable truth that the attention lavished on us during our working years was predicated largely on the self-interest of those who worked with us.
It takes the most part of a lifetime to reach the hard conclusion that our lives are just part of a leela, a grand cosmic drama, where we, as bit actors, play our insignificant roles till we go off stage. As the bard put it in Macbeth, “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more.” Or, as that remarkable lyricist, Shakeel Badayuni, penned it in the 1948 film Mela: ये ज़िंदगी के मेले, दुनिया में कम न होंगे, अफ़सोस हम न होंगे.
21 Sep
What Does It Matter?
1 Apr
The five fatal flaws that can derail democracy
Across the world, we are witnessing the rise of political parties that build their base on popular dissatisfaction with the prevailing economic situation in the country, a virulent dislike (in fact, hatred) of the hitherto ruling elites and minority groups and the yearning for a messiah who will usher in a period of prosperity and national glory: President Trump with his MAGA is a prominent example. In this day and age, ideologies like communism and socialism are only empty catchphrases and distinctions of right, left and centre have ceased to have any meaning. Seizure of economic, political and social power are the only goals of the new elites that seek to replace their jaded predecessors. The new power structures emerging or already in power in different countries do, however, have a common approach on how to access and then hang on to power, relying on the concepts of populism, unitarianism, oligarchy, majoritarianism and nationalism. The implications of these for democracy and for the democratic functioning of societies is what ought to concern all those who value basic human rights of the individual and operation of societies according to the rule of law.
Populism is by no means the preserve of authoritarian rulers alone. In the absence of any meaningful approach to tackle the weighty problems of joblessness, social and economic inequality and environmental degradation (the last impacting the lives of millions), resort is had to the provision of freebies, whether monthly income support to women and the aged, free/highly subsidised food grain supply to large swathes of the population or provision of free electricity, transport, etc. I have no bones to pick with supportive measures to ameliorate the lot of the disadvantaged and marginalised groups in society. But when policy measures aim to reach over 60 percent of the population for an unspecified period of time, it is legitimate to worry over whether governments will be able to sustain the staggering fiscal burden over time. Giving a population fish rather than teaching it how to fish is going to create dependent populations that are unable to raise resources to sustain their families. Competitive populism among political parties has created serious fiscal crises in many countries, including India, and governments are hard pressed to match revenues and expenditures: education, health and crucial infrastructure sectors bear the long term consequences of suboptimal funding.
Unitarianism is another concept that appeals to a dominating, authoritarian mindset. There is a contemptuous dismissal of the thought processes of other individuals, with the resultant cessation of dialogue and consensus as means to reach acceptable solutions: “papa always knows best”. This disease has long permeated the politico-administrative milieu in India. State governments which argue vociferously for devolution and decentralisation of financial and administrative powers are loath to delegate the same powers to urban and rural local bodies. I have been witness to this in my years in the Maharashtra bureaucracy: the powers of Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis, given through legislative enactment in the 1960s, were steadily whittled down by the 1980s. The 73rd and 74th amendments to the Constitution have largely been ignored by most state governments. Maharashtra hastily scuttled the Mayor in Council initiative in Mumbai and Nagpur, once it became clear that the Mayor could well emerge as a rival centre of power in cash-rich municipal corporations. The Inter State Council, which could have served as a useful vehicle for centre-state consultation on various issues that impinge on the autonomy of states, has been moribund for years. The current wisdom is that “double engine sarkars” need to have engines from the same party at the centre and in the states. The absence of countervailing political power at various levels of governance has deleterious effects on democracy.
Oligarchy or the dominance in the polity and economy of select political and business elites is another warning signal that democracy could be under threat. A symbiotic relationship has always existed between governments and business — the parties running these governments need money to fight elections and business needs to ensure that government policies add to its profits and growth. But a feature of recent years has been the close nexus between governments and business, so much so that governments alter the level playing field of open bidding to favour a specific a few corporate interests. This has led to the entry of business oligarchs into active political life, Elon Musk being the latest example. The consequences are twofold: it leads to severe economic inequalities in the economy as well as lopsided growth which is capital intensive, with growing joblessness in the economy. There is also the attendant danger of violation of environmental norms, with severe impact on the health and livelihood of large sections of the population.
Majoritarianism is a strategy employed by governments to counter opposition to curtailment of personal liberties and to economic policies that affect the lives of common people. These governments are increasingly resorting to evoking fear and dislike of the “other” in the minds of the majority community on issues ranging from diet to marriage, personal laws, cornering of scarce jobs and change of religious belief. This is partly achieved through legislative fiat (beef laws, immigration control regulations, anti-conversion laws, uniform civil codes) and partly through covert (and not so covert) support for vigilante groups that actively propagate a majoritarian agenda. The joblessness and income/wealth inequalities that are a consequence of favouring selected oligarchs and going in for misdirected financial sops to large sections of the population will sooner or later fuel public anger. To counter this, recourse is had to the “enemy” within the country who is intent on destabilising the economy and society. These enemies could range from minority communities to citizen groups, liberal voices, academics and journalists. With the active connivance of print and electronic media, conspiracy theories are spun out to create insecurity and fear in the minds of the majority community. The ruling dispensation is thus able to develop a dedicated vote bank that will ensure legitimisation of its policies at election time.
Nationalism, and the dangers posed by it, were pointed out by our national bard, Rabindranath Tagore, over a century ago. As succinctly emphasised by him “There is only one history — the history of man. All national histories are merely chapters in the larger one.” He was clear that “the fierce self-idolatry of nation-worship” cannot be the goal of human history. The concept of nationalism, which is hardly a few centuries old, has been used as a convenient tool by political elites to capture power, ensnare their gullible populations in its web and to extend their dominion over lands outside their borders, often in defence of those living there who share a common linguistic or ethnic history (Nazi Germany in the 20th century and Russia in recent years). This extension of the “other” from the minority community within the borders of one’s country to those of this community living in other countries in the neighbourhood facilitates the creation of an enemy without, aided and abetted by their “collaborators” within the country. At appropriate moments, mass hysteria can be whipped up using this weapon of nationalism to stifle freedoms of local minority groups and to resort to military adventurism against other countries in the name of protecting the rights of “one’s sisters and brothers”.
The lethal cocktail of the above five elements is given potency (a) by suitably altering history lessons in educational institutions to emphasise past victimhood of the majority population; (b) through sustained media bombardment of populations to convince them of the danger to their safety and security; (c) by getting the buy-in of all institutions of the state — the bureaucracy, judiciary, investigative agencies, independent constitutional bodies — to the seductive concepts of national interest and national security; and, finally, (d) by suppressing, through draconian laws, the expression of dissent and critical comments by the independent press, academia, intellectuals and civil society groups that question the actions and policies of the ruling dispensation. As institutions charged with the maintenance of checks and balances on the executive are weakened, the country moves inexorably towards a perverted interpretation and application of the rule of law. There is no need for coup d’etats or imposition of martial law. The instruments of democracy are enough to bleed democracy through a thousand cuts.
