Month: October 2016

Fearing Violence, Kashmiri Pandits Demand Security Pickets Be Put Back in Place

Members of the community have alleged that attacks against them have increased in the wake of the recent protests in Kashmir and they do not feel safe.

Members of the community have alleged that attacks against them have increased in the wake of the recent protests in Kashmir and they do not feel safe.

Kashmiri Pandits protesting in September this year. Credit: PTI

A group of Kashmiri Pandits protesting in September this year. Credit: PTI

Contrary to Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s claim of providing a safe atmosphere to displaced Kashmiri Pandits to return to the Valley, members of the community in the Valley have now said they are fearing for their lives. The community is also unhappy with the closure of the police’s “minority security pickets” across South Kashmir, which were set up after the massacres of 1998 and 2003.

What has added to the fears of the Kashmiri Pandits have been multiple alleged incidents of stone pelting and verbal abuse since the latest uprising began in the Valley on July 8, following the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen militant commander Burhan Wani.

Wani’s successor Zakir Rashid Bhat alias Musa in a brief video message released in mid-October had appealed to Kashmiri Pandits to return to their homes, stating that the group “takes responsibility for their safety”. But in the atmosphere of fear and distrust that prevails in the Valley, people have not taken this assurance seriously.

Sanjay Tickoo of the Kashmiri Pandit Sangarsh Samiti told The Wire, “This is just a political statement, it has no value”. He said ever since Wani’s killings and the resultant turmoil in the Valley, which has resulted in the death of over 100 protesters and injuries to over 15,000 citizens and security personnel, the incidents of attacks on the Kashmir Pandits have also gone up.

“There have been at least 53 incidents of stone-pelting and verbal attacks on the community members and in one incident about 150 trees were also forcibly cut in the orchard of a member. To top it, the security provided near the habitations of the Kashmiri Pandits in the form of pickets has been withdrawn, leading to increased fear.”

Tickoo said of 198 such pickets, 110 were located in South Kashmir and personnel have been withdrawn from all of them. “At least with these personnel around we were able to sleep in peace, but now that sense of security is also gone.”

On being asked if the security has been withdrawn because of the many instances of snatching of weapons from the personnel posted at these pickets, Tickoo said this was an issue to be tackled by the government. “But should you compromise people’s security like this?” he asked.

‘Return to the 1990s’

Tickoo, whose family was among the few hundred Kashmiri Pandit families which stayed back in the Valley after the attacks on the community began in the 1990s, said “the situation now is once again very similar to what it was then. They began with targeting and burning schools and that is what is being repeated now. Then they had begun attacking the Pandits and that we fear would come in the next round of attacks.”

He said while the radicals are apprehensive about directly attacking the community, they are creating pressure and tension to force the Pandits to leave. Recalling the 2003 Nadimarg massacre in which 24 people were rounded up and gunned down by the militants, Tickoo said prior to that he and his associates had visited the village which had 34 Hindu families and just four cops and noted that the police presence was scarce and they hardly bothered who visited.

“Similarly, now the security has been withdrawn,” said Tickoo, who has also written to the prime minister and chief minister Mehbooba Mufti about the issue.

In a letter sent late last week, in the wake of a petrol bomb being thrown at a Kashmiri Pandit’s house in Kulgam in South Kashmir on October 28, Tickoo had raised the security concerns of the minorities living in the Valley. He noted that as per government records, nearly 808 Kashmiri Pandit families were living in Kashmir Valley after many from the community left following the 1990 armed uprising in the state.

“These families are living at different places in the Kashmir Valley and till date these families were provided security from the State Government by creating “Minority Security Pickets” close to the KP dwellings,” he wrote, asserting that “for presumed security” these pickets played a big role.

In the letter, Tickoo stated that “after the encounter of Burhan Wani, the count of militants in Kashmir Valley has increased many folds” and had become a “cause of threat to the security of the State as well as to the minorities living in Kashmir Valley.”

He demanded a review of the decision of withdrawal of security to the minorities and urged that the security personnel be re-deployed at all the MSPs with additional manpower. “Else,” he wrote, “it will be clear that some conspiracy with malafide intentions is being hatched against this miniscule community living in Kashmir Valley.”

 About ten days ago, the All State Kashmiri Pandit Conference (ASKPC), the umbrella organisation of the community, had also raised the issue, claiming that the police had started withdrawing the security of minority enclaves and temples following rifle-snatching incidents by militants.

“The minorities fear the worst as the security provided to most of the shrines and families living in the Valley has been withdrawn. It is a matter of concern as the state government has left the minorities at the mercy of militants,” the group’s president, Ravinder Raina, had charged.

The ASKPC had also raised the issue of the transit camps of Kashmiri Pandits being attacked in the Valley. Its general secretary T.K. Bhat had stated that the “government of India must realise that return of Pandits’ to Kashmir shall only be possible if they are settled and rehabilitated at one place in Kashmir where there shall be free flow of Indian constitution.”

The state has also been witnessing an ongoing protest by Kashmiri Pandit employees who have refused to return to their duties following attacks by mobs on their transit camps in the Valley. These employees are also alleging that their salaries have been withheld since July.

According to the All Migrant Employees Association Kashmir, there are about 1,500 employees from the Kashmiri Pandit community who are employed under the prime minister’s rehabilitation package and who have largely refused to return to the Valley due to security concerns.

The BJP leaders in the state, many of who are in the Mehbooba government, have also been batting for these employees. One of them, Surinder Ambardar, a member of the legislative council, recently said he had taken up the matter with deputy chief minister Nirmal Singh who “assured” that “no one will be forced to join their duties till normalcy returns in the Valley”.

The Wire tried to get an official response from the state government through Amitabh Mattoo, the political advisor to the chief minister, but could not establish contact with him. His response is awaited and the story would be updated as soon as it is received.

Putting Wheat in Its Place, Or Why the Green Revolution Wasn’t Quite What It’s Made Out to Be

Narratives that present the Green Revolution as necessary and successful ignore the context that it was brought around in and the fact that it did not lead to a food-secure India.

Narratives that present the Green Revolution as necessary and successful ignore the context that it was brought around in and the fact that it did not lead to a food-secure India.

Growing wheat. Credit: Nupur Das Gupta/Flickr CC BY 2.0

Growing wheat. Credit: Nupur Das Gupta/Flickr CC BY 2.0

This article is in response to Gopi Rajagopal’s piece ‘The Stories of Ehrlich, Borlaug and the Green Revolution‘ published by The Wire on October 13, 2016.

The article by Gopi Rajagopal (‘The Stories of Ehrlich, Borlaug and the Green Revolution’, October 13, 2016) uses a selective narration of the history of how the Green Revolution came to pass, to uphold the popular narrative of why it was needed. The stark numbers that he presents – 10.4 million tonnes of wheat was “woefully inadequate to feed a population of over 500 million” in 1966 – shows the magnitude of the possible disaster that the coming of the Green Revolution seemed to have averted. The quotations from newspaper articles dating back to 1966 are used to add further authenticity to such claims.

It is not surprising that this is done. The Green Revolution only provided more wheat (later on high-yielding rice strains came from the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines, but this article is concerned only with wheat), so it is convenient to compare the amount of wheat grown in 1966 with the amount grown in the following decades – 20 million tonnes in 1970, 32 million tonnes in 1980 and a whopping 90 million tonnes in 2016, making India the second largest wheat producer in the world. This is a triumphant tale of success, of conquering the vicissitudes of nature and of the celebration of the man who brought it all to pass.

The glorification of wheat

Let me begin this critique by stating a couple of historical facts about wheat. First, a majority of Indians were not consumers of wheat in the decades prior to and following independence. Instead, India was a nation of rice eaters with the so-called coarse cereals (maize, millets) and gram coming a close second. In 1951, we grew 20.6 million tonnes of rice, 19 million tonnes of coarse cereals and gram, and 6.5 million tonnes of wheat. In 1965, we grew 39.3 million tonnes of rice, 31.1 million tonnes of coarse cereals and gram and 12.3 million tonnes of wheat.

Second, much of the wheat grown in the country was exported to Britain and Europe under colonial rule as raw material for cheap bread. The canal colonies of Punjab had been settled and converted into wheat-growing tracts by the British, along with areas in the Central Provinces and Berar. In fact, there was an excess production of wheat in the late 1920s and with the crash of purchasing power due to the worldwide Great Depression in 1929, wheat exporting nations, including India, participated in a series of urgent meetings to figure out how to dispose of the surplus and work towards reducing production!

