‘Enforced Nationalism’ Debate Rears Head Again, this Time at University in J&K

Authorities at the Islamic University of Science & Technology reportedly told students attending a convocation rehearsal that if they are not prepared to stand up during the national anthem, they should ‘sit at home’.

Srinagar: The ‘enforced nationalism’ debate that started some years ago when some moviegoers were attacked in Delhi and Bangalore for not standing up when the national anthem was played has once again reared its head, this time in the Islamic University of Science Technology (IUST).

Though it was established in 2005 at Awantipora, some 28 kilometres from Srinagar, the university will hold its first-ever convocation on March 1. And the IUST authorities have reportedly asked students to maintain protocol by standing up for the national anthem or else “sit at home”.

Students who have been invited to the convocation allege that during rehearsals at the Sher-i-Kashmir International Conference Centre (SKICC) in Srinagar, the venue for the convocation, they were asked to stand up for the national anthem or “stay at home and your medals will be sent there”.

Around 268 students and alumni, who were toppers during their time at the university, have been invited to the convocation.

While University Grants Commission (UGC) chairman D.P. Singh, will be chief guest, Jammu and Kashmir lieutenant general Manoj Sinha, who is also chancellor of the university, will attend the convocation.

A student who was present during the rehearsal, which was held on February 25, told The Wire, “In front of all the students, they told us in strict words, ‘Don’t create problems for us. If you don’t want to stand up for the national anthem, sit at home, we will send your gold medal to your home’.”

Representative image of Islamic University of Science & Technology. Photo: iust.ac.in

Several students told The Wire that they are not comfortable with the university’s diktat, saying it should be up to them to stand up for the national anthem or not.

“I don’t believe in nationalism and when a state is repressive, I won’t respect it. Even if we go by the constitution, Article 51(a) [fundamental duties] does not direct that citizens should stand up for the national anthem. It says that it is every citizen’s duty to ‘abide by the constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the national flag and the national anthem’,” one student told The Wire, wishing anonymity.

He said the constitution, under Article 19(a) and Article 25(1), gives freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. “And my conscience does not allow me to stand up for the national anthem,” the student said.

He also said that in any case, fundamental rights have more weight in the constitution than fundamental duties. “They [rights] are enforceable in courts, but fundamental duties are not enforceable,” the student said.

The Supreme Court in a January 2018 order said that if the national anthem is played, people must show respect by standing up. In its verdict, it cited a 2015 Union home ministry order which said. “Whenever the [national anthem] is sung or played, the audience shall stand to attention.”

The same court judgment revised an interim order from 2016, which made playing the national anthem in cinema halls mandatory before the start of a movie. That order faced criticism for promoting “aggressive hyper-nationalism“. Concerns were also expressed after a disabled person was assaulted for not standing up.

‘People face bullying’

Given the Valley’s fragile political ecosystem, Kashmiris who take part in ‘national’ activities or political movements are seen as acquiescing in the Centre’s treatment of the region and even as “traitors” by separatist and militant groups.  People have said that they face bullying and boycotts over such actions. At the height of militancy, demonstrating overt support for national activities has even cost people their lives.

These fears are paramount in the minds of students and alumni who will participate in the convocation, as they want to avoid being shunned by Kashmiri civil society. They are upset with the university’s direction in the current situation.

“When I mentioned this [the requirement to stand up for the national anthem] to my friends, they gave me an ugly look. They bullied me for agreeing to receive the medal in this manner. People question these things, saying I am standing up for something that is associated with oppression in the Valley,” a student, requesting anonymity, told The Wire.

Some said that even their families have told them their stand on the sensitive issue.

However, the students fear that they might be caught between a rock and hard place. “If I do not stand up, I fear I will be charged under draconian laws like the Unlaful Activities (Prevention) Act. Going by the trend in India, Kashmiris are soft targets for such things. They will charge you with any stringent law. So, if people will stand up, out of coercion, I too have to,” said a student. “But I am sure if anyone among us prefers to sit, there will be repercussions.”

He pointed out that when the national anthem was played in the SKICC auditorium during the rehearsal, most students stood up reluctantly. “No one stood up abruptly when the national anthem was played. It was later that the university told us to stand when the national anthem is played,” said a student.

The government has appointed an inter-ministerial committee to frame guidelines for playing the national anthem at public places. Credit: PTI

People stand in a movie theatre as the national anthem plays. Photo: PTI

‘Maintain protocol and decorum’, says registrar

However, IUST’s registrar, Naseer Iqbal, speaking to The Wire, denied telling students that if they do not plan to stand for the anthem, they should not bother to attend the convocation. “We have said maintain the protocol and decorum of the convocation,” he said.

Iqbal explained that playing the national anthem is part of the protocol of the convocation. “Islamic University is holding its first convocation despite existing for the last fifteen years. We do not want to have any issue during the convocation and that is why we have told them to follow the protocol,” he said.

Explaining the rationale, Iqbal said it will “not look nice” if the students continue to sit, because they are gold medalists. “They have come to receive the gold medals and they are supposed to maintain protocol,” Iqbal told The Wire.

In 2016, IUST had planned to hold its first convocation. It was cancelled due to the unrest sparked by the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Wani.

Some alumni have also questioned the timing of the convocation, raising concerns over the decision taken by the university amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The university could not hold the convocation for 15 years. I am surprised at the timing. This is a political move, through which the administration wants to portray that everything is ‘normal’ here,” said an alumnus.

Kaisar Andrabi is an independent journalist from Kashmir and tweets at @KAndrabi.

Watch: What Are the New Government Guidelines for Social Media and OTT Platforms?

Explaining the new rules.

Are there any preparations to crack down on social media? Does the government want to control social media? Will the content of OTT platforms like Netflix, Amazon Prime be censored now or do the guidelines for social media and OTT services mean something else?

In this video, we will answer all these questions.

Bengal: As Left and Congress Ally With Muslim Cleric’s Party, Will BJP Be the Winner?

Even as the Left and Congress have rejected claims that Abbas Siddiqui is a ‘communal force, some within the alliance believe that his presence might ease the BJP’s strategy to polarise Hindu voters.

Kolkata: A huge banner put up on the dais of the Left and the Congress’s joint rally at Kolkata’s Brigade Parade ground, the venue for the state’s largest political gatherings over decades, had written on it: “Amrai Bikalpa. Amrai Dharmanirapeksha. Amrai Bhobishyat.” It meant, “We are the alternative. We are secular. And we are the future.”

On Saturday night, the eve of the historic first joint-rally of the Left and the Congress at this venue, a photo of the dais under preparation was shared on the Facebook page ‘Bharatiya Bigyan O Yuktibadi Samiti’ (Science and Rationalists’ Association of India), an organisation preaching atheism that has previously shown leftist bend of thought in its social media posts. In this post, the photo had the words “dharamnirapeksha” circled in red, accompanied by caustic comments ridiculing the claim of being secular.

The reason for this jibe from people belonging to the leftist school of thought is one and only – the two parties are on their way to sealing an electoral deal with the newly formed Indian Secular Front (ISF), initiated by Muslim cleric Abbas Siddiqui, who is also one of the prime speakers in the Brigade rally.

Though Siddiqui has named his organisation Indian Secular Front, it has earned the reputation of being a fundamentalist group, largely due to comments he made during the myriad religious speeches he has delivered over the previous years and even the recent ones. He belongs to the popular pilgrimage site of Furfura Sharif.

Siddiqui was initially in talks with Asaduddin Owasi’s party, the Hyderabad-based All India Majlis Ittehad e Muslimeen, which has decided to enter the Bengal election foray, for an alliance. However, after the Left and the Congress reached out to him for tying up instead, Siddiqui seems to have dumped Owaisi and chosen his new allies.

Abbas Siddiqui, an influential cleric of Hooghly’s Furfura Sharif, launches his new party Indian Secular Front, ahead of West Bengal elections, in Kolkata, Thursday, Jan. 21, 2021. Photo: PTI/Ashok Bhaumik

Siddiqui, popularly known among his followers as ‘Bhaijaan’, has been making news over the past several months with his speeches criticising the state’s Trinamool Congress (TMC) regime during his religious events. Apart from the crowd at and temperament of Abbas Siddiqui events, what has been drawing the attention of the media, including social media, was his hardly worded speeches targeting the Mamata Banerjee government for her alleged betrayal of the Muslim community, as well as the Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

Among some of his controversial comments were the one against the TMC’s Basirhat MP, the actor-turned political Nusrat Jahan, saying she earns money “by showing [her] body“. He had controversially said, following the New Delhi riots in 2020, that Allah should send a virus to India so that crores could die; it did not matter even if he himself died. Siddiqui later said his speech was used out of context but tendered an apology nevertheless.

While forming the party, he included representatives of the Dalit and tribal communities. He seems to enjoy considerable popularity in parts of south Bengal districts such as South 24-Parganas, North 24-Parganas, Hooghly, Howrah, Burdwan and Birbhum. His brother, Naushad, is the chairman of ISF and Simal Soren, a member of a tribal community, is the president.

The Left has, over the past few months, repeatedly said that they did not consider Siddiqui to be a communal force. “He is raising the issues of the common people, the poor masses, not the issues of any particular community,” the CPI(M) state secretary Surjya Kanta Mishra said in January. CPI(M) politburo member Md Salim, echoed the same.

Also read: What TMC’s Heckling of a Muslim Cleric Tells Us About Bengal Politics and ‘Minority Appeasement’

“Spreading misinformation about the ISF is part of a well-thought-out conspiracy being played out over the past four months. The hand-outs to the media came from the office of the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh). The party is named Indian Secular Front. Its president is Simal Soren. We have agreed to leave some seats for them, we have asked our partners to give some seats to this new political force. We have also asked ISF to come to an understanding with the Congress. A section of the media is playing a deliberate role to ensure the alliance does not take shape,” Salim said in February.