1 Feb
Eppur si muove
The year was 1633 CE. Galileo Galilei, the renowned Italian astronomer, was facing the ire of the Catholic Church for challenging the old Ptolemaic view that the sun revolved around the earth. To save himself from being burnt at the stake, Galileo recanted his theory. However, under his breath, he murmured “Eppur si muove” (and yet it moves).
Cut to 2025 CE and nothing much seems to have changed. Punishments for religious heresy still exist in parts of the world governed by theocracy-dominated regimes, starting from our western neighbour Pakistan and extending westwards to a number of other nations. But punishments (and threats of punitive action) for political heresy abound all over the world, including India. The latest instance is the communication from the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) to two well-known Indian cartoonists, Satish Acharya and Manjul. X has informed them that the Mumbai police has flagged cartoons carried on X, which the police deem objectionable. A long way from Nehru telling the famous cartoonist Shankar “Don’t spare me Shankar”.
The last thirty years or so have seen an alarming decline in our ability as a country to tolerate (leave alone appreciate) humour, or any news, that exposes our weaknesses and vulnerabilities. The early years of this century were witness to the hounding of the noted artist M.F. Husain for his depictions of goddesses and Bharat Mata, leading to his self-exile. There was also the deplorable occurrence of the vandalisation of the venerable Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute by self-appointed guardians of Shivaji Maharaj, responding to a book by James Laing which they deemed derogatory to Shivaji Maharaj and his family. Since then, the downward spiral has accelerated: Sanjay Leela Bhansali faced an ink attack for his film on Rani Padmavati, which had to be renamed Padmavat. Any and every caste/clan group is up in arms whenever they perceive that a hero of their tribe has been slighted. Rightly have political commentators labelled us a “republic of hurt sentiments”.
We now seek to rewrite history in order to valorise rulers of yore, whether Maharana Pratap or Prithviraj Chauhan. Reference is made at the highest levels of governance to the “thousand years of subjugation to foreign rule”, a very north-centric view, considering that Hindu empires flourished till 1565 CE and thereafter in the south, not forgetting Maratha dominance till 1818 CE. Terming the Mughal or Bahamani rulers or Tipu Sultan as foreigners is to ignore the reality that they were firmly rooted in the soil of India, regardless of their religious leanings. Even the freedom struggle and partition, and the events that followed in their wake, have not escaped airbrushing, based on political ideology. It is always easy to view and comment on historical events in hindsight, ignoring the compulsions of that time, which led to specific decisions, whether on partition itself, the manner of accession of Kashmir to the Indian Union or the economic development pattern adopted in the 1950s.
The mass media and an obliging bureaucracy have also contributed to the twisting of factual accuracy. Official handouts from government sources are carried without any critical examination of the contents. Indeed, the print and audiovisual media, controlled largely by powerful corporate houses, not only parrot official versions but even go further to create alternative truths. Inconvenient (unflattering) data from nongovernmental/international sources is debunked: official data is released tardily, with no public discussion or debate on the figures. The time-honoured Decennial Census is now four years overdue, even though the Covid pandemic has come and gone. Data from official sites, which was available on the internet earlier, is now often not easily accessible.
But it is the easy recourse to brute state power and arbitrary vigilante justice over the past decade or so that causes greatest concern. This recipe has been tested time and again in different states of India. Any innocuous attempt at wry humour or any investigation of misdemeanours by the executive, by a journalist, comedian or cartoonist, has led in the past to filing of cases under the Indian Penal Code and the Information Technology Act, with incarceration of the “offender” until s/he secures bail from the courts. Despite repeated suggestions from respected citizens and civil society organisations, defamation continues to be a criminal offence in India. Our former colonial masters, under whose rule the offence of defamation was made a part of criminal law, have abolished criminal libel in 2009. However, despite replacing the colonial era Indian Penal Code with the newly minted Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS), the provision for criminal defamation (Section 356) remains on the statute book, with untrammelled scope for misinterpretation and arbitrary interpretation. That a leader of the main opposition party could be convicted for apparently hurting the sentiments of an entire community and lose his membership of the Lok Sabha is a fair indication of which way the wind blows.
Section 152 of the BNS is even more chilling in its ambit. Spoken or written words, signs, visual representation or electronic communication can invite a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. The explanation to this section seeks to exempt from the operation of this section “comments expressing disapprobation of the measures, or administrative or other action of the government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite the activities referred to in this section….”. However, given how often in the past the police machinery has shown alacrity in registering offences against anyone voicing views that go against the official grain, it can legitimately be apprehended that this section confers wide powers for arbitrary arrest, till the affected party manages to secure bail, possibly months or years later.
Article 19 of the Constitution confers on all citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression. With this right being infringed on many occasions, one is reminded of the quote attributed to Idi Amin “There is freedom of speech, but I cannot guarantee freedom after speech”. Before uttering or writing any words that could be deemed offensive, the thinking citizen will probably consider s/he is better off remembering the words of the scamp in a droll song from the film Anpadh:
सिकंदर ने पोरस से की थी लड़ाई
जो की थी लड़ाई तो मैं क्या करूँ
(Sikandar (Alexander) fought with Porus. If he had a fight, what can I do?)
15 Jan
KYC – Keeping You Confounded
KYC entered the life of the Indian banking customer in 2002. Till then “know your customer” meant the intimate and friendly relationship the local bank branch manager had with the depositor. Not anymore. As India adopts impersonal modern habits of arm’s length, faceless transactions, banks are no longer the place where the retired person drops in for a mid-morning chat and cup of tea with the manager. The new normal is KYC: though KEEPING YOU CONFOUNDED fits the acronym far better than KNOW YOUR CUSTOMER.
The past decade has certainly put the depositor through the KYC wringer. Originally conceived to check money laundering and terrorist activities, KYC is today the scourge of the hapless common citizen. For accessing her hard-earned money kept in savings accounts, the citizen is compelled to prove her identity almost every year. While the eKYC is intended to allow for online verification of identity, there are numerous instances of the depositor being required to visit a bank branch to confirm her identity. My own harrowing experiences bear out the repeated trials and tribulations in ensuring KYC compliance.
I have a joint savings account with my spouse in the branch of a private bank in Mumbai. This account was opened before this millennium in a bank which was subsequently taken over by the private bank. Some fifteen years later, I was informed that this account was dormant since no transactions had taken place in the previous couple of years. Question no. 1: why would a bank need to verify the ownership of an account with a limited amount of deposit, just because the depositor has not undertaken either deposits or withdrawals over a period of time? Surely the depositor can exercise her democratic right to operate or not operate the account, since she may be drawing on her reserves in other bank accounts. Anyway, it took us three or four visits to the bank to get the account activated.
Stranger things have since befallen us with this same account. Despite transacting with the account in mid-2024, the account has again been marked inactive in late 2024. Now, the problem has assumed a new dimension. When the account was opened in the predecessor bank in 1997, my name in the account was just ‘Ramani’. Some bright spark in the bank has concluded that this does not coincide exactly with my name in the PAN card and Aadhaar records, where my father’s name precedes my own name. So, no go with eKYC procedure: I am required to present myself at a bank branch so that they can be satisfied that I do indeed exist in flesh and blood.