Given this background, it is obvious that there wasn’t enough ‘wheat’ to feed 500 million people – it was never supposed to be the only thing that Indians ate. In fact, most statistics of the time did not even capture large portions of the diets of coastal Indians who ate fish and rural Indians, especially tribal groups, who relied on forest produce, not to mention oilseeds, pulses, meat, milk and the like, apart from cereals.

The story of Mexico is used to suggest that there was an inherent problem in terms of wheat productivity globally. But it is even more selective in its choice of historical actors. The problem of rust that was devastating Mexican wheat in the late 1930s and early 1940s is portrayed as an agricultural crisis for the entire country. Yet, the majority of Mexican farmers grew corn, which formed the staple Mexican diet. The crisis was faced by Mexican farmers who had just started growing wheat on a large scale in the Sonoran desert in the north of the country, thanks to the newly built Yaqui River Valley irrigation project.

In fact, the Yaqui Valley research station had been built in the region to support the needs of Mexican wheat growers, so that wheat output could be increased, not only for domestic consumption due to changing food preference in urban areas but more so for export. The problem of rust that was solved by Norman Borlaug helped Mexican farmers become exporters of wheat by 1958. It is not clear what is meant by self-sufficiency here since wheat was not a major component of the diet of a majority of Mexicans.

The missing twists and turns

Coming back to the Indian case – the narrative becomes even more selective in the listing of events that prompted the adoption of the “new agricultural strategy”, which set the Green Revolution in motion. The “several twists and turns in the tale” are as follows: India had been importing wheat from the US under Public Law 480 (PL480) since 1954, which gave developing countries the opportunity to purchase wheat, soyabean, edible oils and milk powder using their own currency, instead of dollars. This allowed countries to save their precious foreign exchange to buy industrial equipment and also to supply cheap food to their industrial labourers, thus facilitating a Lewisian transition from an agrarian economy to an industrial one. It allowed countries to obtain cheap food without extracting huge surpluses from their agrarian sectors to facilitate the transition. The US benefitted because it found a marketing outlet for its farmers who were over-producing these commodities and could not find enough markets globally.

The situation mutually benefitted India and the US until the India-Pakistan war in the summer of 1965, and the subsequent condemnation of US actions in Vietnam by India, which led to an immediate threat of withdrawal of the PL480 programme by the US. By this time, India’s urban labouring class had become dependent on PL480 wheat supplied to them through the ration shop system. India might have been able to weather the situation using domestic supplies, but there was a monsoon failure in 1965. This caused consternation and gave rise to the “ship to mouth” crisis since the US had pledged only one-fourth of the grain requested for 1965-66. It is important to note that the food crisis was not experienced by the entire nation but would have affected urban labourers alone, had the imports stopped. However, it was in the US’s favour to have international reports suggest conditions of a nation-wide famine so that it could then show its magnanimity by generously restarting PL480 imports, but under certain conditions.

The logjam was broken in November 1965 when C. Subramaniam travelled to the US and worked out a deal on behalf of the Lal Bahadur Shastri government, allowing private foreign investment in fertiliser plants and the import of fertiliser in exchange for the continuation of PL480 imports. This formed the backbone of the “new agricultural strategy”, which was inspired in part by a World Bank report that called for providing cost and price incentives to individual farmers in the form of seeds, pesticides, power implements, chemical fertilisers and water (in contrast to the earlier approach of the government focusing on community development programmes and land reforms), effectively, “guaranteeing profitability to the farmer.”

As should be evident from the narrative so far, the so-called miracle seeds are nowhere in the picture yet. In fact, India faced a double whammy with monsoon failure for the second time in parts of the country in 1966. However, the production in this year was marginally better than 1965, clocking 74 million tonnes of food grains. India imported its highest ever amount of wheat under PL480 that year – 10 million tonnes.

In a series of conjunctures which led M.S. Swaminathan to become a wheat breeder, brought him and others at IARI in touch with Norman Borlaug’s work, and led to the planting of the imported Mexican seed varieties in C. Subramaniam’s garden in Lutyen’s Delhi, the government approved the dissemination of the new seed varieties through the Intensive Agricultural District Program (IADP) in December 1965. Districts with sufficient access to water had been chosen and farmers who were “progressive”, i.e. typically upper caste and class, were provided with seeds in the winter of 1966. It is crucial to note here that the new seeds did not express their potential yield unless given adequate doses of chemical fertilisers and water, which the government also began to subsidise.

The new seeds fit very well into the new agricultural strategy, which was about incentivising individual farmers, and early adopters in the IADP regions were typically large farmers who had enough capital to pay for irrigation and purchase chemical fertilisers. They also received a guarantee that the government would purchase all their wheat to stock the Food Corporation of India godowns, at a minimum support price. The World Bank report had recognised the consequences of this policy, which would aggravate the inequality between large farmers and others, and between irrigated and rain-fed areas in the country.

Coming back to our narrative full of twists and turns, the miracle year of 1968 saw a recovery of the monsoon and a growth in food grain production from 74.2 million tonnes to 95.1 million tonnes. The increase of 20.9 million tonnes came as follows: 7.2 million tonnes was contributed by rice, 7.1 million tonnes by coarse cereals including gram and 5.2 million tonnes by wheat. In fact, good weather the world over had made it a bumper year of production, leading many commentators to talk of over-production once again. Some of the growth in wheat can be attributed to the new seeds of Borlaug but in case of the other crops, it was still local seed varieties that were being used. This was also the year following which the area under cultivation of coarse cereals starting going down, just as the wheat area started increasing.

As farmers in irrigated tracts realised that the government was providing input subsidies including the seeds to grow wheat and was buying back the crop under a guaranteed price, they started switching area from coarse cereals and gram to wheat (and rice). From a high of 55.6 million hectares in 1968, coarse cereals and gram lost acreage steadily, falling to 28 million hectares in 2006. Wheat’s success was built on the loss of other crops. So what has this meant for self-sufficiency?

What is self-sufficiency?

This brings me to the last loop in this story. About defining self-sufficiency and food security. What does it mean to say that, “India became self-sufficient in cereals in 1974”? Total food grain production in 1970-71 was 108.4 million tonnes, which fell in 1974 to 99.8 million tonnes, which was, in fact, a drought year. 1971 was the year when PL480 wheat imports were stopped, only to be restarted in 1972 again, continuing till 1975. All this while wheat production had been increasing, doubling to 24.7 million tonnes in 1972 and 28.8 million tonnes in 1975, but PL480 imports had continued. So what was the meaning of self-sufficiency?

Ironically, the PL480 programme was wound up not because India did not need to import wheat anymore. It was due to other geopolitical considerations of the US, which now saw self-sufficient nations feeding their restive populations as more amenable allies in the Cold War, especially if the US had arranged for the “self-sufficiency” in the first place (by providing the miracle seeds to them through the Rockefeller Foundation which had employed Borlaug and which organised for the transfer of genetic material).

Even more ironically, India did not need PL480 imports to provide enough food for its people to begin with. They served only a small constituency, the urban labouring class, and that too, due to conscious policy choices made in the 1950s. They had been started despite India having enough production in the 1950s (and a robustly growing agrarian economy that had been freed from the fetters of British rule).

From 1950 to 1965, Indian agriculture witnessed a surge in productivity across all crops. After half a century of 0% growth in agriculture (1900-1947), freedom from the shackles of punitive land revenue demands, demolition of the zamindari system, modest land reforms and repeal of taxes on digging wells and making improvements to the land had given a new lease of life to farmers. The production of major crops (except wheat) increased as much in the 1950-1965 period (in 15 years) as it did between 1965 and 1990 (in 25 years).

Ehrlich and the Malthusian juggernaut

It is suggested that even if we accept that India had enough food to feed its population in the 1960s, there was expected to be runaway population growth and without the Green Revolution, all those new mouths would have gone hungry. This is the classical Malthusian argument which, in simplified terms, says that food production grows linearly while population grows exponentially, eventually reaching a state of collapse – hence the doomsday predictions. The popular narrative of the Green Revolution challenges this hypothesis by arguing that food production can grow faster than the population thanks to high-yielding variety seeds.