Over February, leaders from the CPI(M) and the Congress have held several rounds of discussions with Siddiqui to come to a seat-sharing agreement. Siddiqui has been trying to seal a hard bargain, demanding about 30 of the state’s 294 assembly seats. The Left is trying hard to convince the Congress and the ISF to come to a reasonable settlement. The ISF has even demanded from the Left the Nandigram seat in East Midnapore district, where chief minister Mamata Banerjee has decided to contest against the BJP’s probable candidate, outgoing MLA Suvendu Adhikari. There is a possibility that the Left may agree to allot Nandigram to the ISF.

Many reactions

But the Left and the Congress’s moves have seen myriad reactions, as it appears to a section of people that the BJP would be the biggest gainer from such a deal.

The BJP, indeed, has been quite happy with the developments around Siddiqui.

“It would have benefited us even if Siddiqui struck a deal with the AIMIM. It would have not only split Mamata’s Muslim vote bank but also helped us polarise the Hindus against the rise of Muslim fundamentalism. Now that Siddiqui has found a bigger patron than Owaisi, it should be even better for us. If all the parties are appeasing Muslim fundamentalists, who other than us can protect the Hindus?” asked a BJP Lok Sabha MP who did not want to be named.

According to filmmaker Aniket Chattopadhyay, who is part of a civil society initiative called ‘Bengal against Fascist BJP-RSS’ that is campaigning with the slogan of “no vote to BJP”, the Left and the Congress’s attempt has been aimed at weakening Mamata Banerjee’s Muslim support base, but it would also help the BJP in a different way.

Mamata Banerjee. Photo: PTI

“The Left has damaged its secular credentials. It will help the BJP’s narrative of Muslim appeasement by other parties. Siddiqui has made too many regressive and controversial comments in the past not to be considered a fundamentalist and communal force,” Chattopadhyay said.

Political analyst Sabyasachi Basu Ray Chaudhuri, a professor of political science at Rabindra Bharati University (RBU) in Kolkata, felt that even if the Left-Congress-ISF alliance fail to significantly damage the TMC’s support base among the Muslim community, the alliance would help the BJP’s purpose of Hindu polarisation.

“Abbas Siddiqui’s many comments in the past had triggered controversies, leading to many calling him a fundamentalist force. The alliance is likely to dent the Left’s secular credentials in the public mind and may shepherd anti-TMC Hindu votes towards the BJP,” Basu Ray Chaudhuri said.

Theatre activist Joyraj Bhattacharya, who is supporting the alliance and has created cultural content for Sunday’s Brigade Parade Ground rally, disagrees. “There can, of course, be political opposition about Siddiqui but things that are being said referring to ‘Abbas Bhaijaan’ are not against him alone but against a whole community. This is against the Muslim identity. Until a few weeks ago, this was the rhetoric of the saffron bigots. They used to call Mamata Banerjee as Mamata Begum,” Bhattacharya wrote on Facebook.

“This is purely anti-Muslim cultural propaganda that the Sangh parivar has managed to spread with such force that the Hindu middle-class liberals are doing the rest now,” he added.

Another senior CPI(M) leader, who did not want to be named, argued that bringing Siddiqui out of an alliance with the ‘communal AIMIM’ was a necessary task keeping Bengal’s political future in mind. “If we stood bystanders while AIMIM created its grounds in Bengal keeping Siddiqui in front, it would have been a political blunder.”

Over the past few months, several Muslim leaders from the TMC’s ranks have termed Siddiqui as a communal and fundamentalist force, while Siddiqui also faced heckling by TMC supporters at some places.

“The Left, the Congress, the BJP and these so-called protectors of Muslim interest are working together to topple of Mamata Banerjee government and usher in a rule of the BJP,” alleged state library minister Siddiqullah Chowdhury, who also heads the Bengal chapter of Jamiat Ulama e Hind, a pan-India organisation of Muslim scholars and clerics.

Also read: Bengal: Can the Furfura Sharif Cleric’s New Party Erode TMC’s Support Base?

BJP lashes out

The BJP, predictably, has lashed out at the Left and the Congress. “What the Left has done is unpardonable. They have created space for a fundamentalist and regressive force in mainstream politics. This is similar to the Left’s role in 1946 of aligning with the Muslim League. The Left and Congress have now even surpassed the TMC in playing divisive politics,” said Rantidev Sengupta, the editor of the RSS’ Bengali organ, Swastika, and the chief of Bengal BJP’s intellectual cell.

Sengupta, however, denied the BJP was planning to polarise the Hindus. “We are not dividing people. We want to free Bengal from corruption, lack of democracy and the politics of appeasement. We want development for all. The TMC, the Left and the Congress are dividing the people in the name of community and they all lie exposed,” he said.

On social media, references to 1946 – a year remembered for pre-Partition communal violence – is gaining prominence.

Another senior BJP leader, who did not want to be identified, said, “We were worried that a revived Left-Congress alliance could manage to take back some of their traditional votes that came to us in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. Now we are hopeful Hindu Left supporters who voted for us would not go back to the Left.”

A BJP campaign rally in West Bengal. Photo: Twitter/@BJP4Bengal

Going by the booth-level analysis of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections in which the Left’s vote share came down from 29% (in 2014) to 7%, the Left’s traditional votes in Hindu-dominated areas went to the BJP. But in Muslim-dominated areas, they went to the TMC. The Left got negligible Muslim votes in most parts of the state, except for some pockets in Uttar Dinajpur, Malda and Murshidabad.

Siddiqui, nevertheless, did not get support from all sections of Furfura Sharif, which has traditionally held some influence over Muslim society over the past years. His uncle, Tawha Siddiqui, so-long the most known cleric from this pilgrimage site, stands by the TMC. A majority of the state’s Muslim social leaders, too, appear to be standing by Mamata Banerjee’s party.

In Bengal, where Muslims constituted 27% of the population in 2011, the share of their votes play a crucial role in forming the government and Mamata Banerjee’s party is quite heavily dependent on the consolidation of Muslim votes in its favour. While so far its main challenge was to win over the Muslim votes from the Left and the Congress in the three Muslim-majority districts of Murshidabad, Malda and Uttar Dinajpur, the new political equation adds the challenge of retaining the Muslim votes they got in South 24-Parganas, North 24-Parganas, Birbhum, Howrah and Hooghly.

On Sunday, during the Brigade rally, Siddiqui certainly appeared as a star speaker. When he entered the venue, the Congress’s Lok Sabha leader and state unit president Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury was delivering his speech. Chowdhury had to stop his speech because of the cheer Siddiqui’s arrival triggered among the gathering.

Supporters during a joint rally of Left, Congress and Indian Secular Front (ISF), ahead of West Bengal assembly polls in Kolkata, February 28, 2021. Photo: PTI/Ashok Bhaumik

Left supporters, however, appeared in two minds about the prospect of joining hands with Siddiqui. While one section thought the firebrand cleric’s entry had added new energy and power to the third front, others were apprehensive that taking a religious leader to the front could hurt the sentiments of their Hindu supporters.

“We may manage to get back some of the Muslim votes that went to the TMC but I am not sure if this would help us recover the Hindu votes that went to the BJP,” said a CPI(M) supporter from Hooghly district who requested anonymity because he did not want to publicly criticise the party.

The Murder Chicago Didn’t Want to Solve

In 1963, a Black politician named Ben Lewis was shot to death in Chicago. Clues suggest the murder was a professional hit. Decades later, it remains no accident authorities never solved the crime.

ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.

The man who called me, a long-retired Chicago police officer, was alternately charming and curt. He insisted he had nothing to do with the murder.

“All the things you wrote in your letter to me are not true,” he said, speaking slowly, his voice occasionally shaky. “Everything in there is a fucking lie.”

In the letter, I had asked him about a murder I’d been examining: the unsolved killing of a prominent Black politician in Chicago. I had reason to think he knew something about it.

On Feb. 26, 1963, Ben Lewis, the first Black elected official from Chicago’s West Side, won what was set to be his second full term on the City Council. Lewis, 53, appeared to be climbing the political ladder. Newspapers were reporting talk — encouraged by the alderman himself — that his next stop would be Congress, a move that would have made him one of the highest-profile Black politicians in the country.

Two days later, Lewis was found shot to death in his ward office.

A maintenance worker found Lewis’s body, sprawled facedown behind his desk, wearing a business suit, arms extended beyond his head, his wrists handcuffed. The index and middle fingers of his right hand still held a cigarette, long burned out. A bloodstained couch cushion covered his head.

As police questioned Lewis’s wife and girlfriends, word leaked that he had been threatened by a jealous husband. Newspapers reported that, like other politicians, he had done business with gamblers and mobsters. Investigators soon concluded that a police sergeant was likely the last person who had talked to Lewis, fueling speculation that cops were involved. But the investigation soon went cold.

Nearly six decades later, no one has been brought to justice for executing Lewis, thought to be the last elected official murdered in Chicago. Officially, the case is still open, but Ben Lewis has faded from public memory.

Several years ago, after conversations with longtime West Side residents, I began to realise that the case was more than just a troubling episode from the past. For many, it remained an open wound. Lewis was killed at a time when white officials and gangsters worked to control and profit from Black communities in Chicago, often through violence. It isn’t hard to see a straight line to the neglect and disinvestment that continues to devastate those neighbourhoods. Though forgotten by many, the Ben Lewis murder case illustrates Chicago’s enduring legacy of political corruption, police misconduct and systemic racism.

To report this story, I interviewed dozens of people and examined thousands of pages of records from local and federal law enforcement agencies as well as court files, political archives and other historical documents. I’ve concluded it was no accident authorities never solved Lewis’ murder. Hampered by political pressures and racial stereotyping, authorities repeatedly passed up chances to investigate crime figures, politicians and police who likely had knowledge of the murder — and may have been involved in committing it.

Eventually, my search brought me to the retired officer. He confirmed that he had known Lewis. He said he had even been interviewed during the initial investigation. When I asked if he was involved, he denied it and said he passed two lie detector tests.

“I swear to God, on everything that’s holy, that I had nothing to do with the killing of Ben Lewis,” he told me.

But he said he knew why Lewis was murdered and who was behind it.