To build on the madness, my demat account has been rendered inactive on the grounds that I have undertaken no activity in the past 24 months. Question no. 2: why is an investor required to compulsorily buy or sell stocks to satisfy the concerned agency that she is not a ghost operator- that again, when the amount involved is so measly? I tried the eKYC facility on the website: it accepted my signature but refused to accept my mug shot; apparently, a selfie is a must. Question no. 3: since banks and other institutions have already wrapped Aadhaar verification around our necks, why could a simple Aadhaar authentication not have sufficed? To add insult to injury, an affiliate of the same private bank is now sending me messages for eKYC of my car insurance policy, executed just five months ago. Honestly, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry at this buffoonery.
I read in the news recently that the Government of India is concerned about the large number of inoperative bank accounts in the country. With the huge number of Jan Dhan deposits, the mind boggles at the thought of 800 million or more Indians going through the KYC quagmire once a year. My entreaty to the Finance Minister of India, the Finance Secretary of India and the RBI Governor would be as follows:
(1) For bank accounts that have been in existence for years and where KYC has been complied with anytime in the past, do away with future KYC compliance.
(2) Select only those bank accounts for KYC verification which seem to reveal suspicious transactions.
(3) Even where KYC is felt to be necessary, rely on online procedures such as Aadhaar authentication and video calls to the customer, if identification by the bank is required. Many senior and super senior citizens may not be in a position to undertake the numerous trips to a bank branch to complete the KYC formalities.
What comes through clearly from this entire rigmarole is the absolute lack of trust that pervades the system. The banking staff does not trust the virtual customer (even when adequate documentary proof has been provided) and governing institutions do not trust the banking staff. In this entire process, the 0.01 percent of banking malefactors who ought to be caught and prosecuted for their financial wrongdoings go scotfree, while for the remaining 99.99 percent, it continues to be the same routine of KYC verification, ad nauseam ad infinitum, leading to LYC (losing your cool).
1 Jan
The Phoenix Rises
As we enter the 26th year of the 21st century, let me wish all my readers and blog subscribers a very happy and fulfilling New Year. I wish, like the Phoenix, to give new life to my blog page. My effort in the new year will be to sustain my writing of the past thirteen years and more. I started blogging in 2011 when I realised that my attempts to induce newspaper editors to carry my pieces were cutting no ice. Digital communication was then still in its teething phase. But I realised that I had to self-publish if I wanted my views on the world to reach a larger audience. The bug finally caught me in early 2014, when I started to publish my blogs on a more or less regular fortnightly basis. Not only was I able to tap readership on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, my blogs were also published regularly in the Financial Express between 2015 and 2017, thanks to its editor, the late Sunil Jain. Since 2020, the frequency of my blogs has fluctuated widely, whether you put it down to other preoccupations, writer’s block or sheer laziness. There are also times when a blogger wonders whether her/his views really matter at all to the world at large. This feeling is enhanced when I observe that the advice of sage commentators on social, economic and political matters are either derided or just ignored by those at the top echelons of power and influence. But, ultimately, a blogger perseveres out of sheer love for creating the written word and for stating clearly what s/he stands for.
The advent of the New Year is the time for making resolutions to improve one’s life and contributing to society. These serve as an impetus to make us introspect on our past thoughts, words and actions and how we can make our country and the world a better, more harmonious, happy place to live in. So here I go with my three bits.
Firstly, all discourse must be civilised. What came to my mind as we ushered out 2024 are the acrimonious exchanges in the hallowed precincts of our Parliament, with distressing scenes of confrontation, verging on the physical, in the recently concluded winter session. What used to be seen in some state legislatures has now reared its ugly head in the highest legislative body of the country. As it is, the level of public (and parliamentary) discourse has witnessed a steep drop over the years, leaving those in the post-60 age group with wistful memories of the gentle cut and thrust skills of stalwarts like Atal Bihari Vajpayee, Indrajit Gupta, Nath Pai and Madhu Limaye. The passing of former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh seems to signify the end of an era of decency, humility and civility. The rapid spread of social media has spawned an era of vitriolic aggression, with the use of new technology tools to purvey even falsehoods as genuine facts. Add to this the verbal public attacks on individuals and groups, as well as political opponents, with ineffectual and inadequate restraint by constitutional bodies, and the distressing scenario is complete. The guardians of law pick and choose what writing or utterance needs to be criminally proceeded against: repeated offenders get away lightly while innocent comments land those voicing them in interminable criminal suits.
Letting go of the past is the second essential condition for a harmonious society. We humans are generally fixated on the perceived injustices perpetrated against us in our individual lives. This has now been magnified to the social sphere, a phenomenon increasingly evident in India as well as in the world. Historical grievances, real or imagined, of hundred year or thousand year vintage, dominate present day discussions. There is the wistful harkening back to an imaginary golden age, when the land was awash with prosperity and glory, leading to the refashioning of history. Governments also get obsessed with magnifying their current achievements in comparison with the apparently dismal record of predecessor regimes. This creates an acrid environment where all the ills of the present day are sought to be visited on the heads of a different religious/ethnic community or long-deceased persons. We forget that turning backwards to gaze at the past prevents us from pursuing the path to a better future.
As citizens of a vast, diverse land, our effort at all times must be to uphold the values enshrined in that peerless document, the Constitution of India. The principles of justice, equality, liberty and fraternity are the beacons that must guide all our actions. I really wish the Constitutional values were embedded deep in all our hearts. How many citizens have reflected on the wisdom in the words of the Preamble and on the inalienable fundamental rights guaranteed to them by the Constitution? Trying to pin the blame on each other for subverting the Constitution, as our political parties have sought to do in recent days, is a meaningless exercise. Each of us must introspect on our daily thoughts, words and actions and assess how closely we have structured our interactions in line with the principles enunciated in the Constitution. This applies particularly to those who have taken an oath at the beginning of their executive (political or administrative) careers to preserve and protect the Constitution. Yet, what do we see today? Bail applications are not heard for months on end, negating the individual’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. Individual freedoms pertaining to what one eats, who can be one’s partner in life and exercising one’s right to profess, practice and propagate religion (not my words, but spelt out in black and white in Article 25 of the Constitution) are severely circumscribed by legislation enacted by state governments, using the proviso of reasonable restrictions on such activities. “Hate speech” directed at specific communities and calls to boycott goods sold by vendors of minority communities are increasingly heard. Directions from the Supreme Court have been required to get administrative authorities to move against such elements. The same administrations act with alacrity to demolish structures of persons from minority communities for various alleged offences, without following due process of law, drawing adverse comments from the Supreme Court. Investigative agencies launch criminal cases which drag on for years in Kafkaesque fashion. These cases go into a miraculous limbo when political opponents affirm their support to the ruling dispensation. One would certainly hope that, in the new year, officials act only on the dictates of the Constitution and the laws of the land drawing sustenance from it.
So, as we enter 2025, it is time to revisit the great poet Rabindranath Tagore’s unforgettable words from Gitanjali:
Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;
Where knowledge is free;
Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;
Where words come out from the depth of truth;
Where tireless striving stretches its arms towards perfection;
Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the dreary desert sand of dead habit;
Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever widening thought and action-
Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.