Sadly, however, it does not question the very premise that ultimately survival on this planet is basically a race between food and population growth rates. As Amartya Sen’s now famous work has shown, food and population growth rates cannot be compared directly. Food availability has to be refracted through the element of price. There may be a mountain of food available, but access to food is only based on the entitlements that people have, to be able to exchange for food. This is one of the reasons, among others, that explains the bitter irony that Indians have remained food insecure despite all this bumper wheat production. Malnutrition levels in 2005 continued to remain horrific – three out of five children under five, or nearly 60%, were found to be chronically malnourished (two standard deviations below normal) by the National Family Health Survey. Moreover, the per capita availability of coarse cereals, gram and pulses had fallen by 42 kg per person per year, while the gains from wheat were only 28 kg per person per year between 1961 and 2006. This has resulted in the skewing of the nutrition basket.

Furthermore, Malthus’s theory assumes that population growth is an independent variable. Nothing can influence it except a dire reduction in food availability and economic distress that would lead millions to perish. However, there is not a shred of evidence to support his hypothesis, whether one looks at the history of populations in Europe and the West or India and the South. Population growth rates are dependent on birth rates and death rates. As death rates, especially infant mortality, have reduced, birth rates have also dropped, but with a time lag. The resulting bulge in population growth, before the reduced birth rates have kicked in, has been used to malign specific populations as being afflicted by runaway fertility.

However, this has ignored research which has shown that birth rates are influenced not only by food availability (and accessibility/affordability) but more so by rising incomes, occupational shifts, the availability of contraceptives and most important, women’s education and empowerment to be able to exercise reproductive choice, among other reasons. More insidiously, Malthusian theory has been used to justify coercive population control of specific populations, with terrible consequences – both India and China have dark histories of this and the latter has recently repealed its one-child policy after realising the distorted demographic consequences of the same.

Writing history

Fear mongers would do well to study a little bit of history. But as they say, history is written by the conquerors, or in this case, the ones who had the power to define the course of its narrative. Those who present calculations of food security in India on the basis of wheat production alone are either doing so out of surprising naivety or, more insidiously, from a desire to defend a certain triumphant version of history, where actors like Borlaug and Swaminathan are said to have saved a million lives.

This narrative of victory has also buoyed the boats of a host of interest groups, including chemical and seed companies, makers of power implements and mechanised equipment and, not to mention, the better-off farmers from irrigated tracts in the country who are, unfortunately, now rueing their fate. Monoculture farming promoted Green Revolution-style has destroyed the long term fertility of soils, chemicals have caused health problems and the technological treadmill has led to growing debt. All this, but India still doesn’t have food security, if one looks at nutritional outcomes of the population.

No surprise, since the story of wheat has not been put in its place – where it belongs – within the larger context of food production and consumption in India.

Richa Kumar is an assistant professor of sociology and policy studies at the department of humanities and social sciences, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi. She is the author of Rethinking Revolutions: Soyabean, Choupals and the Changing Countryside in Central India (Oxford University Press 2016). She can be reached at richa@hss.iitd.ac.in

Was it a Fake Encounter? Video of Killing 8 SIMI Members Raises Questions

Eight SIMI activists were killed in an encounter in Eintkhedi village following their escape from Bhopal Central Jail after killing a security guard.

Represtational image. Credit: Stephen Hird/Reuters

Representational image. Credit: Stephen Hird/Reuters

A video of the encounter in which eight members of SIMI, who escaped the Bhopal Central Jail early on Monday, has now raised questions about the veracity of the incident.

The suspects were killed after they escaped  from  Bhopal Central Jail, killing a security guard, reported The Indian Express. The newspaper said that the encounter by the Madhya Pradesh police took place at the Eintkhedi village just hours after the prison break.

The police described the encounter as a raging gun battle, with the SIMI members instigating the gunfire. However, in a video obtained by CNN News18 (which was shot by the sarpanch of the Acharpura village), the police are seen shooting at a man, who was not retaliating, in close range.

CNN News18 reports that the only weapons that were recovered from SIMI members were knives. The encounter took place at 8 am on Monday and the Madhya Pradesh government went public with the same at 11 am. Police reactions were not available immediately.

The SIMI activists had escaped early on Monday by scaling the prison wall with the help of bed sheets. They had slit the throat of a head constable using a steel plate and glass and tied up another before they escaped from the B block of the jail.

The Bhopal Central Jail is known to be one of the safest prisons in Madhya Pradesh.

The eight SIMI activists were identified as Amzad, Zakir Hussain Sadiq, Mohammad Salik, Mujeeb Shaikh, Mehbood Guddu, Mohammad Kalid Ahmed, Aqeel and Majid.

“Eight SIMI or Students Islamic Movement of India activists escaped at around 2-3 am by killing a jail security guard,” DIG Bhopal Raman Singh told PTI.

Madhya Pradesh home minister Bhupendra Singh had said jail officials who were responsible for looking after the security had been suspended.

The home ministry sought a report from the Madhya Pradesh government about the jail break.

The ministry also asked the Madhya Pradesh government to send a detailed report about the jail break, whether there was any lapse on the part of the jail administration and the steps taken to check such incidents.

This was the second major jail break by SIMI operatives in three years. In 2013 seven members of the group had escaped from a jail in Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh. The central security agencies were particularly anxious as four of the seven SIMI activists who escaped could be arrested only after three years and during the period of their hiding the militants were involved in multiple incidents of terror and a bank robbery.

While in hiding, the SIMI men were allegedly involved in terror activities in several states including Madhya Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh

SIMI was banned by the government in 2001.

(With PTI inputs)

The GST Is Essentially a Modified Value-Added Tax At This Point

Direct tax reform is necessary to ensure that implementation of the GST doesn’t contribute to stagflation.

Direct tax reform is necessary to ensure that implementation of the GST doesn’t contribute to stagflation.

A labourer loading a goods truck. Credit: Reuters

A labourer loading a goods truck. Credit: Reuters

The Centre has recently proposed a four slab structure for the goods and services tax (GST). This would be 6%, 12%, 18% and 26% respectively and a cess beyond 26% for sin and luxury goods. The state governments have broadly supported the cess though there is disagreement over the slab rates. These rates will be discussed at the next meeting of the GST Council on November 3-4.

The upcoming meeting is, therefore, crucial and several of the issues involved require further scrutiny. There are several inflationary dangers involved and if care is not taken, far from becoming a panacea for economic growth, the GST could end up being an unmitigated disaster.

Generalised inflation and stagflation

Indirect taxes are levied on consumption while direct taxes are levied on income. Increasing the former makes consumption more expensive and thus has an inflationary effect, which hurts the poor the most. It is for this reason that indirect taxes are generally seen as regressive. For the same reason, direct taxes, which are targeted at the rich, are seen as progressive.

The GST as an indirect tax has significant potential for inflation. To begin with, the vaunted benefit of eliminating the cascading effect is unlikely to happen, though it may be reduced. This is because of the large list of exemptions, which at present is proposed to cover 300 items in the Centre and 80 items in the states, meaning half of all goods and services. The second reason is the lack of input tax credit between the central, state and integrated GST. Thus the continuance of the cascading effect will contribute to inflationary pressures.

This is exacerbated by the recent proposal for a four-slab structure and introduction of the cess. The cess will directly drive up prices, although the Centre’s justification is that it is necessary to compensate the states and will only be levied on luxury and sin goods (cigarettes and the like). The state governments, truly worried about their loss of revenue, have agreed to this proposal which is expected to raise Rs 50,000 crore. The vice chairman of NITI Aayog, Arvind Panagariya, has sought to downplay anxieties by stating that the cess can be withdrawn ‘at any time’.

The four-slab structure essentially taxes basic goods (such as food and healthcare) less and high-end goods (cars and refrigerators) more. Though this ostensibly seems progressive, it has been criticised by former finance minister P Chidambaram as ‘disastrous’ and even 13th finance commission chairman Vijay Kelkar has stated that it will lead to a 75% reduction in the benefits originally envisaged.