“I was — I don’t want to use the word fortunate, but I happened to be present and knowledgeable of certain circumstances where I know what transpired,” he said.

He wouldn’t say anything else. What he knew, he said, could only be revealed after he was dead.

After we hung up, I had the feeling that everything he said could be true — or that none of it was.

Symbol of hope

Looking back, it’s hard not to see Lewis’ rise in politics as a long, doomed fight for power.

Most of the stories about his political background came from reporters who heard them from either Lewis or other political operatives. These sources typically had an interest in portraying Lewis as a leader of his people, rooted in the community; or as a hustler and a player, claiming to advocate for young people and civil rights while looking for ways to profit from his position. The conflicting pictures were each grounded in truth but overstated. Lewis was both respected and manipulated. He projected strength even while forced to follow orders, and was well liked and gregarious though in the end a mystery even to many who spent time with him.

He was born Benjamin Franklin Lewis in 1909 in Macon, Georgia. When he was 4, his mother moved north with him and his brother, stopping in New Jersey before settling on Chicago’s South Side. In 1919, the neighbourhood exploded in a weeklong race riot that left 38 people dead. Soon after, Lewis’ mother packed up the family and moved to the predominantly Jewish and immigrant Maxwell Street area on the Near West Side.

Lewis later told the Chicago Defender, then one of the nation’s leading Black-owned newspapers, that he and his family were the first Black residents in the area. By some accounts, he had grown up around so many Jewish people that he could speak Yiddish. Years later, Lewis stressed his friendships with white kids as well as the threats he sometimes faced. “I learned to run before I learned to walk because I was the first Negro to live in my neighbourhood,” he said.

During the Depression, Lewis worked as a labourer for President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration; later he had a shovel, which he said was from his first WPA job, mounted on his office wall. He served in the US Army during World War II, and after his discharge held a range of jobs including elevator operator, union organiser and bus driver.

According to newspaper stories, Lewis got started in politics by volunteering for the Republican organisation in what was then known as the “Bloody” 20th Ward. Encompassing much of the Near West Side, the ward had been controlled by the city’s crime syndicate since the days of Al Capone. Eventually, the area was redrawn as part of the 1st Ward, but it continued to be dominated by the Outfit, as the syndicate was called. People who knew Lewis said he maintained ties there the rest of his life.

Around 1950, Lewis moved farther west, to the 24th Ward. Based in the Lawndale neighbourhood, the ward was starting to lose its Jewish voters as they moved to less congested areas on the North Side and in the suburbs. At the same time, African-Americans looked for new opportunities in Lawndale after leaving the crowded South Side or the deep South.

Lewis was recruited to the ward, according to one story, by his former classmate Erwin “Izzy” Horwitz, a rising star in the local Democratic organisation. By other accounts, politicians tied to the Outfit engineered the move and essentially agreed to sponsor Lewis’ political career. The 24th Ward, like much of the city, was dominated by Democrats, and Lewis switched parties when given the chance to climb the ranks.

True power in the Democratic machine rested not with aldermen but with the committeemen, party officers who led the ward organisations and dispensed the patronage jobs that went with them. Many ran real estate and insurance firms; local business owners understood that if they wanted to stay open, it was wise to work with these ward bosses.

In the 24th Ward, Black voters were beginning to demand more representation. By 1951, committeeman Arthur X. Elrod, who was white, had picked Lewis as the ward’s first Black precinct captain. Six years later, when the ward’s seat on the City Council opened up, Elrod decided the time had come for the 24th to have a Black alderman. More than 80% of ward residents were Black by then, and it was widely known that Elrod no longer lived there himself, having moved to the North Side. Critics derisively called such absentee leadership “plantation politics.”

With the backing of the Democratic ward organisation, Lewis was elected alderman in a romp in 1958 and reelected to a full term a year later. In 1961, after Elrod and a white successor died, Mayor Richard J. Daley tapped Lewis to be the first Black committeeman on the West Side.

Many Black residents saw Lewis’ climb as a hopeful sign. “There was a sense that maybe change was in the air,” recalled US Representative Danny Davis, at the time a graduate student who was just learning about Chicago politics after migrating from Arkansas to the Lawndale neighbourhood. “We were moving into power. We’ve got our own guy who represents us.”

Lewis projected an air of cool confidence. At 6 feet, he was tall and thin, wearing expensive suits and driving a Buick Wildcat sport coupe. “Some folks say that he was cocky, that he was braggadocious, that he was kind of fast-moving,” Davis said.

Yet beneath his bravado, Lewis was fighting to gain control of the ward. Most of its precinct captains and patronage workers were still white; Lewis promised to start bringing on more Black workers who lived in the neighbourhood but offered no timetable. Horwitz, installed by Daley as the county’s building commissioner, oversaw his own patronage jobs and was viewed by many as the real ward boss. Meanwhile, Elrod’s old insurance firm was squeezing Lewis out of what was a lucrative side business.

Some of Lewis’ own ward workers wondered whether he had any real authority. “The Jewish people ran the 24th Ward organisation, and they picked Ben Lewis because they figured he could be worked with,” said Fred L. Mitchell, 91, a precinct captain who held a patronage position as a bailiff downtown.

Lewis also faced a host of deepening problems in the ward. Though the neighbourhood’s main commercial corridor along Roosevelt Road was still thriving, a growing number of homes and buildings in the ward had been neglected or divided up into crowded apartments. Troubled neighbourhood teenagers had formed street gangs. And Lewis, along with other aldermen, was under pressure to speak out about school segregation and overcrowding that forced thousands of Black students to attend classes in shifts.

But it was clear that Daley and his machine offered little room for independence. When Lewis finally called for new schools leadership, the mayor summoned him to a meeting. Afterward, reporters asked him again if the superintendent should go. He backed down.

“No comment,” Lewis said.

Still, Lewis crushed his challenger by a count of 12,422 votes to 931 during the first round of city elections on Feb. 26, 1963.

That evening, Lewis ran into a friend from childhood, police officer Eugene Belton, who joked about leaving the force to work as Lewis’ bodyguard. Lewis assured Belton, “I don’t need a bodyguard.”

Robert Shaw, one of the ward organisation’s precinct captains, said he talked with Lewis at a neighbourhood restaurant the next day. They discussed a recent Defender story in which Lewis all but declared his intention to run for the US House.

“I said, ‘It looks like you’re on your way to Congress,’” recalled Shaw, 83, who later served as a Chicago alderman. “And he said, ‘I’m sitting here whittling my sticks.’”

Shaw understood: Lewis was just waiting to make his move.

A lack of evidence

When Belton saw the suit, he knew. The dead man was Lewis.

Belton happened to be the first officer to arrive at Lewis’ office after a maintenance worker found the body on the morning of Feb. 28, 1963. Belton reported finding a few bullet casings on the floor, but otherwise the office was in order. Souvenirs from Lewis’ political career, including an autographed photo of President John F. Kennedy, decorated the room.

When the office phone rang, Belton picked it up. It was Lewis’ wife, Ella. She was surprised to hear Belton’s voice, according to testimony from her and Belton during a coroner’s inquest.

“Well, Mrs Lewis, we’ve had a little trouble here,” Belton said.

“What kind of trouble?”

“A shooting.”

“Ben — did he get hurt?” she asked. “Is he shot? Did you take him to the hospital?”

“No,” Belton said.

“Is he dead?”

“Yes.”

Lewis had been shot three times in the back of the neck and head with what investigators determined was a .32-caliber revolver.

Police found small amounts of blood on an air conditioner and television in Lewis’ office, as well as on the right side of the stairs leading down from it. The evidence suggested that the killer or killers had probably entered the building through the back door, which had been found ajar.

Less than three hours after police started going over the crime scene, they allowed reporters to examine it. Photographers took close-up pictures of Lewis’ lifeless body before it was transported to the morgue, where he was identified by his only child, his adult daughter, Joan.

Lewis’s death became a national news story, with headlines proclaiming that Chicago was back to its old gangster ways — the kind of bad press that made Daley irate. As the news spread, people came up with their own theories to explain why Lewis had been slain. Mitchell, the 24th Ward precinct captain, remembered that he was at his job at City Hall when he heard about the murder.

“A guy came in and told me, ‘Ben Lewis got killed last night,’” Mitchell recalled. “And I said, ‘What? What happened?’ And he said, ‘The syndicate killed him.’”

People speculated that someone may have taken Lewis out in a dispute over gambling, possibly involving policy, the illegal lottery games that generated big money in many wards. Some Lewis allies suspected he was killed because he had started challenging the West Side’s plantation politics. Perhaps, they said, his increasing demands for patronage jobs and insurance business had alienated the last of the old white power brokers in the ward.

Many West Siders simply found it too frightening or unwise to discuss.

“I remember going to the barbershop, and I’m asking questions about this, and the barber said, ‘Shhhh! Don’t talk about that! We don’t talk about that in here,’” said Davis, a Democrat who represents much of the West Side in Congress. “And I was kind of dumbfounded by that, because in my mind, that’s all there is to talk about.”

A smear campaign

As police talked to reporters about the investigation, they let it be known that Lewis had a secret life: He was a womaniser and a con man. Though the killing looked more like a crime of precision than passion, police reports indicated that they were searching for a possible jilted lover or angry husband, or perhaps a client cheated out of money. Ella Lewis was questioned by police, as were several other women Lewis knew. Detectives noted that Lewis was “keeping company with white women.”

Police also released information suggesting Lewis was a shady and failed businessman. They uncovered evidence that he had dipped into his clients’ insurance premiums for his own uses and borrowed money to keep his real estate business afloat. Though he dressed impeccably, was often seen dining out and furnished an apartment where he met with a girlfriend, he died without enough money to pay for his funeral.

Within a day of finding Lewis dead, police leaked the names of two suspects. The newspapers reported that Thomas “Shaky Tom” Anderson and Jimmy “Kid Riviera” Williams were major players in the policy racket. Anderson, a 54-year-old accountant, was thought to report to Outfit leaders. Williams, 37, a former boxer, was Anderson’s enforcer.