28 Jul
Of Kangaroo justice and Kafkaesque trials
While the origin of the phrase “kangaroo court” is still not certain, the term is quite clearly defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary as “a mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded or perverted.” I would modify the term to “kangaroo justice” where due process of law is given short shrift.
Three incidents in recent history make us wonder whether we live in an era of kangaroo justice: (1) In December 2019, four men accused of the rape and murder of a young woman were shot dead by the police when, while in judicial custody, they were being taken to the scene of the crime near Hyderabad for a reconstruction of events as part of the investigation. The subsequent judicial enquiry concluded that these men were summarily eliminated and indicted ten police personnel in this connection. (2) In April 2023, Atiq Ahmed, a former Member of Parliament, and his brother, Ashraf Ahmed, in judicial custody in connection with several crimes, were shot dead by assailants posing as media persons, in the presence of UP police personnel, while being taken for medical examination to hospital at the unearthly hour of midnight. (3) 84 year old Father Stan Swamy, an accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, passed away in July 2021, after a series of ailments, while in judicial custody, without being given bail on medical grounds.
In the first two instances, summary executions by uniformed persons and by ordinary citizens made a mockery of the rule of law. Legal processes were unfortunately short-circuited to render instant justice (injustice?). While there was public support for the two actions, this does not behoove a democratic society that ought to be totally committed to the rule of law. The third case is even more unfortunate: an octogenarian social worker, who was not questioned by the NIA during his incarceration for eight months in Taloja prison near Mumbai, was refused bail even when it was apparent that his health was failing and that his release on bail posed no threat to the state or society.
“The wheels of justice grind slowly, but grind exceedingly fine” is a metaphor attributed to both ancient Greek and Chinese philosophers, acknowledging the slow pace of delivering justice, though justice is finally done. In the Indian context, delivery of criminal justice is often excruciatingly slow, with the main stakeholders at the pre-trial stage — the police, victims and their families and the accused — left with a feeling of frustrated helplessness as cases drag on for years. The phenomenon of ‘encounter specialists’ taking the law into their hands to dispose of criminals and of public lynching of notorious ant-social elements are but symptoms of a deeper malaise. Shoddy investigation of crimes, prompted sometimes by political pressure and sometimes by the lure of lucre, and interminably long periods between the commission of a crime and the final verdict of guilt seriously affect the credibility of the criminal justice system.
It is against this unsatisfactory background that recourse is had to the arrest of persons for even petty crimes and/or where they are not habitual offenders, just to satisfy public sentiment. Once arrested, the accused remain in jail because, in many cases, they cannot manage to give the surety/security required for grant of bail. The courts and the police are reluctant to trust the release on bail of persons on personal bonds/undertakings. Non-granting of bail and overcrowding in jails are two sides of the same coin. According to the Bureau of Police Research and Development, in 2022, India housed 5.73 lakh persons in its jails as against a prison capacity of 4.36 lakhs. The National Crime Records Bureau has reported that the proportion of people in jails, who are not convicted, rose from 33% in 1947 to 66% in 2012 and 76% in 2022.
More disturbing is the increasing trend of arrests of those deemed by the ruling dispensation to be opposed to them politically or those who raise their voice against actions of those in power that smack of restraint on or misuse of constitutional rights — these range from politicians of opposition parties to “anti-nationals” and “urban naxals”. The draconian provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) on grant of bail keep those accused under these Acts in prison for years on end. Under both laws, the court has to be satisfied, before releasing the accused on bail, that a prima facie case of guilt is not made out by the prosecution: this has led to a situation today where courts at all levels are reluctant to grant bail, never mind the provisions for bail and bonds under the newly enacted Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) (or its predecessor Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure). It has long been a judicial precedent that bail ought to be refused only where (a) the offence is likely to be repeated while on bail; (b) the accused may abscond; (c) witnesses may be influenced; (d) evidence may be tampered with. The Hindu newspaper has highlighted (September 10, 2022) the abysmal conviction rates of 3% for those arrested under UAPA between 2018 and 2020, and 0.05% under PMLA until March 2022. As a consequence of the stringent provisions for grant of bail, the accused in the Bhima Koregaon case, Umar Khalid in the Delhi Riots case, AAP politicians Arvind Kejriwal and Manish Sisodia in the Delhi liquor policy and former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren have been in jail for months and years on end without commencement of trial. The eagerness of a state like Maharashtra to enact the Special Public Security Act, modeled on similar legislation in Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Telangana, with provisions for keeping lower courts from intervening in executive actions under the Act, does not bode well for civil liberties of citizens.
What is clearly required to safeguard the right to liberty of citizens are three sets of legislation to check abuse of authority:
(1) Requiring the courts to reach a preliminary conclusion about the possible guilt of the accused under the UAPA/PMLA vitiates the judicial process of a fair trial. It is essential to delete the proviso to Section 43 D(5) of the UAPA which reads “Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.” Similarly, Section 45 (ii) of the PMLA which reads “where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he (sic) is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail;” deserves to be removed from the statute book.
(2) The right to bail must be enshrined as a fundamental right, under either Article 21 or 22 of the Constitution of India. This will ensure that special laws do not tamper with the right to bail of an accused, which should be governed only by laws of general application like the BNSS.
(3) India, unfortunately, has no statute governing tort law. Legislation must be put in place which provides for legal damages in the form of monetary compensation for confinement in prison which does not result in conviction. This compensation would be payable by the state. However, where a miscarriage of justice which leads to incarceration is established in a court of law as motivated by mala fides on the part of specific government functionaries or other individuals, compensation to the affected party would also be payable by the concerned persons. The same principle of individual as well as state liability would apply to all deaths in police/judicial custody that are attributable to gross negligence or deliberate actions in violation of the rule of law by the guardians of law or other persons.
Since it is evident that the executive at the Union and State levels seems to lack both the moral authority and the resolve to ensure that law enforcement agencies do not overstep their powers, it is high time that the legislature and the judiciary step in to ensure that the ordinary citizen is protected from arbitrary actions that interfere with her/his enjoyment of personal liberty. This will be a lasting tribute to the framers of the Constitution of India in the seventy fifth year of the Republic of India.
14 Jul
Statistics and the Muslim bogey
I have been exposed to the subject of statistics through my school, undergraduate and postgraduate years. Hence, I have this strange suspicion about what the numbers tell. Whether it is a government tomtomming its achievements on the economic front or exit pollsters coming up with poll predictions, I take all these prognostications with a generous pinch of salt. There is still some doubt about whether the authorship of the phrase “Lies, damned lies and statistics” can be attributed to Benjamin Disraeli or Mark Twain. Regardless, I am of the firm belief that the numbers that determine the statistics must be stripped to the bone to arrive at reasonable conclusions, untainted by hyperbole.