There are several reasons for this criticism: the first is that slabs mean a classification of goods and services into various categories, which drives up administrative cost and complexity. Second, it lends itself vulnerable to classification disputes, such as the infamous case of the Supreme Court having to decide whether coconut is a fruit or a nut. Third, it encourages evasion and lobbying for frequent rate changes, which is easier to do for a specific slab rate but much harder to do for an overall rate. In addition to these problems, the 13th Finance Commission also raised the issue of slabs driving up the ‘average’ tax rate and thus leading to generalised inflation. By contrast, a single rate is easier to comply with, harder to lobby against and eliminates the problem of classification disputes. Thus the present four slab structure has been rightly been called out by Chidambaram as a modified version of the existing value-added tax (VAT), with its accompanying problems of cascading effect and classification largely intact.

It is also worth noting the 13th Finance Commission’s recommendations on the GST: it had called for a single positive rate of 5% Central GST (CGST) and 7% State GST (SGST). Kelkar had hoped that the rate would be at most 12%. Such low rates would have benefited both industry and consumers, but the present proposal is a long way from this.

Additionally, the very structure of the GST will mean that there will be a higher tax rate on the initial stages of production and a lower rate on the later stages. Thus, prices of basic and intermediary goods will likely rise, contributing to generalised inflation. For example, a rise in diesel prices makes transportation more expensive, driving up overall prices.

Given these issues, there is a real danger that the GST in its present form may even end up contributing to stagflation, a situation where production slows due to lack of demand, which in turn reduces due to high prices.

Increased pressure on small and medium enterprises

Another danger is the potentially debilitating effect the GST may have on small businesses, which form the majority of the economy. The GST, as it is right now, is essentially a modified version of the value-added Tax (VAT) and shares many of its features. Prior to the introduction of VAT, small scale industries were exempted from indirect taxes. This was resented by big businesses and multinational corporations (MNCs) who pushed hard for the implementation of VAT, as it would, inter alia, include the small scale industries. The tax was finally introduced in 1986 as modified VAT (MODVAT) and its scope was gradually expanded to include more and more goods.

The New Economic Policy (NEP) of 1991 accelerated this process. The World Bank demanded that VAT be implemented in the country as part of its conditionalities for its structural adjustment loan during the balance of payments crisis of 1991. This was in keeping with the market fundamentalist ideology of the Bretton Woods institutions (World Bank and IMF), which seeks to reduce taxes on the rich and increase taxes on everyone else. This is to be done by reducing tax on trade (sales tax) and reducing income and corporate taxes, while at the same time increasing indirect taxes such as VAT.

This is the agenda underlying the phrase ‘broaden the tax base’ and is the same reasoning which argues for the GST. Thus it is no surprise that the only sustained support for it has come from big businesses and MNCs. Compared to MSMEs, these stand to benefit more if taxes on sales and manufacturing (excise) are removed altogether as they possess economies of scale. Further, the compliance burden of GST, while an improvement over the plethora of taxes that it subsumes, is by no means easy and will disproportionately affect MSMEs.

This is worsened by the fact that the administrative infrastructure necessary to collect the GST has a long way to go. The GST Network (GSTN), a non-profit organisation tasked with setting up the necessary IT infrastructure, has already become enmeshed in controversy. Coming to the taxpayers, it will take time to set up the necessary compliance systems and given the vast size of the Indian economy, this could take quite a while. The net result can be a chaotic situation which renders MSMEs vulnerable to high compliance costs and administrative harassment.

This has already happened in Malaysia, which introduced GST in April 2015 amidst widespread opposition. The tax has subsequently drawn street protests and has been blamed for rising living costs and compliance confusion for businesses. As the Indian economy is far more complex than Malaysia’s, with considerably lower levels of government efficiency, a far worse scenario may take place.

Impact on panchayats and municipalities

One aspect of the GST that has not been discussed enough is its impact on the finances of local governments. Presently across the country, with a few exceptions, local governments such as panchayats and municipalities have poor resource mobilisation capacities. Though the Constitution grants them certain tax powers under articles 243H and 243X respectively, these are barely utilised. Alternative options such as municipal bonds are almost unheard of. The chief source of their sustenance is funds devolved by state governments. This is a miserly relationship, similar to the one between the Centre and states, and most local bodies are starved for funds.

This financial situation is responsible in a large way for the poor condition of Indian cities and villages. The reduction in state finances will likely have a detrimental impact on local body finances and may further worsen this state of affairs.

Direct Taxes Code and GAAR as necessary complements to GST

In the last GST Council meeting held on October 19th, the option of raising direct taxes to compensate the states was discussed. It is unfortunate that this was not considered, and the regressive alternative of a cess chosen instead. Raising revenue through direct taxes would spare the common people, especially the poor, from the burden of inflation and would only affect the rich. It can also save the local bodies from the dangers of reduced state finances. Additionally, the fiscal deficit, something the present government is deeply concerned about, can be kept in check through funds raised from direct taxes. By contrast, a cess will affect all, not only the rich, and contribute to inflation. This is bound to have a negative political impact which will display itself in time.

The government’s hesitation to increase direct taxes – though they would only affect the rich – is understandable. However, there is a way around this problem. First, it must be clear which tax is to be increased – income or corporation tax? Tax officials fear that increasing corporation tax will have an inflationary effect as the burden will be passed on to the consumer. This is not necessarily the case as companies have to maintain market competitiveness and cannot always automatically increase prices. However for the sake of expediency this argument can be accepted. On the other hand, no such claim can be made with regard to increasing income tax, which is what the focus must be on.

At present, 99% of Indians do not pay income tax. Thus it is pointless to discuss increasing direct taxes when the capacity to execute is so limited. The focus must be on strengthening tax administration by filling up vacancies, ensuring use of the latest technology and most importantly giving political backing to tax officials. The appellate tribunal in the Central Board of Direct Taxes is an institution that especially needs reform, as it frequently exonerates those accused of tax evasion. This can be done silently, without raising much opposition from vested interests and only requires political will.

At present, the 1% who do pay income tax provide revenue of Rs 2.86 lakh crore to the government, which is quite substantial. Increasing the efficacy of tax collection is thus bound to yield the Rs 50,000 crore that is necessary to compensate the states and will also be politically expedient.

However, this by itself is not enough. In the long run, the government must introduce reforms to the existing system of direct taxes. Two long-pending legislations – the Direct Taxes Code and the General Anti Avoidance Rules (GAAR) – must be removed from the cold storage where they are presently languishing and implemented on a war footing as the next major tax reform. GAAR, in particular, is a major requirement in the fight against tax evasion and assumes renewed significance in light of the slew of Double Tax Avoidance Agreements that are being revisited. It is early notification will significantly aid the government’s ongoing efforts in cracking down on illicit cross-border financial flows.

Thus it is clear that direct tax reform is crucial to counter the negative effects that the GST can have. On a final note, the GST debate also raises questions on the nature of tax policy: is tax solely meant to facilitate ‘ease of doing business’? Or is it also a means of redistribution and social justice, through which a level playing field can be created and inequality reduced? To see it solely as the former is to see only half the picture, and as inequality increases both in India and globally, the relevance of tax as a tool for social justice becomes more and more apparent.

Abdul Muheet Chowdhary (@abdulmc) is a Legislative Aide to a member of parliament and a former consultant to the United Nations Information Centre for India and Bhutan. Views expressed are personal.

The Pursuit of National Goals Needs Strategic Communication, Not Chaos and Noise

In the aftermath of Uri and the surgical strikes, atavistic calls for revenge blurred the focus on terrorism as the enemy of peace and development, as well as efforts to seek a settlement of outstanding issues with Pakistan through dialogue.

In the aftermath of Uri and the surgical strikes, atavistic calls for revenge blurred the focus on terrorism as the enemy of peace and development, as well as efforts to seek a settlement of outstanding issues with Pakistan through dialogue.

File photo of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Credit: PTI

File photo of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Credit: PTI

“Those with the most extensive and strongest communication bridges will command power in the global communication era’’ – R.S. Zaharna

Twenty-first century statecraft, they say, is about “smart power”, the effective leveraging of both hard and soft power. When it comes to India’s handling of the surgical strikes across the Line of Control (LoC) in Jammu and Kashmir, it would be fair to say that the government has exercised its power smartly. Through the strikes, the government managed to foil an impending attack by militants based in Pakistan-occupied territory near the LoC. This was a calibrated and surgically precise operation that was not intended to escalate bilateral tensions. The dissemination of information on the strikes, which was prompt and measured, demonstrated the well-coordinated efforts of the diplomatic and defence establishments. Also worth noting is the palpable empathy with which the transnational public sphere has responded to India’s case against terrorism exported from Pakistan.