The pair attracted police interest because Williams had reportedly threatened Lewis for hanging around Anderson’s wife. On another occasion, police were told, Anderson had loaned Lewis money. Like almost everyone else questioned in the case, both men were Black.

After a short stakeout, police nabbed Kid Riviera at a South Side apartment building. Anderson, hearing the authorities were looking for him, turned himself in. Police relied on lie detector tests to guide the investigation, and after both men passed, they were released.

Less than a month after Lewis was killed, the investigation hit a dead end. Police officials blamed Lewis: His life had been such a mess, they told the newspapers, that there were too many potential motives.

Some of the FBI’s sources in Chicago politics recognised that the police were fixated on Lewis’ personal and business problems. In a report a few weeks after the murder, one FBI agent summarised what an informant told him: “The stories concerning Lewis’ personal life are being manufactured to ‘dirty him up’ in order to make it appear the city didn’t lose too great an alderman.”

According to these sources, the agent wrote, “His death was strictly a political murder” because he wouldn’t follow orders.

Daley, fighting for reelection that April, tried to shake off criticism that the Lewis murder showed crime and corruption were out of control. He continued to express confidence in the police but said little about the investigation.

But the memos from the FBI agent suggest the police avoided looking closely at the powerful people who actually dominated the 24th Ward: the political machine, the Outfit and the police themselves.

As part of the Lewis case, detectives questioned a number of Black political workers in the 24th Ward. Yet the files don’t include any reports of interviews with Horwitz or other white party leaders.

Lewis had fought with the politically connected Elrod insurance company over control of ward business — a conflict some FBI sources cited as a reason for his murder. But the police records make no reference to interviews with any of the firm’s owners and managers.

The police also revealed little about what their own officers knew about the murder.

As detectives tried to piece together Lewis’ final hours, they learned that Sgt. James Gilbert had called the alderman around 7:30 p.m.

Gilbert, a nine-year veteran, worked in the Fillmore police district, which included much of the 24th Ward. Seven years earlier, he had been suspended after reportedly demanding a payoff from a driver he had pulled over.

When detectives asked him about his conversation with Lewis, Gilbert was cagey, saying it concerned a “personal matter.” If the detectives followed up and asked Gilbert what he meant, they didn’t mention it in their reports.

They did note that Gilbert said his call with Lewis had ended abruptly. After 10 or 15 minutes on the phone, Gilbert told them, he “heard a noise which sounded like someone entering the victim’s office. The phone conversation was immediately terminated for no reason.”

Gilbert offered shifting versions of the story to news reporters, telling one that Lewis had excused himself before hanging up. Yet Gilbert said he hadn’t called Lewis back or tried to find out what had happened. Police were sure that Gilbert was one of the last people to talk with the alderman, perhaps just a half-hour before he was killed.

Could the call from Gilbert have been a warning or a threat? Was it meant to make sure Lewis was there before someone came by to kill him? Gilbert was given a lie detector test along with another police officer, who considered himself a friend of Lewis’ — the same officer who would call me many years later. Neither was arrested. If detectives wrote a report on what Gilbert and the other officer told them, it was not included in the files released to me.

Pat Angelo, one of the first detectives on the Lewis investigation, told his son Dean Angelo Sr. that it was a “heater case” that he and his partners worked hard. Before the elder Angelo died in 2017, he expressed his frustration that the investigation had petered out. Dean Angelo recalled his father raising the possibility that law enforcement officials were involved in the murder.

“Back then, you literally had bagmen to collect and deliver” payoffs from Outfit gamblers, said Angelo, who also became a police officer and led the Chicago lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police. He retired in 2017. “The aldermen handpicked the captains and commanders of their districts so they could work with them,” he said.

Police and political leaders repeatedly dismissed the idea that the Outfit was involved in the murder. Yet investigators received tips that pointed to the syndicate. One such clue came from Lewis’ former personal secretary.

The aide told police that Lewis had grown up in the Outfit-run 1st Ward and still had ties there.

“Many of his boy-hood friends were now connected with people in the syndicate,” one of the police officers wrote in his report. Lewis would sometimes meet these old friends at a restaurant near City Hall, the aide said. But the files don’t include any reference to police following up on the information.

FBI officials in Chicago sent investigation updates to top bureau leaders in Washington, including director J. Edgar Hoover. Without clear evidence of organised crime involvement, they concluded the case should remain with local officials.

J. Edgar Hoover. Photo: Wikimedia Commons/FBI, Public Domain

Yet behind the scenes, the FBI had been collecting fresh information about a suspected syndicate figure long tied to political corruption and violence in the 24th Ward. As recently as Feb. 27 — the day before Lewis was killed — the FBI and the Police Department’s organised crime division shared a tip that Lenny Patrick was running a horse race betting operation out of the Lawndale Restaurant, just down the street from Lewis’ ward office.

Patrick was well known to law enforcement. Among his many arrests, he had been charged with murder, though never convicted. Authorities had known for years that Patrick’s gambling operations were based at his Lawndale restaurant. In fact, the FBI had been told that Patrick and Lewis knew each other well.

But according to existing records, neither the police nor federal agents ever spoke to Patrick about Ben Lewis.

The mobster

Lenny Patrick was born in Chicago in 1913, one of four sons of Morris and Ester Patrick, Jewish immigrants from England who ended up in the Lawndale neighbourhood.

Lenny’s mother died when he was 5, and with his father unable to care for the boys by himself, Lenny and one of his brothers were taken to an orphanage. After dropping out of seventh grade, Lenny learned to hustle. While still a teenager, he began running a regular dice game on the sidewalk at West Roosevelt Road and South Kedzie Avenue, in the heart of Lawndale.

Fights over territory and control of gambling profits often erupted into bombings and bloodshed. In April 1932, 21-year-old Herman Glick was shot in the neck outside a Lawndale synagogue. Glick “made a dying declaration that one Leonard Patrick was the man who shot him,” an officer wrote in his report.

Police issued an alert for Patrick, describing him as 5 feet, 6 inches tall, weighing 150 pounds, “dark comp[lexion], wears heavy rimmed glasses, brown suit, dark hat, has a slight limp in one leg, Jewish.”

When they finally tracked Patrick down a couple weeks later, he refused to open his apartment door, until officers fired shots through it. He was taken to Cook County Jail but wasn’t locked up long. After Glick died, a grand jury determined prosecutors didn’t have enough evidence to indict Patrick. The murder charges were dropped.

Patrick returned to Lawndale and went to work for a group of men who ran most of the neighbourhood’s gambling operations. He crossed paths with such powerful Outfit figures as Sam Giancana; they would become his mentors and employers.

By 1948, Patrick had served seven years in prison for a bank robbery and was a suspect in at least three unsolved murders. That September, after three more men tied to Lawndale gambling were killed, FBI agents asked Patrick to come in for an interview. He told them that he had been friends with the slain men but didn’t know anything about their deaths. He said he was the father of two girls, ages 6 and 3, and insisted his only political connection was his father, a 24th Ward precinct captain.

The conversation was the first documented contact between Patrick and federal authorities.

Over the next several years, FBI agents kept close tabs on Patrick. For a time, agents even logged Patrick’s phone calls and monitored his new home in West Rogers Park.

But Patrick still oversaw businesses in Lawndale, including illegal gambling rooms that were allowed to operate by police and political leaders on his payroll. In February 1956, a confidential informant told FBI agents that Patrick controlled all gambling in the 24th Ward with backing from Elrod, the ward boss; in return, Elrod received cash payments. A different FBI source said Patrick had “strong police protection.”

In 1960, after more than a decade of gathering information on Patrick and his operations, federal agents charged him with conspiracy to gamble. But the evidence was deemed too weak, and the charges were dropped. Once again, Patrick escaped trouble.

Patrick’s position grew even stronger once Lewis was named the 24th Ward committeeman in 1961. FBI sources said Outfit leaders had been working to ensure that someone they could trust would get the post. And an informant told agents that Patrick was close to Lewis — so much so that the alderman was considered Patrick’s “boy.” As an agent summed up the conversation in his report: “Lewis does not do anything without Patrick’s okay.”

In April 1964, a little more than a year after Lewis was killed, the FBI received a tip that, for the first time, explicitly linked Patrick to the unsolved case.

“Informant further stated that Leonard Patrick and Dave Yaras control the ward in which Alderman Ben Lewis was slain,” an agent wrote in a report. “Source heard that Alderman Lewis, before his assassination, was not cooperating with the criminal element in Chicago.”

In essence, the informant was telling the FBI that Patrick was involved in what happened to Lewis. At the very least, he had to know something about it.

The records released by the FBI offer no evidence that agents ever followed up.

Confessions

Over the next 25 years, the FBI continued to keep an eye on Patrick as he ran Outfit-backed criminal enterprises on Chicago’s West Side and then North Side, according to bureau investigative records. In 1977, Patrick refused to testify before a federal grand jury about payoffs he’d allegedly made to a police officer. He served 18 months in prison for contempt of court. But even after the FBI and the Chicago Police Department repeatedly gathered evidence on Patrick, he continued to profit. By the 1980s, agents learned that he was supervising a street crew that specialised in extorting well-off business owners.

It was still dark on the morning of November 6, 1989, when two FBI agents stepped onto the front porch of a yellow-brick two-flat on the far Northwest Side. When Patrick came downstairs, they let him know he needed to start answering some questions. If he didn’t cooperate, they told him, they had enough on him to put him in prison for 20 years. The leader of Patrick’s street crew had already been talking. In case he didn’t believe it, they played him tapes.

Patrick was stunned. He was 76 years old and had a heart condition. The agents were telling him that they could lock him up for the rest of his life.

In addition to his extortion schemes, federal authorities had other reasons to try to get Patrick talking: Another wave of violence had left more people dead. In 1982, Allen Dorfman, an Outfit-connected insurance executive who worked with the Teamsters union, was convicted of attempted bribery. As he awaited sentencing the following January, Dorfman was shot and killed outside a hotel not far from Patrick’s turf. His murder was viewed as the Outfit’s way of making sure he didn’t talk. Two years later, Lenny Yaras, a longtime member of Patrick’s crew and the son of his late friend Dave Yaras, was murdered on the West Side.