Which is where I have issues with the recent working paper put out by the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council (EAC-PM) on the status of the Muslim community in India during the period 1950 to 2015 (referred to hereafter as the Report), drawing on country-wise estimates of religious demographics available for 1950 and 2015 from the Religious Characteristics of States Dataset Project – Demographics v. 2.0 (RCS-Dem) published by the Association of Religion Data Archives in the year 2019. The estimates differ from the Census of India figures for 1951 and 2011 only by a couple of percentage points. The Report has reached the conclusion that “…in India, the share of the majority Hindu population decreased by 7.82 percent between 1950 and 2015 (from 84.68 percent to 78.06 percent). The share of Muslim population in 1950 was 9.84 percent and increased to 14.09 percent in 2015 – a 43.15 percent increase in their share.” The increase and decrease in the Muslim and Hindu populations is shown in terms of the percentage change in the respective percentage shares, taking the percentages of 1950 as the base.
This is where the problem arises. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of statistics would know that an increase from a low base by a certain number would give a greater percentage increase than a corresponding decrease by the same number from a much higher base. For example, a rise from 5 to 10 is a 100 percent increase while a reduction from 95 to 90 is only a 5.26 percent decrease. Had the Report used the same yardstick of increase in percentage share for the Sikh and Buddhist populations during the same period, the increases would have been 49.19 percent for the former (1.24 percent to 1.85 percent) (the Report wrongly gives the percentage change as 6.58) and a humongous 1520 percent for the latter.
One could have excused this cavalier jugglery with numbers if the conclusions of the Report had not been used by spokespersons close to the BJP to, on the one hand, glorify the approach to support of minority (specifically Muslim) populations over the first six and a half decades and, on the other hand, to repeat ad nauseam the slogan “Hindu khatre mein hain” .
Sudesh Verma[1] has fallen into the familiar trap of equating the change in percentage shares of Hindu and Muslim populations between 1950 and 2015 with the change in percentages of absolute Hindu and Muslim populations between 1950 and 2015. He then plays on the usual fears of the Muslim population overrunning the Hindu population, apparently oblivious of the 2011 Census figures, which show a Hindu population of 980 million and a Muslim population of 172 million. The usual reasons for the higher growth of the Muslim population are trotted out: “rapid reproduction, illegal infiltration encouraged by vested interests and conversion.” The latter two reasons can by no means contribute to any explosive increase in Muslim population. The first reason has also been tempered by the falling birth rates in the Muslim population — the total fertility rate (TFR) of the Muslim and Hindu populations stood at 4.4 and 3.3 respectively during the the National Family Health Survey-1 (NFHS-1) in 1990-91; the TFR came down to 2.6 for the Muslim population and 2.1 for the Hindu population in NFHS-4 (2015-16). As the TFR differentials narrow over time, it would be the height of misinformation to claim that the Hindu population would be overwhelmed in numbers by minority, especially Muslim, populations, when the numbers clearly show that the twain shall never meet.
The Report highlights that “…India is one of the few countries which has a legal definition of minorities and provides constitutionally protected rights for them.” It also refers to the progressive policies and inclusive institutions that are reflected in the growing number of minority populations within India. Significantly, it observes “Given its plural, liberal and democratic nature, India has continued its civilizational tradition of harboring persecuted populations from several countries over the last six decades.”: this, even though India does not have a clear-cut domestic policy or law for refugees and is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol.
It is ironic that the Report and the article by Surya Prakash[2] should speak in glowing terms of India’s plural, democratic ethos which has, in their view, provided a conducive environment for the growth of minority populations. The period from independence to 2014 (which is the focus period of the Report) has often been disparaged by the current ruling dispensation, with frequent references at the top political levels, even recently, to the appeasement of minorities and infiltration by, and conversion of the majority community population by, minority communities. It is unfortunate that even sections of the higher judiciary appear to subscribe to this distorted worldview[3] .
Nor has the growth in Muslim population been seen in terms of the measures that are needed to bring down the growth rate of that population: these include raising literacy and education levels of women, income earning opportunities, healthcare and outreach to promote family planning practices. It needs to be emphasised repeatedly that minority communities prosper because of constitutional guarantees, proactive social and economic policies and a fraternal environment in society, not because of the magnanimity of the majority community.
This is where governments need to walk the talk in creating a conducive environment for minority communities to realise their potential. Mere assertions of the democratic rights of all citizens (including minorities) are not enough. Union and state governments need to relook at legislations on cattle slaughter and anti-conversion, which have become convenient tools used by vigilante groups to create problems for minorities. Governments also need to firmly rein in the cancer of hate speech and avoid executive actions, like the bulldozer raj, that seem to largely target specific communities. India is a melting pot of many races over many millennia, a fact recognised and embedded in constitutional provisions. Let us, as a nation, not distinguish between people on the basis of religion or any other social marker. In the final analysis, we are all part of the human race, best exemplified in the lyrics of Sahir Ludhianvi:
तू हिन्दु बनेगा ना मुसलमान बनेगा
इन्सान की औलाद है इन्सान बनेगा.
[1] Sudesh Verma: India First – Rising Muslim Population: Arise Before It’s Too Late (News18.com, 11 May 2024)
[2] A. Surya Prakash: The changing face of religious demography (New Indian Express, 23 May 2024)
[3] Prateek Chakraborty: Majority population will become minority one day: High Court on conversions (India Today, 2 July 2024)
30 Jun
50 years on…history repeats itself
June 25 is a date that has long receded in my memory. The sudden invocation of this date by the Prime Minister at the start of the 18th Lok Sabha triggered off many memories. I remember standing at a bus stop in Delhi on the morning of 26 June 1975 when I heard of the imposition of the emergency in India. I reached home to hear the voice of Indira Gandhi announcing the imposition of the internal emergency. As a politically naive college student with a passing interest in politics, the implications of the Emergency never struck home till far later. I saw the first display of opposition to the emergency when protesting students, including the then Delhi University Students’ Union President Arun Jaitley, were rounded up by the police and bundled into buses before their incarceration in prison.
Over the next 18 months till the end of 1976, we, the citizens of India, were bombarded with news of the remarkable changes taking place in the economy and society (reminiscent of the pronouncements in Orwell’s Animal Farm and 1984). As news of the demolitions in Turkman Gate in Delhi and the forced sterilisations filtered through to us through a largely quiescent print media, disgust and cynicism started building up in the general public. The 1977 Lok Sabha elections blew the safety cover off the pressure cooker, with the Congress party getting the least number of seats in 25 years after the 1952 elections.
The past few years are strangely reminiscent of the Emergency: the difference is in the use of the knife rather than the hammer to injure the body politic. The use of MISA during the emergency to detain political opponents has been replaced by laws like the UAPA and PMLA, which have been used to arrest those voicing dissent against or opposing the ruling dispensation, ostensibly on the vaguely worded grounds of threat to the integrity or sovereignty of India or the likelihood of striking terror in people or for economic offences. Just as the use of MISA was made immune from judicial review during the emergency through inclusion in the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution, the stringent provisions for grant of bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and Section 45(1) of the PMLA make it very difficult to secure bail, as they virtually require an opinion of the judiciary that no prima facie case establishing guilt has been made out. The continued incarceration of a number of the accused in the Bhima-Koregaon case and of a serving Chief Minister and a former Deputy Chief Minister are evidence of the reluctance of the judiciary to grant bail even when the accused pose no flight risk and are not likely to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. As in MISA, the present scenario allows for continued detention for long periods while the investigating agencies take their own time to file chargesheets and the judicial process moves at a snail’s pace.