Leaving aside India’s soft power advantages and its hard power – both military and economic – which is poised to increase exponentially if it maintains its present trajectory, let us examine the concept of strategic communication within India’s policy structure. Strategic communication embodies the confluence of policy goals, effective persuasion and power – political, military and economic. It embodies advanced planning and involves what is termed the ‘purposeful use of communication’ to fulfil the mission of the concerned organisation. In the case of a country’s government, this mode of communication helps keep the national focus on the goals of national advancement, maintaining law and order, vigilant defence of borders and homeland security, sustainable development, faster economic growth and amity between diverse ethnic and religious groups in a globally connected world. Its message is simple, consistent and also has a compelling storyline. This message is not a one-time dissemination done in the form of statements or press releases; instead, it has to be an interactive one –  executed through communicating in real time and by responding to various players and audiences at home and abroad. As experts have noted, strategic communication is about building extensive interactive networks on various communication platforms and not just being the one that commands the most amount of information on a given situation.

Given the long-drawn, bitter and indecisively confrontational relationship shared between India and Pakistan, it is important that we triangulate the right measurements between diplomacy, defence and public outreach. Diplomacy, the first of these elements must serve the purpose of the second – defence –  as well as the larger national mission of peaceful development. It must be imbued with passion and a sense of political purpose. It should not detract from the basic, long-term goals of the nation or seek short-term gratification. These long-term goals are securing the national interest in consonance with strategic goals in security and defence, ensuring transnational support for India’s case on various global issues, raising the country’s profile in the Indo-Pacific world, building a South Asian commons, even without Pakistan if need be, catalysing the flow of foreign investment and technologies for the growth of key industries, but overall, using tools of powerful and convincing persuasion to build confidence in the idea and the practice of Indian nationhood. Public diplomacy must target an audience wider and larger than the immediate national echo chamber. In the case of India-Pakistan relations, our public diplomacy must target audiences in the region, particularly in Pakistan and beyond.

Combating terrorism, a “message with no words”

In a May 1997 interview with CNN, Osama bin Laden described terrorism as a “message with no words”. Terrorism’s message has a consistency and a purpose that negates dialogue, discussion or debate on solving problems peacefully and through negotiation. Its target is not only to kill and terrorise but also to disrupt communication networks and generate disorientation. Governments engaged in a war against terror must anticipate this. Countering terror and its wordless message must involve, in addition to targeted kinetic action, well-modulated plans of negating terrorism’s ideology by working through various channels. These channels include the use of the world wide web, social media platforms, press and television channels, spokespersons – governmental and non-governmental – to refute terrorist propaganda, instil confidence in the public about government actions against terrorism and expose the illegitimacy of those who support and sponsor terrorist groups.

The media cannot arbitrarily outsource this process to itself. The jingoistic responses to the Uri attack and surgical strikes from certain sections of the media showed little evidence of an underlying core of strategic communication that involved the government in the dissemination of these messages. Atavistic calls for revenge and an eye-for-an-eye rhetoric – sounding chaotic and incoherent – blurred the focus on terrorism as the enemy of peace and development, as well as efforts to seek a settlement of outstanding issues with Pakistan through dialogue. The feelings of an outraged national audience may have been assuaged, but what about the rest of the region? Diplomacy’s purpose of influencing opinions beyond Indian shores was overtaken by hysterical displays of patriotic nationalism aimed at Indian viewers, listeners and other participants on various media platforms. Can this instil global confidence in India’s stated desire to be a real power on the global stage?

Civilians – the people in between

One important point that seemed to have been largely ignored was the fact that our quarrel is not with the Pakistani people – themselves victims of terrorism – but with the Pakistani state and its creation and support of anti-India terror groups. Of course, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his Kozhikode speech of September 24, did exhort the Pakistani people to fight poverty, illiteracy and infant mortality, saying, “let both countries fight to eradicate poverty and lets see who wins,” instead of listening to their leaders “reading out scripts written by terrorists on Kashmir.” Yet, by banishing Pakistani actors from Bollywood – because some sections of opinion in the country demanded it – we have achieved little but the further alienation of India in the minds of the common people and civil society in Pakistan. The latter are what Robert Gates once called – albeit in a different context – the people in between, neither friends nor complete adversaries, a group among which there are those who favour peaceful relations with India, although this number is yet nowhere near a critical mass. In any crisis situation short of war, keeping avenues of communication and interaction with public sentiment in the adversary’s society open cannot do harm. Here again, it would seem that the decision-making apparatus in the government allowed the guillotines to fall without timely intervention. Our struggle as a nation is not only to end that scourge without words – terrorism  – but also to build support for peace and negotiate settlements to problems in Pakistan, as well as the rest of South Asia. If India were to engage in more pre-emptive strikes, in the name of self-defence, to take out terror camps on the Pakistani side of the LoC, there is little the rest of the world could say or do to condemn such actions. The world would understand. But retribution practised in the cultural sphere or involving people-to-people interaction is rarely endorsed by anyone beyond a sympathetic national audience.

The issue here is that modern technology caters to different communities of interest – as we see on social media platforms today. As far as the government is concerned, when it comes to communication, everything planned and executed  should be done with the awareness that a global audience is networked into the domestic and that the world is watching and listening. The government has to function in a multi-tasking mode, it not only has to deal with the demands for ‘action’ from the national audience, but also handle the skepticism about our policies abroad (the world is tired of the 70-year-old feud between India and Pakistan but also worried about the threat of nuclear confrontation) and the need to articulate India’s policy goals clearly and cogently.

A new approach to communication

In today’s world of pervasive media, communication cannot be based on just firing ideas at people with a one size fits all perspective. We must understand that people are being influenced by the  “ecology” of ideas thrown at them from various sources. For the government narrative to predominate, it cannot just be a reactive one – one that reacts to a story disseminated in the media, or a call from the public. The government’s message has to set the tone and formulate content, it has to have the capacity to influence opinion in a lasting and credible manner. In other words, it has to be the story that leads.  And the story cannot be set in stone: it has to be constantly added to, amended and amplified to accommodate the government’s responses to different sections of opinion. It has to address questions of both war and peace. Traditional methods and content (for example, just collating evidence of terror attacks and Pakistan’s perfidy will not be enough. There must also be references to the persistent efforts made by India for peace with Pakistan; how Pakistan has egged on separatism in Kashmir and prevented the maturing of efforts by the Indian government to promote reconciliation and normalcy of life in the state and address the grievances of the population there). Each of these aspects needs to be highlighted and nuanced selectively depending on the audience addressed.

The Indian government needs a cadre of specialists in strategic communication, in policy articulation and projection who also cater to audiences well beyond the domestic audience, non-resident Indians and persons of Indian origin.  As a first step perhaps the government may consider setting up an office of strategic communication and coordination under the National Security Council, which coordinates inputs from the ministries of defence, external affairs, home as well as information and broadcasting and provides the direction and planning for the government’s information and communication outreach across various media platforms. Much greater global power and responsibility await India. The government must prime itself to project the country with more creativity, coherence, calculation, confidence and consistency of focus on long-term national goals than in decades past.

Nirupama Rao is a former Foreign Secretary and Ambassador. She served as the first woman spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs from 2001 to 2002.

The ICC Must Dispense Justice More Equitably Or Face an Exodus of African Countries

South Africa, Burundi and The Gambia have all left the international court in recent days after accusing it of a bias against Africa. The African Union is also calling for more countries to exit the court.

South Africa, Burundi and The Gambia have all left the international court in recent days after accusing it of a bias against Africa. The African Union is also calling for more countries to exit the court.

The entrance of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is seen in The Hague March 3, 2011. Credit: Jerry Lampen/Reuters

The entrance of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is seen in The Hague March 3, 2011. Credit: Jerry Lampen/Reuters/Files

The most accessed book in 2015 at the United Nations headquarters library was the Immunity of Heads of State and State Officials for International Crimes. The reason the book was popular, it has been argued, was because state representatives wished to know the nuances of the relevant law, given the possibility of their officials being taken to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for prosecution for crimes. South Africa’s recent decision to withdraw from the ICC, as well as The Gambia and Burundi‘s decision to leave raise significant questions on the idea of international justice in general and the ICC in particular.