By 1992, as the feds built cases against the Outfit’s top leaders, Patrick agreed to cooperate. Almost immediately, FBI agents and federal prosecutors began grilling him about his time in the Outfit.

“Some days you’d feel sorry for him, like he was your grandfather, walking with a cane, slumped over,” recalled Mark Vogel, a former federal prosecutor who questioned Patrick in preparation for his trial testimony. “And then other times he would look you in the eye, and if looks could kill, you’d be gone.”

And as other lawyers and law enforcement officials had found, Patrick was practiced at evasion. “You couldn’t get a direct answer out of this guy,” Vogel said.

Patrick was worried that other Outfit figures would kill him when word of his cooperation got out. He had good reason. On May 17, 1992, a bomb exploded outside the home of his daughter, Sharon, blowing a crater in her driveway, destroying her fiance’s BMW and shattering the windows of neighbouring homes.

Over the course of several weeks, Lenny Patrick confirmed what informants had told the FBI for years: His gambling operations in Lawndale were rarely disturbed because he paid off politicians and police, who did favours for him and top Outfit leaders.

Eventually, the federal officials started asking Patrick about old murders. Chris Gair, another former federal prosecutor who had convinced Patrick to cooperate, said they told Patrick “no one was going to believe he’d never killed anyone.”

“He would deny stuff and then I would dig up a 45- or 50-year-old FBI report, and he would be livid,” Gair said.

The federal officials went back to the first murder Patrick had been suspected of, the 1932 shooting of Herman Glick. Patrick confessed that he’d done it, just as Glick had said before he died.

By the end of the summer of 1992, Patrick had confessed to being involved in six murders and offered new information about another. Officials suspected there were likely other killings. But they said they went through all the files they could find that included evidence or witness testimony pointing to Patrick.

Gair and Vogel both said they don’t remember FBI officials or Patrick mentioning Lewis.

If Patrick had brought up the Lewis murder, “the FBI agents would have been on top of that like a duck on a junebug,” Vogel said. “When you have the mob go into city government, that is a big deal. That’s not just an ordinary mob murder.”

Vogel noted that, as much as he and other officials wanted Patrick to own up to his past, they had to stay focused on building cases against Outfit leaders who were still operating.

“The only way to do that is to go through the lower guys,” Vogel said. “Priests and ministers and rabbis are not going to be the ones involved in this. The ones who can tell you firsthand what happened are the criminals.”

In September 1992, Patrick testified in the trial of longtime Outfit leader Gus Alex and a former member of his own street crew on extortion and racketeering charges. To establish his credibility, Patrick discussed his criminal background. He described bribing police officers, the late 24th Ward boss Arthur X. Elrod and other “aldermen.” Asked which aldermen, Patrick claimed he couldn’t remember their names.

Patrick again admitted his involvement in six murders.

Sam Adam, a defence attorney for Alex, responded by portraying Patrick as a sociopath and noting he had admitted to lying under oath before.

“Who else did you kill?” Adam asked.

“That’s about it,” Patrick said.

“Well, anybody — anybody you can think of you haven’t told us about yet?”

“No, I haven’t,” Patrick told him. “I run out of cemeteries.”

But Adam wasn’t the only one who thought the government’s star witness was downplaying his history. Gair said an attorney who had represented other crime figures approached him following Patrick’s testimony about the six murders.

“He came up afterward and said, ‘I believe your witness misplaced a decimal point,’” Gair said.

Prison time

Patrick’s cooperation helped prosecutors win convictions of Alex and other Outfit leaders. In return for his help, Patrick was given a seven-year sentence and sent to Sandstone federal prison in Minnesota.

In prison, Patrick hit it off with another inmate. Daniel Longoria Sr. was in his early 50s, and serving 16 years for dealing heroin and cocaine in Portland, Oregon. A former college psychology student, Longoria fancied himself a jailhouse lawyer.

There is no statute of limitations on murder, and some prosecutors and investigators in Chicago were outraged that Patrick might not be held to account for the murders he’d testified about in federal court. In February 1994, Cook County prosecutors secured indictments against Patrick for three of those killings, which occurred between 1947 and 1953.

Patrick turned to Longoria. In return for help with his case, Patrick signed a document promising to give Longoria “a portion” of the proceeds from a book about his life he was thinking about writing.

But Patrick likely didn’t know that Longoria was in the federal witness protection program, or that he had repeatedly served as an informant to get his sentence reduced.

In June 1995, Longoria got in touch with the organised crime division of the Cook County state’s attorney’s office. He said he had collected statements from Patrick about the six murders he had discussed in federal court.

In addition, Longoria’s lawyer told county officials that his client could provide details of other killings he had learned about from Patrick.

The state’s attorney’s office was interested. Over the next few months, officials from the office spoke on the phone repeatedly with Longoria. In two calls, Longoria said Patrick had discussed the unsolved 1983 hit on Dorfman, the insurance agent who had worked closely with the Teamsters. Longoria said Patrick told him one of the killers was the former West Side police officer who had been questioned about the Lewis killing, according to a state’s attorney report summarising the call.

The information Longoria passed on was detailed and jarring — and if true, would offer fresh leads in some of the most notorious open murder cases in Chicago history. But he wasn’t done.

On October 4, 1995, Longoria recounted a conversation he said he’d had with Patrick about Ben Lewis. According to a report of the call, Longoria said the alderman had been killed because unauthorised horse race betting was run out of his office. Patrick had sent a Chicago police officer to kill Lewis, according to Longoria — and it was the same officer who had allegedly helped carry out the Dorfman hit. The officer and his partner “tied up, chained, tortured and killed Lewis,” Longoria told the officials.

Longoria’s account raised questions of its own. According to the original police and coroner’s reports, Lewis was found in handcuffs — not rope or chains. The reports did not mention signs of torture.

Investigators couldn’t know whether Patrick or Longoria had mixed up the details, or if one of them was lying.

Wayne A. Johnson, then a detective in the Chicago Police Department’s intelligence section, worked with the state’s attorney’s office on the Patrick investigation. After participating in a call with Longoria, Johnson found him credible.

“This guy’s talking a hundred miles an hour — you can tell he’s scared to death,” Johnson recalled.

But Johnson said his investigation was cut short. Longoria was transferred to another prison. The police brass weren’t interested in the old murders. And the state’s attorney’s office decided not to pursue any cases beyond the three that Patrick had already been charged with.

“It was a lost opportunity,” Johnson said. “Whatever Lenny gave up on the witness stand, there was a lot more to it.”

In 1996, after doctors concluded Patrick was showing signs of dementia, a Cook County judge found Patrick unfit for trial on the three decades-old murders of his former associates. The charges were dismissed.

After his release from prison, Patrick spent his last years living in the northern suburb of Morton Grove. He died in 2006 at the age of 92.

Inside information

I was not the only person who heard that the retired West Side officer might be connected to the Lewis murder. Joe Kolman, a writer based in New York, was doing research for a possible novel seven years ago when he came across old news stories about Lewis. He was fascinated and outraged that the case had never been solved.

Kolman had his own connection to Chicago politics. His family has roots on the West Side, and his father and uncle were politically involved lawyers. When Kolman’s father died in 1967, Mayor Daley attended the funeral, making sure to shake Kolman’s hand before he left.

“I was 12 years old, and I couldn’t stop staring at the wattles on his chin,” Kolman said.

When Kolman started gathering information on Lewis, a former politician told him that the word was out that a cop was involved. Kolman’s contact even gave him a name. It was the retired West Side police officer who had been questioned in the early days of the investigation — the same officer whose name had been raised by Longoria.

Kolman called him. The retired officer said he had been friends with Lewis, but denied having anything to do with his murder. Almost six decades after the killing, the retired officer said it was unsafe for him to discuss it. Still, he made Kolman a promise: He would leave him a note revealing who did it — but Kolman wouldn’t get it until the officer died.

By the time the retired officer called me, I’d learned that Longoria, the jailhouse informant, had linked him to two notorious murders 20 years apart. In a series of phone conversations, he said that was “crazy” and “bullshit.” He said he knew nothing about the hit on Dorfman other than what he’d read in the newspapers. When I asked him about Lewis’ murder, he told me what he’d told Kolman: He and his family could be in danger if he discussed what he knew.

But the retired officer said he wanted me to know some background about Lewis and the West Side. He asked that I not use his name, noting he had never been charged in connection with the murder.

Lewis, he said, had been picked to take over the 24th Ward because its political and organised crime leaders knew they needed someone Black as a front. They paid for Lewis’ house, car and clothes, he said.

“They took care of him,” the former officer said. “He lived pretty good. He golfed a lot. They took him to country clubs.”

Because he had spent time with Lewis, the former officer said, he was taken to police headquarters for questioning hours after the body was found. He denied having anything to do with the murder, and a polygraph test found that he wasn’t lying, he said. News stories at the time offered a similar narrative, though they didn’t identify the officer by name.

“If I had flunked the test, they would have charged me,” he said.

He said his former colleague Gilbert, the sergeant who was also questioned in the case, had called Lewis the evening of the murder to talk about a tavern owner who had complained to the alderman about Gilbert demanding payoffs. But the retired officer said he didn’t think Gilbert was involved in killing Lewis.

The retired officer told me he had never met Patrick. And he was just as insistent that Patrick had no part in the murder.

He said he hoped he had been helpful.

Not everything he said added up. While he admitted he knew West Side underworld figures, he distanced himself from Patrick. Yet Patrick obviously knew the officer well enough to mention his name to Longoria. That is, if Longoria was telling the truth.

A possible clue

After Kolman first reached out to her, Sharon Patrick began sharing some of her recollections about her father. Eventually, she agreed to sit down with Kolman and me.