The cavalier attitude of the administration towards the rule of law is another feature common to the emergency and the present day. Excesses committed by the bureaucracy (and the police) during the emergency have been well documented by the Shah Commission. Today, demolitions of even residential buildings, especially, but not restricted to, of the Muslim community, are carried out for apparent infractions like protesting against arbitrary executive actions or even alleged violation of anti-beef laws. There is a marked reluctance of the executive magistracy and the police to act firmly against hate speech and to strictly enforce the law when processions violate the rights of the minority community. The support of the police for the actions of vigilante groups in various states ruled by the BJP emboldens these groups to enforce their writ in matters relating to alleged “beef” consumption, “love jihad” and “conversion”. Indira Gandhi’s concept of a “committed bureaucracy” seems to have taken shape in the recent decade.
During the emergency, in the famous words of the paterfamilias of the BJP, L.K. Advani, “when the press was asked to bend, they crawled.” The situation today is more pathetic: large sections of the media genuflect before power and fail in their duty of keeping a check on executive excess. Not only that, they have taken it upon themselves to put a gloss on all actions of the government.
The Supreme Court faced its moment of truth during the Emergency in its inability to confront the denial of civil liberties by the government, best exemplified by its judgment in the ADM Jabalpur case. Today, the higher judiciary (the Supreme Court and High Courts) are facing the stonewalling by the central government on appointment of judges. Delays in hearing cases with major constitutional implications and perplexing, contradictory judgments by the judiciary at various levels has eroded the faith of the citizen in the judicial process. Unfortunately, in comparison with its 1977 predecessor, which conducted the then Lok Sabha elections admirably, the Election Commission of India has, in the recent Lok Sabha elections, been far too lenient in enforcing the Model Code of Conduct, leading to a rather bitter, acrimonious election campaign: but then those were times when, in spite of political differences, decency prevailed in public life. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India has been rather chary in releasing reports on the performance of Ministries and PSUs in recent years, in marked contrast to the alacrity it displayed in the pre-2014 period.
What marks the difference between the environment of the emergency days and that of the present day are the deplorable fissures that have developed between different communities and groups in today’s society, as well as the atmosphere of bigotry and intolerance that seems to envelop society like a dark cloud. The Lok Sabha Speaker, just after his election to that august post, called for two minutes silence in remembrance of the dark memories of an emergency that is half a century old. Given the serious reservations in large sections of civil society and the political class about the infringements and restrictions on basic human rights and freedoms in the last decade and the erosion of trust and fraternity between social groups, it would have been in the fitness of things if, instead of the two minute silence, he had announced a full day discussion in the Lok Sabha to ascertain the views of members, especially those from the augmented opposition benches, about the worsening social cohesion and harmony between groups and the lessons all of us, especially those governing the country, need to imbibe from the Emergency. Unless we, as a nation, introspect on where we are headed, we will be left ruefully contemplating the words of the Spanish-American philosopher George Santayana “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
16 Jun
Respecting the Opposition (and the Constitution)
In a rather unusual disclosure amidst the flurry of scripted TV channel interviews he gave during the 2024 Lok Sabha election season, the Prime Minister claimed he respected the opposition; in fact, he bemoaned the absence of a strong opposition. He further went on to say that the opposition had been of no use to him and that they were so full of negativity, opposing decisions in the country’s interest for political benefit. In a parliamentary democracy, the very concept of political parties in opposition being useful to the ruling party is antithetical. It is the democratic responsibility, nay, democratic duty of the political opposition to question the government at every turn and criticise actions it feels are violating constitutional propriety or the rule of law.
While India has seen a complete breakdown of consensus between the government and opposition political parties over the last five years, this debate needs to be widened to clarify the term “opposition” as also to examine why respect for the “opposition” is critical to a functioning democracy and what those holding the reins of government need to do to demonstrate that they really respect the “opposition”. Based on my three decade-long experience at various levels of governance, I give below eight guidelines to a healthy, vibrant (even if raucous at times), functional democracy and how these have been repeatedly breached in recent years.
- Opposition is a far broader term than just political opposition
Political parties that sit on opposition benches in legislatures are, of course, the opposition (in the narrow sense). But there is also a wider universe of opposing ideologies and views. These include different stakeholders in a democracy — farmers, industrial workers, the salaried middle class, media, academia, entrepreneurs and businesspersons, to name just a few. It is very likely that a government will be able to satisfy the demands of any one group only to a limited extent. That is why consensus in policy making is stressed: while certain priorities may receive greater attention, those whose demands are not satisfied should, after due consultation and dialogue, receive rational explanations as to why their demands may have to be deferred to a later date.
- Adopt a collegial system of governance
In a feudal political environment where the top honcho calls all the shots, consultation, dialogue and debate are conspicuous by their absence. The past decade has seen a worsening of this trend of unilateral decision making, both at the centre and in the states. Cabinet meetings become a formality, with Ministers rarely giving their opinions on issues, let alone openly voicing dissent. Parliament has been reduced to a pale shadow of its former self: contrast proceedings in recent years with the vibrant debates of the 1950s. A disturbing feature has been the failure of the Leader of the House, the Prime Minister, to participate regularly in debates in the two Houses of Parliament. The strife in Manipur, caused in large part by executive inaction, has received little attention in the Lok/Rajya Sabhas and has seen no statement by the Prime Minister to date. Demonetisation, Article 370 abrogation, the Citizenship Amendment Act, the Farm Laws and the COVID pandemic are glaring examples of executive actions undertaken without the legislature being consulted. Standing Committees of the different Ministries have been rendered insignificant; important legislation with far-reaching implications for the right to liberty of citizens, like the UAPA and PMLA amendments and the new criminal laws, would have benefited from examination by select committees comprising members of both Houses of Parliament. The nadir was reached in the last winter session of the last Parliament, when important legislation was passed in the absence of 146 opposition members of both Houses, who were suspended after acrimonious exchanges with the Presiding Officers of both Houses, on not being allowed to raise issues of national importance.
- Accept dissent gracefully and give full space for freedom of expression
Given that, in a parliamentary democracy, the ruling party generally secures around 40% of the vote, there is always going to be a sizeable segment of the population that is critical of the policies and actions of the government of the day. Intolerance of dissenting opinions is evident when terms like “anti-national” and “urban Naxal” are freely employed against those with different points of view. Withdrawal of FCRA registration and 80G income tax exemptions are tools used to block NGOs that question government policies impacting human rights and the environment. A disturbing feature over the past decade has been the frequent use of sedition provisions and other draconian laws against those who are only asserting their right to freedom of expression and to stand up for the marginalised and underprivileged sections of society. The use (misuse?) of legislation that inhibits the judiciary from granting bail has been a powerful weapon in the hands of the executive. Activists and dissenters languish in jail for years without trial: the Bhima Koregaon and Delhi riots cases are only the most glaring instances. Selective implementation of the criminal law provisions relating to defamation and promoting enmity between communities have been widely employed to suppress criticism of executive actions and policies. Governments need to take to heart the wise words of Sant Kabir:
निंदक नियरे राखिए ऑंगन कुटी छवाय,
बिन पानी, साबुन बिना, निर्मल करे सुभाय ।
Heeding the words of critics keeps governments from taking wrong steps. Else, the people will respond appropriately at the time of elections, as the Lok Sabha elections of 1977 and 2024 and numerous legislative assembly elections have demonstrated.