Although South Africa’s decision to withdraw comes as a first, there has been a discussion among the African Union (AU) member states for some time about withdrawing from the court. There was even a proposal within the AU that sought a mass withdrawal of its member states from the ICC. Thus, despite the fact that only three states, out of the 124 states who are parties to the Rome Statute, have clearly expressed their withdrawal, this development has been taken seriously by those who are concerned with the prosecutions of international crimes. The president of the assembly of states who are party to the Rome Statute of the ICC stated: “Although withdrawing from a treaty is a sovereign act, I regret these decisions and invite South Africa and Burundi to reconsider their positions. I urge them to work together with other states in the fight against impunity, which often causes massive violations of human rights”.

It is certainly a setback to the idea of international criminal justice, which became concretised with the establishment of the permanent international criminal court. South Africa’s stated reason for its withdrawal is, as its minister had informed, that they “wish to give effect to the rule of customary international law, which recognises the diplomatic immunity of heads of state and others in order to effectively promote dialogue and the peaceful resolution of conflicts wherever they may occur, particularly on the African continent”. This situation arose particularly in the context of the president of Sudan, Omar Al-Bashir, against whom an arrest warrant issued by the ICC is pending. Al-Bashir’s visited South Africa to attend the African Union summit in 2015. South Africa was expected, as an obligation, to arrest and surrender him to the ICC, which it did not do. He was allowed to leave South Africa, despite an order by the high court in Pretoria to prevent him from leaving. The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the state’s appeal against the high court order. An appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal is pending before the constitutional court.

Though this seems to be the immediate legal reason for the South Africa’s withdrawal from the ICC, there are certain fundamental challenges for the court’s functioning that go beyond case specific issues.

Gap between criminal responsibility and causes of criminality

The inherent character of criminal prosecutions is that they confine themselves to actual acts of crime and only in a few circumstances do they go into the reasons behind the criminal acts for establishing the guilt. This inherent character of the criminal justice system has certain positive consequences as it confines criminality to the actual perpetrators only. However, extending this framework to international crimes seems to pose certain challenges to the understanding and application of the idea of international criminal justice.

The Rome Statute provides the ICC with jurisdiction over certain graves crimes (war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide) and is mainly intended to deal with bigger players in the perpetration of crimes. However, by their nature, most of the international crimes take place not as a result of individual planning and commission alone but with an involvement of large scale planning and participation in general. This large-scale nature of international crimes tends to be the consequence of a gross violation of human rights, mostly by the state machinery but also sometimes by non-state actors. The reasons for these crimes are often rooted in historical and political injustices. Thus the argument that Africa is being targeted by the ICC, as suggested by Burundi and The Gambia, is answered by saying that it is happening because the conflicts are occurring and crimes are taking place there. This arguably simplistic answer emanates from the fact that international crimes are delinked from the larger reasons and attributed to individuals alone. These individuals invariably happen to be the heads of state and government and other higher officials or heads of non-state actor groups.

While it is a fact that these individuals are allegedly at the forefront of the commission of these grave crimes, they are being seen as victims of the idea of international criminal justice at the instance of the western and developed countries. This may seem like diverting the attention from grave crimes, but what remains to be underlined is that the idea of international justice needs to be comprehensive to address the causes of conflicts along with addressing the consequences of conflicts i.e., international crimes. While discussing the referral of the Darfur situation to the ICC,in his book Saviours and Survivors: Darfur, Politics and the War on Terror, Mahmood Mamdani argues:

“….in the prosecutor’s mono-causal and one-dimensional version of history, colonialism turns into benign “tradition” and any attempt to reform the colonial legacy of tribal homelands is seen as a dress rehearsal building up to genocide…, just as any part of the historical record that suggests that the violence in Darfur has multiple causes… and thus multiple responsibilities is expunged from the record. Having assumed a single cause of excess deaths in Darfur-violence-the application goes on to ascribe responsibility to single source: what happened in Darfur is a consequence of Bashir’s will. This is demonisation masquerading as justice.”

Structurally biased ICC 

Another major factor of the ICC that invites criticism is that it is structurally biased. Along with other issues, the power of the UN Security Council to refer and defer a matter places certain states at an advantageous position. Paradoxically the UNSC has the power to refer a matter against a state that is not a party to the Rome Statute. This is what has happened in the case of Sudan and Libya. This goes against the notion of ‘consent of a state’, which is a fundamental tenet of treaty law. This structural bias reinforces the feeling that not only the emphasis on individual criminal responsibility overlooks the causes of international crimes, even the narrowly construed prosecution of international crimes is subjected to power politics. The net result of these factors is that the ICC ended up taking cases in African states, while ignoring the fact that similar grave situations exist in other parts of the world. This is where the withdrawals of South Africa, The Gambia and Burundi need to be contextualised.

For those concerned with the withdrawals, the ICC should strive, at the very least, to focus equally on all situations where serious allegations of international crimes are made. That itself would create necessary public opinion at the international level for states to remain with the ICC. In fact, this is the same public opinion and pressure that forced states to create the permanent ICC. This should happen along with expanding the scope of intentional justice by addressing the causes of the conflicts too. Otherwise, international criminal justice would be seen as only pursuing partial justice.

Srinivas Burra is an assistant professor, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University, New Delhi.

Reparations Owed for ‘Racial Terrorism’ Against African-Americans, Says UN Committee

A report by the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent made 35 diverse recommendations for black Americans from establishing sovereign human rights commissions to the reinstatement of voting rights of former felons.

A report by the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent made 35 diverse recommendations for black Americans from establishing sovereign human rights commissions to the reinstatement of voting rights of former felons.

A vigil for Ferguson at McGill University in Montreal in November 2014. Credit: Gerry Lauzon /Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

A vigil for Ferguson at McGill University in Montreal in November 2014. Credit: Gerry Lauzon/Flickr CC BY 2.0

UN: Stressing the enduring relationship between injuries inflicted by slavery and contemporary injustices, a UN committee has recently issued a strongly-worded call for reparations for black US Americans.

“A systemic ideology of racism ensuring the domination of one group over another continues to impact negatively on the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of African-Americans today,” said the UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent, in a report released in August.

So far this year 212 black people have been killed by the police in the US, according to statistics collected by The Guardian. This is almost a quarter of the total 883 people killed by the police in 2016, despite the fact that only 14.4% of US Americans are of African descent.

While only 6.5% of the US population are African-American men, they constitute 40.2% of prison populations, according to Ana DuVernay’s recent film 13TH. While one in 17 white men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime, one in three black men can expect to be incarcerated.

The group’s report, which focuses especially on police brutality against black Americans as “reminiscent of the past racial terror of lynching,” makes 35 diverse recommendations, from establishing sovereign human rights commissions to the reinstatement of voting rights of former felons.

Yet critics question whether the liberal human rights paradigm can adequately address this kind of cruelty and oppression, originating as it does in 20th century Europe, where fascism had recently taken root and in light of Europe’s own role in creating and perpetuating racial injustice.

“In the era of the Atlantic slave trade,” says Andrew Johnson, Professor of African-American Studies at Harvard University, “new notions of difference – absolute, racial notions of difference – were used to define, describe and justify the political economy of slavery,” articulating the centrality of racism in capitalist exploitation.

Demands for reparations have been largely ignored in the political mainstream. A bill, HR-40, introduced in 1989 to establish a commission examining the “fundamental injustice, cruelty” and brutality of slavery has gained little traction – though the UN committee recommends its passage through the Congress. Last year, then-presidential candidate democratic socialist Bernie Sanders dismissed the question of reparations saying that it wouldn’t get through Congress and would be “too divisive.”

Noting Sanders’ determination to push the boat out on issues of class, celebrated writer and proponent of reparations Ta-Nehisi Coates deplored this lack of political imagination: “I thought Sanders’s campaign might remind Americans that what is imminently doable and what is morally correct are not always the same things and while actualising the former we can’t lose sight of the latter,” Coates said.

He urged that class-based solutions are inappropriate to address “racial plunder” – borne out by the fact that the median income for African-American households ($36,898) is almost half their white counterparts ($62,950). The median value of total assets of black families, $4,900, versus white families, $97,000, reveals an even starker difference.

Movement for Black Lives

The Movement for Black Lives, a coalition of over 50 black-led organisations, has set out five key requests which would begin to restore what has been being stolen “since the time that the first black person was kidnapped from the shores of Africa,” in the words of Black Panther Angela Davis.