Now in her 70s, Sharon Patrick calls people “dear” and “hon,” and enjoys talking about the feral cats she feeds on the South Side. She often pauses, speaking carefully, when discussing her father. She said their relationship was sometimes rocky.

From an early age, she said, she understood “he was a big shot and he controlled certain areas of Chicago.”

Sharon Patrick also saw another side of her father, who often gave food or rent money to struggling neighbours. “A lot of people would call him if they needed help,” she said. “He had a lot of compassion.”

After her father went to prison in the 1990s, Sharon Patrick embraced the idea of working with him on his book project. They never finished, but she thought she still had notes from their conversations.

Soon after our interview, Kolman was helping Sharon Patrick dig through her old files when they found some of those notes. On a sheet of lined paper, she had scribbled two sentences about the slain alderman: “Lewis was killed by certain people all he knows. He was giving information to FBI.”

If Lewis was suspected of sharing information with federal agents, that could very well have gotten him killed. Still, there is no public evidence that Lewis talked to the FBI. In 40 pages of FBI reports on Lewis and more than 900 pages on Patrick that I obtained through open records requests, nothing suggests Lewis was an informant.

One thing was clear: Over the course of more than three decades, officials with the Police Department, the state’s attorney’s office and the FBI all gathered information that connected Patrick to the 24th Ward and to Lewis. Yet there is no evidence that those agencies ever talked to Patrick himself about the case.

Seeking justice

At the time, Lewis’ murder was widely seen among Black Chicagoans as a message of what would happen to anyone who challenged the white political bosses, said Mitchell, the former precinct captain.

“He didn’t obey orders,” Mitchell said. “It was a power struggle.”

After spending years looking into the murder, Kolman reached the same conclusion. Patrick was almost certainly involved, he said, but the white politicians he worked with may have signed off on the murder.

“Maybe it was clear there would have been no consequences for doing this thing,” said Kolman, who has written a book manuscript and is finishing a documentary about the case.

After Lewis’ murder, the West Side remained under the grip of absentee political leadership. No West Side ward elected an alderman independent of the machine until 1979, when Danny Davis won the 29th Ward seat. In the 24th Ward, a succession of Black aldermen served at the pleasure of Horwitz, the de facto ward boss, through the 1970s.

Decades of failed government programs and private sector neglect have left North Lawndale and other West Side neighbourhoods reeling from disinvestment. Across the city, police solve only a fraction of homicides, most of which involve Black victims, and community leaders continue to demand greater police accountability.

About 20 detectives are currently assigned to the Chicago Police Department’s cold case unit. It doesn’t follow a strict protocol in deciding when to reexamine an old case, said department spokesperson Luis Agostini. But given its modest size, he said, “solvability” is a key consideration.

The last activity in the Lewis investigation came in 2000, Agostini said, when a detective made a request for case records.

“We encourage anyone who may have any information related to the murder of Alderman Benjamin Lewis to reach out to Area Detectives,” Agostini wrote in an email, noting police could also be contacted anonymously at CPDtip.com.

Most of the people who might have known what happened to Lewis are ailing or dead; both Gilbert and Horwitz are deceased. Others still don’t want to talk about it. But at a minimum, a new inquiry could reexamine the earlier investigation, laying out what was done and what wasn’t.

“I think it would be a revelation,” Davis said. “Not just in terms of looking at what may have happened, but also understanding that as things change, they also have a tendency to very much remain the same.”

Mick Dumke reports on politics at ProPublica Illinois, with particular interest in housing policies, criminal justice and city and state government.

This article was first published on ProPublica.

In Sum and Substance, New Digital Media Rules Establish a Confusing Playing Field

While nobody can doubt the need for accountability, the manner in which the rules were created raises legal questions while the overarching logic of the substance is confusing.

An over two-year-long process that was primarily meant to make the content moderation processes of Silicon Valley’s social media giants more responsible has cast a broad regulatory net over seemingly unrelated issues that have plagued the Narendra Modi government for the last six years.

Both digital media platforms and over-the-top (OTT) or streaming services are now subject to official government oversight through a self-regulation grievance redressal model that mixes and matches parts of actual laws that govern the Indian print and broadcast media.

The new ‘Digital Media Ethics’ code basically creates a three-tier system where any upset Indian citizen can complain about potential violations. The decisions on these reader or viewer complaints move up through the three-tier appeal system. The final word on the offending content, whether put out by a streaming service or a news website, is taken up by an inter-departmental government committee that will be in turn set up by the information and broadcasting (I&B) ministry. This committee has a range of penalties at its disposal, the most lethal of which is the power to remove the content in certain number of limited circumstances pertaining to public order.

After the rules were announced earlier this week, they sparked sharp criticism from many constitutional experts.

“How can the press and entertainment forums be regulated by the same oversight mechanism which answers to the Executive? Where is their separation of powers… This is a conflation of all speech in the country. It is a violation of separation of powers as envisaged by the Constitution and it will impinge on any ability to express yourself artistically or hold the government to account as press. We have never seen this conflation in the history of India before,” lawyer Menaka Guruswamy said in a recent discussion.

Also Read: Explainer: How the New IT Rules Take Away Our Digital Rights

Flaws in creation

Experts have questioned both the manner in which the rules have been framed and their substance. For the former, the new system has been created through a process that has been criticised on two counts.

Firstly, the new regulatory diktat does not come through a law passed by parliament – which has been the case with the print media (Press Council Act) or broadcast media (Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act, 1995) – but instead has come about by expanding the intermediary guidelines of the IT Act 2000, a move that most experts believe wrongly expands the ambit of the Act beyond its original intentions.

“The purview of the Information Technology Act, 2000 does not extend to news media, and so the guidelines do not have the legislative backing to regulate news media…This makes these guidelines a camouflaged way to indirectly regulate online news media by bringing these platforms under the aegis of the Information Technology Act, 2000 instead of following the due process of parliamentary scrutiny and subsequent legislation,” Apar Gupta, executive director of the Internet Freedom Foundation, a New Delhi-based think-tank for digital rights, said recently.

Secondly, the ethics code has been passed and effectively given the force of law without hearing or holding any consultation with actual stakeholders within the Indian digital media ecosystem.

At a press conference earlier this week, I&B minister Prakash Javadekar professed ignorance and cited a lack of information about digital media players when asked why there was no industry consultation, a process that is universally recognised as the hallmark of good governance and democratic policy-making.

Union minister for Information and Broadcasting Prakash Javadekar. Photo: PTI/Subhav Shukla

In an interview with the Indian Express, I&B secretary Amit Khare defended this lack of consultation, saying there is little need for one since Indian news websites are simply expected to follow the code of ethics that their print and TV counterparts are already doing.

“We don’t think anyone will object to that. There is no new obligation on them,” Khare told the newspaper.

Indeed, one of the Modi government’s primary defences with regard to the new rules for OTT and digital media platforms has been how it provides a “level playing field” for all types of media stakeholders. This logic was trotted out last year as well, when the Centre introduced a 26% FDI cap for digital media, a confusing policy move that opened its own can of worms and prompted at least one prominent digital media publication to shut down its Indian bureau.

That said, it is important to look at two claims here, both of which are connected. Firstly, does the Digital Media Ethics code provide a level-playing field for print, broadcast and digital players? And secondly, is there no “new obligation” for OTT and digital players as a result?

Also Read: ‘New IT Rules Against Fundamental Principle of News’: Digipub Writes to Prakash Javadekar

Representation?

Media reports indicate that OTT and streaming services have already raised concerns over the most obvious question – why is there no explicit role for industry players in the second tier of the new grievance redressal system?

According to the new rules, if a reader or viewer is not satisfied with the way a digital media publisher or streaming platform has dealt with her grievances, they are allowed to escalate it to a “self-regulatory” body – an independent entity constituted by publishers or their associations.

This body, according to the new guidelines, needs to be headed by a retired judge (of either the Supreme Court or a high court) or an “independent eminent person from the field of media, broadcasting, entertainment, child rights, human rights or such other relevant field”. This entity will also have not more than six other members who can be “experts from the field of media, broadcasting, entertainment, child rights, human rights and such other relevant fields”.

In other words, the tier-2 ‘self-regulatory’ system has no fixed representation for publishers or streaming platforms themselves!

This is not the case with how India’s print news or broadcast industries carry out self-regulation. For instance, the Broadcasting Content Complaints Council (BCCC) of the Indian Broadcasting Foundation is headed by a retired judge and has non-broadcast stakeholders, but also has a specific amount of broadcaster members.

The Press Council of India, which regulates newspapers, has MPs from the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha as its members, but 13 of the total 28 members are working journalists (editors and non-editors).

The News Broadcasting Standards Authority (NBSA), under the News Broadcasters Association, does the same for news channels. The composition of NBSA includes an eminent jurist as the chairperson, four eminent persons having special knowledge and/or practical experience in the various fields, but also has four eminent editors employed with broadcasters.

One prominent OTT player, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Wire that the current rules looked like a “government attempt to regulate self-regulation”.

Netflix

Netflix. Photo: Thibault Penin on Unsplash

Government oversight?

The more you consider the government’s defence of a level-playing field, the more contradictions appear.

For instance, the Press Council Act, 1978 allows no scope for the government to directly ask an Indian newspaper to take down or remove content. But for digital media publishers, a government panel can now directly censure a website or decide to remove content to prevent a “cognisable offence relating to public order”.

Also Read: New IT Rules: The Great Stretching of ‘Due Diligence’ Requirements Under Section 79

Initial apprehensions raised over the emergency blocking powers given to the I&B ministry as part of the Digital Media Ethics Code prompted a response by the Centre yesterday, which defensively stated that this was not a “new provision”.

“For the past eleven years, since 2009, this provision has been exercised by the Secretary, Ministry of Electronics and IT under the Information Technology (Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public) Rules, 2009,” a government release noted.

“Under the rules issued on 25th February, 2021, this provision has only been replaced with Secretary, Ministry of I&B because Part III of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 would be administered by the Ministry of Information & Broadcasting.”