- Respect institutional independence
A major casualty over the past few decades has been the steady erosion of independence of institutions mandated by the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court may have scuppered the establishment of the NJAC in 2015, but the executive has adroitly used delaying tactics to stall the appointment of judges to the Supreme Court and High Courts who are perceived to be independent in their approach. The inordinate delays in hearing crucial cases like the electoral bonds, Article 370 abrogation and CAA, as well as judgments which limit personal liberties of citizens have tended to erode public confidence in the judicial system. The lukewarm approach to grant of bail has emboldened investigative agencies to undertake search and seizure operations even in minor cases involving activists, media persons and dissenters: the provisions of draconian laws like the UAPA and PMLA ensure that the process becomes the punishment, with frequent arrests and long periods of incarceration without trial, given that “jail, not bail” seems to be the new jurisprudence.
The administrative executive (the civil services and the police) have often deviated from the golden words of Sardar Patel, when he spoke to the first batch of IAS probationers on 21 April 1947: “I would advise you to maintain the utmost impartiality and incorruptibility of administration. A civil servant cannot afford to, and must not, take part in politics…I hope that you would…render your service without fear or favour and without any expectation of extraneous rewards.” Political interference in appointments, postings and transfers has become a flourishing industry. Police reforms as mandated in the 2006 Supreme Court directions in the Prakash Singh judgment are honoured more in the breach: as for wider reforms in the civil services, perish the thought.
The Election Commission of India has, especially in recent months, come in for severe criticism for its flip flops on electoral bonds and timely publication of votes polled. In the recent Lok Sabha elections, it can be faulted on three other issues as well: (i) It could have frozen the use of proceeds of electoral bonds, declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in February 2024, using its powers under Article 324 of the Constitution of India; (ii) It looked the other way when prominent politicians were arrested and opposition political parties were harassed by investigative agencies after the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC); (iii) It took no action against various political functionaries for vituperative speeches that demonised a minority community.
Nor has the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) covered itself with glory with its performance in the last seven years. A body that brought out a plethora of reports in the pre-2014 era, with inspired leaks to the media, has severely curtailed the issue of reports covering audits of Ministries/PSUs in subsequent years, noticeable reticence being obvious in the Rafale and demonetisation cases.
The mainstream print and electronic media has abdicated its role as the Fourth Estate. Barring a clutch of online news media and social media channels, the corporate-run media outlets have functioned as fawning spokespersons for the ruling dispensation.
- Stop using investigative agencies to settle political scores and gain political advantage
The “caged parrot”, as the CBI was disparagingly referred to by the Supreme Court, has now been reinforced by “formidable falcons” — the ED, NIA, NCB, Delhi Police and the Income Tax department. All these agencies do have a crucial role to play in checking terrorism and crimes, including economic offences. The problem arises when they flex their muscles against political opponents of the ruling party around election time and, increasingly, in the interregnum between elections, to sway legislator loyalty in favour of the ruling party. Lure of office is definitely a major influence on legislators, but the promptness with which investigations are launched at moments of crucial political developments are definite pointers to pressures being put, especially when cases are miraculously dropped after months and years of investigations the moment the politicos concerned throw in their lot with the ruling party. The concept of a level playing field at election time has been severely compromised during the latest Lok Sabha elections by the arrests of prominent politicians and other executive actions by investigative agencies at a time when the MCC was in force.
- Stop “othering” communities and groups
A polyglot, multicultural country thrives on the joyous acceptance of different customs and traditions and the celebration of diversity. The past many years have seen shrill campaigns directed at the Muslim community, with abysmal depths being reached during the appalling election campaign focused on “infiltrators”, “vote jihad” and “appeasement”. State policy in states governed by the BJP has been directed at specific freedoms of the minority communities — food, religion, marriage and even dress. In the name of reasonable restrictions, fundamental rights of association under Article 19 of the Constitution of India (that includes with the opposite sex) and Article 25 (freedom to propagate religion) are being infringed upon through legislative measures pushed through without consultation with the affected stakeholders. Hate speech against the Muslim community attracts little attention from most governments and their police forces, and religious processions are used as a method to provoke the Muslim community. The bulldozer raj in Uttar Pradesh and a number of other BJP-ruled states, with scant regard for due process of law, has spread terror of arbitrary state action among dissenters and the Muslim community.
- Promote genuine federalism
Probably no aspect has been as severely impacted in recent years as the federal structure of India. Governors have always been handy tools in the hands of the party ruling at the centre ever since the days of Indira Gandhi. This breakdown of trust between Governors and opposition State Governments has assumed epidemic proportions today. Governors reserve to themselves the right to sit on bills sent to them for assent after passage by the legislature, a practice deplored by the Supreme Court. State governments also have major grievances about the tardy release of funds rightfully due to them from the centre, which also curtailed states’ powers to tax and borrow from the market. Subjects were moved from the State list to the Concurrent list, so that the scope for central interference increases. A move to give the Central government powers to move All India Service officers from the states to the Government of India without state government concurrence was aborted only after stiff opposition from state governments. The devaluation of the Inter State Council right from the days of Congress governments has resulted in the absence of an effective forum for centre-state discussion and dialogue.
- Observe decency and civility in public life
While there has been a steady coarsening of discourse within Parliament and in society over the past couple of decades, the rise of social media since 2014 and the rabidly partisan approach of a number of television channels has poisoned the social and political environment in recent times. The root of this degeneration probably lies in elections being treated as the end rather than as a means to an end. The recent Lok Sabha elections saw speeches descend to levels that would shame any decent society. The blatant use (and misuse) of platforms like Facebook, WhatsApp and X (formerly Twitter) to spread fake news and indulge in slander and innuendo has sown the seeds of bitterness between political parties and, more dangerously, between communities.
Gresham’s Law has operated in Indian political and social life, with the basest tendencies driving out the basic human values of tolerance and kindness. Let us be clear: this sickness affects the body politic across the political spectrum. Autocratic, anti-democratic behaviour can be observed in a wide range of political leaders, starting with the way they run their parties, translating eventually into authoritarian governance. Institutional subservience supports such behaviour. The integrity and impartiality of the civil services and the police have long been compromised by the lure of plum postings while in service and comfortable sinecures after retirement. This tendency has, unfortunately, percolated to the armed forces and the judiciary as well. The public perception of the impartiality of government auditors, regulators and other constitutional bodies charged with maintaining checks and balance on the executive has suffered serious erosion over the years. Respect is given when it is earned through one’s actions. Only if the latest election results lead to introspection on their watchdog roles among various constitutional bodies, the media and the permanent executive can democracy hope to flourish in India. As Rabindranath Tagore has said “Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country awake.”