They focus especially on education, a particular site of harm since it was made illegal to teach enslaved people to read, a law which began in South Carolina in 1740 and was punishable by death in Louisiana. Since then, owing to redlining policies and explicit disinvestment in primarily black schools, African-Americans have continued to suffer from worse educational opportunities, with black students expelled at three times the rate of white students.

“You’re more likely to walk into your hallway and interact with a police officer – in a school – than a guidance counselor,” Kesi Foster, Coordinator at the Urban Youth Collaborative and contributor to the policy recommendations for the Movement for Black Lives’ demand for reparations, told Inter Press Service (IPS), saying that in New York, there is one guidance counselor for every 322 students, but a police officer for every 192 students.

These officers are more prevalent in schools with metal detectors, which are usually primarily non-white. Describing what is often called the ‘school-to-prison pipeline’, Foster says that reparative justice could begin by defunding the COPS programme which stations police in schools in line with the perception that black and brown males are “inherently dangerous”.

Reparations

After the end of the American Civil War in 1865, people who were formerly enslaved were given forty acres of tillable land – and, sometimes a mule. But after Abraham Lincoln’s assassination the same year, his successor Andrew Johnson reversed Lincoln’s directive for redistribution.

Calls for reparations have a long history proceeding from this date and have tended to focus on material restitution, which makes the Movement for Black Lives’ emphasis on education salient. “Not only is there no curriculum recognition about the real history of our country… but there’s also no cultural recognition,” Foster says. “In Germany and other places… where really atrocious things have taken place, there are markers.”

They call for “mandated public school curriculums that critically examine the political, economic and social impacts of colonialism and slavery and funding to support, build, preserve and restore cultural assets and sacred sites to ensure the recognition and honouring of our collective struggles and triumphs.”

It is clear that fulsome reparations for the continued atrocities perpetrated against people of African descent are not about to be freely given simply because whites are made to see the error of their ways. In the words of Mariame Kaba, organiser, educator and founder of Project NIA, speaking at a recent conference on the disproportionate effect the war on drugs has had on black communities, “the system can’t indict itself. You can’t think that the system that is killing you is going to save you.”

Kaba, who helped in the fight for plaintiffs’ justice in the Burge torture trials, discussed the extensive public apology that was eventually won by some of those Burge tortured and the history’s inclusion in Chicago’s curriculums, demonstrating the essential role honest expressions of responsibility can play in processes of healing for black communities who have been brutalised by the state.

But the movement’s foremost demand is for the “full and free access for all black people [including undocumented and currently and formerly incarcerated people] to lifetime education” in its every form, including the “retroactive forgiveness of student loans.”

Professor Harold McDougall, who teaches law at Howard University, has, among many others, argued for the necessity of black-only education. McDougall would like to see Historically Black Colleges and Universities, like Howard, funded to set up “Reparations Academies” for the descendants of people who were “damaged by educational racism”. This is a practical measure as much as it compounds Stokely Carmichael and Charles Hamilton’s view that “group solidarity is necessary before a group can operate effectively from a bargaining position of strength”.

McDougall, like others in this struggle, wears two hats: “you have to be able to firmly advance your point of view in the governance process, but even at that time to have your feet firmly grounded in the community, so that the broad-base of the population is continually informing your sense of what needs to be done,” he told IPS.

“When this is going to happen is not something we’re necessarily wrestling with,” Foster says. “For me, it’s more important [to ask]… how does this struggle lead us forward in a way that’s actually transformational and that’s actually trying to significantly change the material conditions that black people are living under, because of the way that the system was set up, which is to basically profit off of our bodies, profit off our labour and then give nothing back to us,” citing Chicago’s victory as an example.

Taking a long view, McDougall says that “it’s important to look at these struggles as multi-generational – the problems were not created in a generation. It is unlikely, although not impossible, that they will be solved in your lifetime, so what you do is you roll the ball forward for as long as you can.”

Indian Mythology Has a Problem With Disability

Our epics teach us to discriminate against disabled people by portraying them negatively and telling us their condition is because of sins committed in past lives.

Our epics teach us to discriminate against disabled people by portraying them negatively and telling us their condition is because of sins committed in past lives.

Sanjaya meets Dhritarashtra as his envoy for peace negotiations. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Sanjaya meets Dhritarashtra as his envoy for peace negotiations. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

It is said that one can find every aspect of life in the Mahabharata and if one doesn’t find what one want’s there, then there is little chance that one will find it elsewhere. But while it is true that the Mahabharata contains elements of philosophy, life, war, intellect, passion, jealousy and treachery, one element is not discussed as it should have been – disability. The character associated with it is Dhritarashtra, who is negatively portrayed throughout the text. In fact, many believe that he is to blame for the epic battle between the cousins (Pandavas and Kauravas) because he adamantly insisted that his son, Duryodhana, should be king after him, instead of the more worthy Yudhisthira.

Since very few people in India have actually read the Mahabharata, the don’t know about the character of Dhritarashtra before he became king – an aspect that has been cautiously kept hidden. Both Dhritarashtra and his step-brother Pandu had a very cordial relationship. Pandu, being the younger brother, held Dhritarashtra in very high-esteem – and the feeling was reciprocated.

Both were disciples of the great Bhishma, their uncle who was also looking after the administration of the kingdom since there was no king on the throne at the time. Bhishma himself couldn’t take the throne because of a vow he had made earlier in his life. Since Dhritarashtra was older, he was trained to be a king, while the younger brother, Pandu, was trained as a warrior and lead the army and became the senapati. Bhishma trained the brothers so the kingdom could go into safe hands.

Bhishma’s idea was sage, because Dhritarashtra was visually impaired from birth and thus couldn’t fight wars. He was trained in administration, management, decision-making, delivering justice – all very important aspects of being a king, while the aspect of war was left to Pandu, who could militarily assist his older brother. As a team, they could have achieved wonders.

But when Dhritarashtra was being crowned, Vidur, the young prime minister, who was also taught by Bhishma, objected to him becoming king. How can a blind man sit on the throne of a king, he had argued. How could the kingdom be a great empire if the king is blind? How could important decisions be made on the battlefield if the king is sitting safe in the capital?

Nobody said anything to Vidur’s questions because a king with a disability was unprecedented. As a result, Dhritarashtra had to step down; his disability was taken as his inability. Denied his rightful place, this became a turning point for Dhritarashtra and guided the person he was to become.

After a short period of time though, Dhritarashtra was made the king because Pandu left his throne and eventually died. It was only out of compulsion that Dhritarashtra was accepted as king. Had he been made king the first time around, he wouldn’t have been made as conscious about his ‘disability’. Now, he was a ‘sloppy second’, someone’s ‘reject’ and he knew this very clearly. Now the question is, when Dhritarashtra sat on the throne, was the Kaurava empire anything short of a mighty empire? Was the administration poor, were people unhappy, was justice not delivered? The answer is no, because Dhritarashtra had people like Bhishma around him, along with Vidur, who took care of the intricacies of administration.

All the wrongs began to emerge later, when his son Duryodhana was born. Dhirtarastra wanted him to be king after him, even though Duryodhana was unworthy, simply because he wanted to ‘undo’ the injustice done to him. He wanted to ensure that his son wouldn’t be a ‘sloppy second’ like him and that’s why his son was raised believing the throne was his birthright.

Nobody is born bad but it’s society which ‘makes’ or ‘breaks’ an individual. Our society just saw the bad person Dhritarashtra became, but turned a blind eye to what led him there. Since he was disabled, people who have historically discriminated against differently-abled people were further encouraged to justify their attitude towards differently-abled people.

One may wonder what mythology has to do in this context. Indian society is deeply affected by our mythology and its characters. The illiterate know about these stories. The impact of our mythology is such that people identify with the characters and inculcate values drawn from them into their own lives. The depiction and characterisation of disabled people in Indian mythology is extremely negative and people have used the stories to justify their discriminatory attitude against differently-abled people.