This may be true, but is also an obfuscation, because there has been so far no publicly documented instance of Section 69A of the IT Act being used to remove a news article or media report. The new rules specifically pave the way for restrictions to be placed on the media if needed.

“Clarification is an eyewash. Power under 69 A has been amplified and diversified, besides enabling pervasive control of the state, triggered upon the slightest complaint or even without any complaint,” a senior legal expert told The Wire.

In other words, news websites and streaming services are now subject to broad censorship powers of the kind that the I&B ministry wields over TV channels for violating the programme code of the Cable TV Act. Therefore, when it comes to government oversight, digital media and OTT players are being treated similar to TV channels and not newspapers.

TV control room

Representative image of a TV control room Photo: Reuters

This would be fine if it didn’t raise yet another contradiction. When it comes to the amount of foreign direct investment (FDI) that the Centre is comfortable in allowing, digital media players are clubbed in with newspapers in having a 26% cap. Broadcasters are allowed to function with a more roomy 49% ceiling.

But when it comes to censorship, digital media players are treated more like TV channels. How does one reconcile with the government’s stated intention to bring in a level-playing field? And how can this be justified, especially when there has been a lack of consultation with digital media stakeholders?

Both the FDI and new content regulatory rules raise a final question – does this country benefit from fewer news outlets that specifically serve Indian users? The idea that limits on foreign investment or government oversight for offensive content can work to create an accountable and conducive news media environment may seem attractive and even useful in an age of misinformation and fake news. But if the balance is tipped too far in favour of government control, as it is now, it can be short-sighted and cancerous for the free flow of information in a democracy.

Uttarakhand: CM Distributes Key Posts, Triggering Speculation of a Cabinet Expansion

A few months ago, signs of rebellion had started to show in the BJP against the chief minister.

New Delhi: Uttarakhand chief minister Trivendra Singh Rawat distributed 17 key positions in different boards, councils and corporations, sparking speculation of an expansion of the cabinet in the coming days. This move, many think, is a build up before the state assembly elections scheduled in the early part of next year.

According to a report in the Times of India, on February 26, senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) member Anil Goyal was made the vice-chairperson of Uttarakhand Civil Aviation Development Authority and Kailash Pant was appointed at the chairperson of Uttarakhand State Disaster Management Advisory Committee. At least three berths in the state cabinet are lying vacant.

A few months ago, signs of rebellion had started to show in the party against the chief minister. Bishan Singh Chuphal, the BJP legislator from Didihat constituency in Pithoragarh district, had visited Delhi for an audience with central party president J.P. Nadda in early September last year to share his “concerns” regarding corruption in the state under the leadership of Rawat.

Chuphal, a prominent BJP leader and a contender for the top post, had claimed that under Rawat, no development work has taken place in his area in the last three years. Like Chuphal, another BJP leader Umesh Sharma had also complained about “delays in development work” under Rawat in an email to Nadda in September. BJP MLA Puran Singh Fartyal had also reportedly written to Nadda alleging corruption “in road construction between Tanakpur and Jauljibi”.

The expansion of cabinet berths is being viewed at as the chief minister’s way to silence the dissenters.

Watch: How Do We Remember the Delhi Violence?

Fifty-three people lost their lives and many more were injured.

Fifty-three people lost their lives and many more were injured. Hundreds of homes and shops were destroyed. One year on, how do we remember the violence that ravaged North-East Delhi?

A Year on, Over 300 Victims of North-East Delhi Violence Await Proper Compensation

An assembly sub-committee constituted by the Minorities Welfare Committee has worked with victims and officials to ensure proper compensation to victims, and over 2,200 cases have been settled.

New Delhi: While on the face of it the disbursement of Rs 26 crore to 2,221 victims of the North East Delhi communal violence of February 2020 appears meagre, even reaching this level has taken a lot of effort from the sub-committee which was constituted by the Delhi Legislative Assembly’s Minorities Welfare Committee in August last year. At the time of the constitution of this panel, compensation of only Rs 6.32 crore had been paid in 47 cases.

The communal violence targeting Muslims had claimed 53 lives, left over 500 injured and caused extensive damage to private property.

Since the process of evaluation of loss and payment of compensation was slow in the beginning and many complaints were filed regarding inaccurate assessment of loss or injury, the minorities panel chairperson and Aam Aadmi Party MLA from Okhla, Amanatullah Khan, had announced the constitution of the sub-committee to gather “correct information” about the compensation paid to the victims.

Khan had stated that in association with Delhi Waqf Board officials, the sub-committee will conduct a survey to learn how many people received compensation, it if was adequate and if any victim was left out. The sub-committee comprised four legislators – Tughlaqabad MLA Sahiram Pehalwan as chairperson, Abdul Rehman of Seelampur, Haji Yunus of Mustafabad and Prahalad Sahni of Chandni Chowk.

Slow pace of compensation led to creation of assembly sub-panel

At the time of this sub-committee’s constitution, it was stated that “a total of 377 people were injured out of which 244 were paid compensation of Rs 1.44 crore. A total 1,327 houses were damaged and compensation amount of 7.30 crore was paid in 552 cases.” Further, it was stated that “as per officials, 1,529 commercial properties were damaged, out of which 816 cases were paid compensation amount of Rs 7.49 crore. Five schools were also damaged and three schools were given Rs 20 lakh compensation.”

However, since then, hundreds of complainants approached the Compensation Claims Commission and the Minorities Welfare Committee of the Delhi assembly, claiming that they have not been paid proper compensation. While the Commission received 2,600 applications, the assembly panel has dealt with around 700.

Also read: Delhi 2020, the Real Conspiracy: What the Police Chose Not to See

On how the assembly panel has been going around dealing with people’s grievances, Zia Ul, an Associate Fellow with the Delhi Legislative Assembly, who is looking after the work related to Mustafabad constituency in the sub-committee, told The Wire that “wherever people had complained that they had been paid less compensation than they should have been, the verification was done again. It was compared if they had been compensated as per the rates and categories decided by the government. The Committee worked towards getting enhanced and correct compensation for these victims.”

Meetings with SDMs, DMs discussed cases in detail

He said, “In the first meeting of the committee, all the concerned sub-divisional magistrates and district Magistrates were called and they were asked on what basis the compensation was paid. Thereafter, they explained how things were done as per the government guidelines. But we then carried out a survey of the victims to see if the compensation which had been paid was actually what they were entitled to as per their loss or injury.”

The difference in compensation for various categories was quite substantial. For example in the case of complete damage to a house, Rs 5 lakh compensation was announced, for major loss it was Rs 2.5 lakh. Similarly for death of an adult, the ex-gratia was Rs 10 lakh and in the case of a minor it was Rs 5 lakh. Likewise, in the case of injuries, the compensation announced was Rs 2 lakh for serious injury and Rs 20,000 for minor. However, permanent disability due to injury carried a compensation of Rs 5 lakhs.

Committee examined video, photographic evidence

Zia said there were many cases where the compensation was not in accordance with the fixed rates for that nature of loss or injury. “The Committee was constituted to address these issues and it has worked on three major categories. A large number of people came to us who said they had photographic evidence and videos of damage to their houses or their being completely burnt during the violence. They complained that they were not adequately compensated for the loss in line with the guidelines.”

Then, he said, the Committee saw all those videos and it raised the issue with the SDMs and DMs and asked them to review the compensation they had paid in light of the new facts which emerged. “It raised the issue of proper compensation not being paid. One major issue which emerged was that none of the SDMs had assessed the cases in their own jurisdiction and SDMs from outside were given the responsibility for carrying out this task. So in a lot of cases, the complaints pertained to the issue of proper verification not happening.”

Also, the government criteria for payment of compensation was that if someone’s entire house was gutted, only half payment would be made for it. “So what happened was that in some cases of `major’ loss, the SDMs evaluated it to be ‘minor’. The Committee got many such cases reverted to their category they ideally belonged to.”

`Panel got compensation enhanced in many cases’

The Committee got many cases reviewed and categorised correctly in cases of personal injury too. “There was a case of Akram, whose one hand was completely damaged. However, in the hospital his injury was entered as one of `minor’ nature. So he was only paid Rs 20,000 compensation. He then appeared before the Committee through the local MLA and then his hand was shown to the SDM and DM. They were told that he lost his entire hand and yet was being treated as a minor case. Then his compensation was raised from Rs 20,000 to Rs 5 lakh, since it was a case of permanent disability.”

Also read: A Year After the Delhi Violence, a Letter to Our Friends in Jail

Stating that the cases before the Committee pertained to all types – loss of life, injury and damage to both commercial and domestic property – Zia said, “We did the verification for all these cases with the videos and then presented the findings before the Committee. These details were then placed before the SDMs and DMs.”

He said so far the compensation has been enhanced in around half of these cases following a review by the Committee. In some cases, the files had also gone missing and they too were helped by the panel. “This also helped a lot of people who would have found it difficult to approach the SDMs directly with their matter,” he added.

Over 300 cases still to be settled

In the remaining cases, he said, while the files have moved, the issues were still being deliberated as the video evidence was not conclusive in nature. “For example, if someone’s house could be seen burning or completely damages, that case was resolved quickly. But if in a case, it was alleged that the property had been looted, then it was difficult to assess the exact loss. Likewise, in cases of partial damage to property, the assessment was not clear.”

So such cases have been put in the pending category. These are being examined afresh by a sub-committee. They would be reopened and reassessed by new teams which would go to the site and speak to neighbours of the victims to learn if the extent of loss claimed by the victim had actually taken place or not, Zia said.

Due to the efforts put in over the past few months, the number of compensation cases settled has gone up. So far the Delhi Government has disbursed Rs 26.09 crore to 2,221 victims. Of this, Rs 4.25 crore has been paid to the next of kin of 44 people killed in the riots; Rs 1.75 crore to 233 injured people; Rs 11.28 crore in 1,176 cases of damage to residential property and Rs 8.51 crore to 731 people whose commercial establishments were destroyed. However, considering there were around 2,600 claims originally, over 300 still remain to be settled.