2 Jun
The Topsy-Turvy World of the 2024 Lok Sabha Elections
I have witnessed, conducted and supervised Lok Sabha (LS), legislative assembly and municipal corporation elections over the past fifty years. Who can forget the 1977 LS elections, which unseated the Congress party for the first time after independence? The 1989 LS elections, which ejected the Congress from power a second time. The 1991 LS election, which witnessed the unfortunate spectacle of the assassination of a former Prime Minister. And the 2004 and 2014 LS elections, which ushered the incumbent governments out of power. But my vote for the most unusual election would undoubtedly be the 2024 LS elections.
The present election has been characterised by twists and turns never seen before in the annals of India’s election history. The precursor to the drama was the Supreme Court judgment of 15 February 2024 holding the issue of electoral bonds to be unconstitutional. After much huffing and puffing, the State Bank of India disgorged information on who gave how much money and who got the money (the two being pieced together by intrepid media and civil society investigators). Next, before the announcement of elections, came the unexpected resignation of Election Commissioner Arun Goel. With the resignation of former Election Commissioner Ashok Lavasa still fresh in people’s minds, the rumour mills started working overtime. The rushed through appointment of two new Election Commissioners, probably to meet the deadline of announcement of Lok Sabha elections, attracted criticism, especially since new legislation negated an earlier Supreme Court decision and gave the Government of India a decisive say in appointment of the top honchos of the ECI.
The third Act in the ongoing drama featured the arrests of Arvind Kejriwal and K. Kavitha in the Delhi liquor policy case after the declaration of LS elections and the enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC). Taken in conjunction with the previous incarceration of former Jharkhand CM Hemant Soren and the over year-long custody of former Delhi Deputy CM Manish Sisodia, the March-April arrests effectively prevented a number of opposition politicians from campaigning. There was also the sudden enthusiasm of the Income Tax Department to freeze the accounts of the Congress and some other opposition parties for apparent tax infractions: how these came up for action only at election time is a crore-rupee question.
As if there had not been enough drama already, the top guns of the BJP added more masala to the khichdi. Led by no less a person than the Prime Minister, the ruling party campaigners made mutton, machli, mangalsutra, mujra, Mandir and Muslim their key points of reference, not to forget manifesto (the Congress’s, of course). The resulting furore saw some backtracking from the Prime Minister, who affirmed his resolve not “to do Hindu-Muslim”. The problem here lies in the public perception that acts of his party’s governments in various states, whether of commission (anti-beef laws, religious conversion statutes, dress codes, bulldozer raj) or omission (blithely ignoring hate speech, giving latitude to vigilante groups taking the law into their own hands), have deepened already existing fissures between the two largest religious communities in India. The least one would have expected from responsible public figures would have been a focus on issues like jobs, health care and education rather than diatribes on appeasement of “minority groups” and an almost obsessive focus on India’s largest minority community.
But what raised many eyebrows, especially of veteran politicians and administrators of electoral battles of the past, was the ostrich-like attitude of the Election Commission of India (ECI) in the strict enforcement of the MCC. For probably the first time, notices were issued by the ECI to the two major political parties for violations of the Model Code of Conduct by their star campaigners, rather than questioning these campaigners in person. After cogitating on the issue for 23 days, by which time the bulk of campaigning had already been completed, the ECI delivered a homily to the two national parties on how their members, especially senior leaders, should maintain norms in their utterances. Such pusillanimity in firmly enforcing the MCC led to an atmosphere of impunity, with unsubstantiated charges and slurs continuing to be hurled, without discipline being enforced on the major speakers, including the Prime Minister. Little wonder then that the mild-mannered former Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, has, at the fag end of the election season, seen fit to strongly admonish his successor.
The MCC in respect of the media causes even more concern. The partisan electronic media has made its party affiliations clear even earlier, these continuing in the election season. Inordinate time space was given to interviews with ruling party functionaries and news attention was lavished on election meetings and roadshows of BJP bigwigs, especially the Prime Minister. What is more troubling is the gross misuse of social media to mislead the public and influence voting patterns. Reports show how major platforms like Meta and Google have been used by third-party advertisers to post communal and derogatory messages to the population: there is no provision for regulation of such content in the MCC. WhatsApp groups are subject to no MCC and can transmit messages (including incendiary ones) round the clock. The ECI clearly needs to confront the use (and abuse) of technology in elections in the coming months and years.
The ECI was fortunate in being let off the hook in the Supreme Court cases of both the EVM-VVPAT and the timely publication of constituency-wise total voting figures. It has steadfastly refused to engage over the past five years with experts from civil society organisations to resolve the issue of the number of VVPAT slips that ought to be counted to reassure the public that EVMs are accurately recording votes as actually cast. Instead of following sound statistical sampling methods, the ECI has stuck to the 2019 Supreme Court formula of counting slips from 5 VVPATs in each assembly constituency, without specifying what would be the next step in the event of a discrepancy between the EVM and VVPAT count. During the current elections, the ECI took an inordinately long time in releasing the votes polled in each parliamentary constituency; when it did make this information public, it gave percentages rather than actual numbers. This led to the unusual situation of parties approaching the Supreme Court to direct the ECI to furnish constituency-wise numbers of votes polled. After affirming before the court that it was not required to publish figures of constituency-wise polling figures (based on Form 17C), the ECI, in a sudden volte face, provided constituency-wise polling figures for each constituency the first six rounds of polling. Its sudden, prompt ability to produce figures it had said would take time to collate hardly boosted the credibility of the ECI, already under the civil society scanner for its approach to the EVM-VVPAT issue. Matters were not helped by its public outburst against the Congress party for drawing attention of its allies to the issue of votes polled.
Sideshows also seemed to feature in this stranger than life election season. The grandson of a prominent Karnataka politician facing allegations of rape (said grandson also being a candidate in these elections) has raised the political temperature as has the alleged assault on an Aam Aadmi Party lady Rajya Sabha member on the premises of the Chief Minister’s residence in Delhi.
This topsy-turvy six-week long searing, bruising, bitter election campaign (strongly reminiscent of Alice in Wonderland) will cease by the end of May, but its echoes will reverberate well into the tenure of the next government. Doomsday prophets are already wondering what the outcome will be in the event of a hung Parliament. While I do not subscribe to extreme theories, I do wonder what the future holds in the event, belying exit poll predictions, the BJP falls short of the half-way mark or has just a narrow majority. Given the developments in recent times in states ranging from Arunachal Pradesh to Goa, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka and Maharashtra, I would not be surprised if elected Lok Sabha members seek to make Faustian bargains motivated by daam and dand (saam and bhed having been rendered virtually irrelevant). If you don’t believe me, just trace the party-hopping in these elections, which would have made a Page 3 socialite proud. Truly, the just concluded IPL (Indian Premier League) may then make way for the higher stakes IPoL (Indian Political League). Should this happen, we can only write the epitaph of constitutional morality and moan the debasement of constitutional democracy echoing Cicero’s lament: O Tempora! O Mores!
V. Ramani's web 