The case of Dhritarashtra is not just about a disabled person who has been depicted in poor light. If one looks at the Ramayana, the character of Manthara has also been demonised to a great extent. In fact, she has largely been blamed for sending Rama into exile for 14 years. Manthara was the maid of the queen, Kaikeyi, and is seen as instrumental in convincing the queen to ask Dasharatha to grant her the two boons that he had promised her a long time ago. Under Manthara’s influence, Kaikeyi asked the king to make his son Bharat the next king of Ayodhaya instead of Rama. However, some folktales point out how Manthara didn’t have anything to gain by sending Ram to exile. Instead, she suffered heavy public scrutiny that linked her character to her orthopaedic disability, because of which she couldn’t stand erect.

Mostly, our mythological texts have shown disabled people either as powerful, cunning and mischievous characters or as beggars in a state of extreme pain and poverty. Also, disability and mocking disability is justified in the name of sins carried from their previous births. Rarely does one come across portrayals of disabled characters in a positive light. One such character was Ashtavakra, who was physically disabled since birth. Born in a Brahmin family, he mastered the Vedas and other holy scriptures at an early age. He was mocked by the intellectuals in King Janaka’s court on account of his disability, where he had gone to participate in a shastrartha (philosophical debate).

Ultimately, he defeated his mockers and earned a lot of praise from everyone. But this story from the Chandogya Upanishad sets a dangerous precedent, if observed carefully. The subtext is that if you are intellectually capable, your physical disability doesn’t matter.  The moral seems to be that a disabled person has to be extraordinary to earn basic respect, a phenomenon that continues today.

The time has come to ask tough questions, to point out the wrong messages which have been disseminated by these texts and to re-interpret these texts in the light of the present day so that differently-abled people are not judged by the wrong morals of our mythological texts that relegate disability and disabled people to the margins.

About Downtime

Our unanticipated downtime on October 27 was resolved in 36 hours. We are working on developing solutions to ensure such a disruption does not happen again.

On the evening of October 27, traffic to The Wire had been on a particularly steep climb. At 1957 IST, a technical snag erupted with one of our servers, resulting in our systems not being able to serve more than a handful of readers at a time. The issues behind the snag were resolved in 36 hours, at 0133 IST on October 29. We are working on developing solutions to ensure such a disruption does not happen again.

In a Post-Truth Election, Clicks Trump Facts

More than just accounting for Donald Trump’s rise, the profit motive in the digital media game has made it easier to spread false or defamatory information.

More than just accounting for Donald Trump’s rise, the profit motive in the digital media game has made it easier to spread false or defamatory information.

Digital media has feasted off Donald Trump’s lies. Credits: Nick Lehr/The Conversation

Digital media has feasted off Donald Trump’s lies. Credits: Nick Lehr/The Conversation CC BY-SA

One thing about the 2016 presidential race is undeniable: Donald Trump has lied or misled at an unprecedented level. Over 70% of his statements, according to PolitiFact, are “mostly false”, “false” or “pants on fire false.” (Hillary Clinton is at 26%.)

His latest whopper – that the election is being rigged by a dishonest media and through ballot fraud – fed the news cycle for an entire week.

But while Trump scapegoats the media, he has served them well – at least, financially. Cable news organisations are expected to break records with $2.5 billion in profits this election and spending on digital ads will reach $1 billion for the first time in a presidential campaign. NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik recently reported that CNN has earned roughly $100 million more than they’d anticipated during this election cycle – largely due to Trump.

With Trump’s poll numbers cratering over the past month, conservative media figures like Bill Kristol have tried to keep the top of the ticket from bringing down the GOP brand, calling Trump a “fluke” candidate and trying to shift the blame to the media for fomenting his rise – and nauseating lies – with billions of dollars in free coverage.

As a media scholar who has followed Trump’s “reality show” campaign and its impact on TV ratings and democracy, I would say there is, indeed, plenty of reason to blame the media players who have shrugged all the way to the bank.

More than just accounting for his rise, the profit motive in the digital media game has made it easier than ever before to spread false or defamatory information.

Poisoning the well

The media have always been eager to cover Trump, a playboy business magnate whose ventures endured wild ups and downs. He spent years on The Howard Stern Show honing his shock jock persona, bragging about his sexual conquests and insulting public figures. On The Apprentice, the louder he yelled “You’re fired!”, the higher his ratings soared. Audiences seemed to be drawn to his conspicuously cocksure authoritarian persona.

He also understands a basic tenet of for-profit media: The only “truth” is that you can’t be boring.

As Trump moved into the political arena, he beguiled old and new media into covering him by saying outrageous things – truth be damned – knowing that controversial statements draw immediate coverage.

In the wake of controversy, there’s usually a segment on cable news shows where a candidate or surrogate gets free air time to explain what they meant, followed by someone who refutes it. Analysts or op-ed writers will then devote time to denouncing the statement with attention-grabbing headlines like ‘15 Hours of Donald Trump’s Lies‘ (after Trump spent a day making stuff up about the Khan family) or ‘The Lies Trump Told‘ (a list of his biggest fibs).

The problem isn’t just that these articles keep the attention focused on Trump, reinforcing his chosen topics and frames for talking about them. It’s also been well-documented that the very act of trying to explain or denounce a lie can reinforce it.

We know from studies of how anti-vaccination myths spread that each time a telegenic spokesperson repeats a lie – even in a segment designed to correct it – it becomes more familiar to audiences. Paradoxically, because people tend to equate familiarisation with truth, the more a lie is called out for being a lie, the more difficult it becomes to parse from the truth.

Digital media platforms exacerbate this problem because revenue models incentivize clicks over truth. In digital capitalism attention has been monetised. The more outrageous the statement, the more clicks it generates.

These days, even legacy media – newspapers like the New York Times or the Washington Post – follow the data buzz and cover whatever is trending. Trump has mastered using Twitter, a medium that suits his blunt invective rhetoric, to kickstart the misinformation feedback loop. He knows his colorful and misleading statements get retweeted by friends and foes alike – that writers and performers will react with ardent confirmation, denunciation or dramatic satire.

The dawn of the Twitter bots

A team led by Oxford University professor Philip Howard has also been able to show that there are Twitter bots – fake accounts programmed to behave like impassioned supporters – promoting each presidential candidate during this cycle. But Trump’s army vastly outnumbers Clinton’s, with millions of tweets and retweets that have been programmed to include hashtags like #CrookedHillary, memes, photographs and links to hyperpartisan Facebook “news” pages like Eagle Rising.

With 62% of Americans getting their news from social media and 44 million reading it on Facebook pages, these bots can easily promulgate lies and half-truths, especially when users aren’t able to recognise the source.

Meanwhile, Buzzfeed recently wrote a lengthy report about how content producers of hyperpartisan Facebook pages are growing their audiences by eschewing factual reporting and using false or misleading information that simply tells people what they want to hear.

After fact checking over 1,000 posts from pages categorised as “right-wing” or “left-wing,” they found that 38% of the content on Trump-friendly pages like Freedom Daily – with 1.3 million fans – were either half-true or false. These phony stories, especially outrageous ones like the fable of Clinton’s “body double,” generate massive digital traffic that adds directly to Facebook’s bottom line. These pages are not flukes. Rather, as media writer John Herrman wrote in the New York Times Magazine, they are “the purest expression of Facebook’s design and of the incentives coded into its algorithm.”

Toward a new media ethic

A 2009 study found that commercialised media lower the political knowledge of viewers. The price we pay for a profit-driven media marketplace, it seems, is national ignorance.

Convenient untruths benefit their producers, no matter which side consumes or leverages them for fundraising. Everyone in the political information industry profits from the resulting suspicion, cynicism and outrage.

If Trump loses, the possibility of Trump TV looms; undoubtedly, it will serve the for-profit media a steady stream of ready-made rage. But we need to think hard about how to resist this “Trumpification” of the media.

There’s no easy answer. It would probably involve supporting structural reforms like non-profit or public news alternatives. It would include ending the absurd practice of giving paid perjurers representing campaigns an opportunity to lie in the name of journalistic “fairness” – as if statements from the “spinroom” are ever uttered in good faith.

We need a new media ethic that ignores clickbait calumny, not one that gives bad faith actors a chance to repeat it. Journalists must resist reacting like Twitter bots. Rather than predictably repeating mendacious falsehoods that increase our ignorance, they should act as stewards of the public interest, choosing news content and media frames that add to our collective understanding.

It will demand denying serial liars like Trump the attention they so desperately need, leaving more air and space for truth to be heard.

The Conversation

Matthew Jordan is an associate professor of media studies at Pennsylvania State University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.