Declining Wages, No Government Aid: Daily Wage Workers Are Stuck in a Deep Crisis

A survey of mazdoor mandis in Surat, Lucknow and Pune shows that even many months after the lockdown ended, workers are struggling to make ends meet.

“Since the time of COVID-19 lockdown, there has been a severe crisis of employment opportunities in local labour markets. Getting work for even two days a week is difficult for us. Daily wages too, for any work possible, have dipped by half,” says Rajesh Singh, a young daily wage worker in his early 20s from a ‘mazdoor mandi’ (an unorganised labour market) in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

The tragic tale of Rajesh Singh, struggling to make ends meet to afford two nutritious meals for his family, and the dwindling prospects for work is experienced by many daily wage workers standing beside him, all of whom travel from peripheral towns and villages near Rai Bareilly and Sultanpur to Lucknow in search for daily work. This reflects the nature and form of the economic catastrophe that has surfaced since the curfew-style lockdown sucked out employment opportunities for daily workers across unorganised and organised segments.

The trials and tribulations of this community – dependent on daily work and wages for survival – worsened since the lockdown, with only fleeting moments of respite. Even since August 2020, when ‘unlocking’ allowed for some activity to resume for an economic recovery to begin, the daily wage shramiks have continued to suffer acute economic distress due to limited job prospects, travel restrictions and poor execution of government support policies.

In a three-month extensive field study undertaken by our research team at Centre for New Economics Studies, O.P. Jindal Global University, we documented and archived narratives of over 200 daily wage workers – through a randomised survey across the mazdoor mandis of Lucknow (UP), Surat (Gujarat), and Pune (Maharashtra), aimed to understand the extent to which the current economic crisis is affecting the workers’ daily work prospects; has adversely impacted their incomes; and how little to no state support has forced many to borrow extensively through informal channels for making their ends meet, leaving most highly indebted, especially in Lucknow.

The reason for selecting Lucknow, Surat and Pune for this particular field study was based on the logistical ease, and given how each of these cities – in their own respective region – attract the maximum amount of intra-state and inter-state migrant workers and rely on them for most industrial, manufacturing and construction work.

Daily wage workers wait below Warje bridge Mazdoor Adda in Pune, India. Photo: Jignesh Mistry

Narratives from Surat: A crisis of employment driven by supply-side problems 

Positioned in a textile-sector dominated region, Surat, an employment hotspot for migrant workers from all over the country, attracts workers in thousands from Bihar, MP, UP, Jharkhand amongst others in North and Central India.

During the interviews undertaken, respondents (daily wage workers) indicated a sharp fall in their work and living standards post-lockdown, as a result of limited employment opportunities. Most small-scale cottage style textile workshops are working with less than 50% worker capacity and even for those working, wages have been less than half of what it was before.

Vijay, a small-scale power loom owner in Surat, cites chronic supply-side problems in the textile industry as a key contributor to this in the months after lockdown: “Pehle 10 karigar the, ab 7 hai, kyunki maal hi nahi aa raha hai, toh unko bithane ka koi matlab nahi hai… Sabka kharcha mere ko hi uthana hai (Earlier, we had 10 craftsmen working in a small unit. Now we have seven because we are not receiving raw materials. What is the point of employing new workers or asking others to come back if they just have to come here and sit idle? I need to pay for all their expenses too).

Workers stitch sarees on machines at New GIDC area in Surat, India. Photo: Jignesh Mistry

Following up on Vijay’s conversation with us, we raised the same issue – of a breakdown in the supply of raw materials in the textile manufacturing space to Gujrat – with other textile unit owners and private contractors. It is a problem which most are facing now. During the lockdown phase, from March-June 2020, the inter-state transportation of raw materials had come to a halt.

As restrictions were relaxed during the unlocking phase, most small and medium scale manufacturers tried to gradually get back to business but government-imposed curfews and restrictions on mobility in many areas with a large number of COVID-19 cases, later followed by the farmers’ protests near Delhi’s borders, slowed down the distribution and transportation of basic goods required by craftsmen in Surat to produce even a saree. Vijay said before the lockdown, he used to produce scores of sarees daily to put out for sale.

The consequential fall in production capacity has severely affected the incomes of all craftsmen, as they usually work on a piece-rate system — i.e. for every saree produced, a worker would earn Rs 10. According to Vijay, workers used to earn as much as Rs 1200-1300 every day before the lockdown, which has now fallen to around Rs 450. Hence, even those who were fortunate enough to be employed by Vijay and other small and medium scale manufacturers during these difficult times now struggle to make ends meet.

Also Read: Women Informal Workers: Falling Through the Cracks in the Pandemic

Narratives from Lucknow and Pune

Waiting in the scorching heat after travelling long hours, daily wage workers across Lucknow and Pune begin their search for work in ‘mazdoor mandis’ from 7 am onwards. We visited mandis near the Engineering College, Daliganj and Aliganj in Lucknow and those near Warje bridge, Dattanagar Katraj, Mundhwa and Dange Chowk in Pune. With a few workers specialising as masons, construction workers, marble and tile workers, and plumbers, most experienced an acute fall in employment – even after November 2020, with limited repair work and construction projects being undertaken by the private builders.

To understand the intra-household allocation of incomes of these workers, their spending, saving and borrowing patterns, our team took around 100 interviews each in Lucknow and Pune. The average age of our respondents was around 36 years old in Lucknow and 35 years in Pune, with their households comprising of 5-6 members. Most were the sole breadwinners in their families. A closer look at their household composition reveals that the number of dependents (children and elderly) in the family – and their health costs – exceeded the number of earning members (and other budget heads), resulting in an additional burden.

Our data from Lucknow indicates that the mean monthly income (from labour work only) has fallen by 62%, that is, from Rs 9,500 per month in pre-pandemic times to Rs 3,500 now. In Pune too, the mean monthly income of an average worker fell from Rs 10,000 to Rs 4,500, a 54.5% decline.

Laxmi Rathod, a female worker in her 20s from Pune’s mazdoor mandi, says: “Lockdown mein ek rupiya nahi diya koi, 4 anna-paisa bhi nahi diya koi. Mangane gaye the aur lakdi se maara hai humko police ne. Bhikari jaise mangne gae the hum log khane peene ke liye (We did not even get a single rupee during the lockdown. Whenever we went and begged for some money or support, we were beaten up by the police. Despite that, we desperately had to beg to find some food).”

Daily wage workers stand below Warje bridge looking for work in Pune, India. Photo: Jignesh Mistry

Sharp fall in employment prospects in the near future

Our survey results from Lucknow and Pune reveal a sharp fall in working days due to a demand-side shock that was gripping the economy and much of the real estate and construction sector (where most daily wage workers find work) even before the pandemic struck, and a subsequent wage-shock (from the lockdown induced economic crisis) where, for the same work and the same number of hours, each worker was being paid much less.

Data from Lucknow shows that pre-COVID-19 lockdown, the average working days were around 21 days a month, which fell to 9 days a month post the lockdown. In Pune, average working days in a month came down from 12 to 2 days. From responses received, most respondents stated that construction projects were halted and repair work was indefinitely postponed during the lockdown, and once the lockdown was lifted, there wasn’t enough demand (or funds for the small and medium scale owners) to begin work at the same scale as before.

Ansuiya, a migrant worker in her early 30s from a mazdoor mandi in Lucknow, shares her experience:

“Even after the lockdown most of those from outside the city haven’t been called for work. Those from outside the state are being discouraged to come and work. A few of us who managed to come here, when we sought work, prospective employers would say, ‘You have come from out of town and would have brought the virus with you!’, and would send us away.”

Such tales of rising discrimination against inter-state migrants, who found it difficult even before to get houses on rent, points to more restricted mobility for most workers.

Furthermore, difficulties in travel and commute for most workers – first to go back to their homes and then to return to cities – have translated into a rise in travelling expenses from Rs 56 to Rs 125 on average per month, as per data on transport expenses for each worker from Lucknow. Weary of spending extra on conveyance during times of financial distress, workers were forced to accept intermittent periods of unemployment.

A few interviews indicated that there were also instances where daily-wagers with larger families in cities, in light of not getting employed for a longer period and without support to travel back home, preferred staying back in the migrated city – and were forced to beg – just because they couldn’t pay the train fare to go back home (and no state buses were operational for a long time). Laxmi Rathod from Pune says, “I have 6 children, how could I have travelled with all of them? I have no money to pay for train tickets and buses weren’t functional.”

Woe of sharply declining wage rates

There has been a considerable plunge in wages of daily workers. In Lucknow, mean daily wages fell from Rs 430 to Rs 360/ per day. Similarly in Pune, wage rates fell from Rs 450 to Rs 390/per day.

Usually, wage determination in a given labour market is dependent on numerous factors: nature of work, identity, the average experience of the worker in a vocation, home state of the worker and more. Our researchers in Pune observed that workers who have worked in the city for a longer duration (for example, 10 years), began their wage negotiations at a higher wage.

The team also noted that all payment structures were not time-based (as per the countable days of work) – some workers get (or got) paid for the day regardless of the amount of work done, whereas for others, their wages are directly proportional to the effort and work performed. For example, we saw how brick-carriers at construction sites got paid for every floor they carry the bricks to, therefore, the more bricks they carry, the higher was their total wage. The rate for carrying bricks to 1 floor is around Rs 1 in Pune, which increases with each floor (rate for carrying bricks to the second floor is Rs 1.5, etc.)

Despite so many factors influencing the wage rate, there is limited variation in the daily wage within the same category of work. Construction workers were on average paid between Rs 400-500 daily before the pandemic, and painters were paid around Rs 700-800 daily.

This was consistently seen in most mazdoor mandis across Lucknow, which, for construction work, were found to have relatively fixed wages rates — workers here would prefer not taking up the job than working at a lower wage rate. In an environment of such strong wage inelasticity of labour supply, a 15% fall in overall wage rate now can be considered alarming, reflecting a sharp decrease in demand for (construction) worker services.

Mohd. Haroon, a mason, expresses this entire problem plaguing the mandis for months: “Earlier, wages were Rs 400-500, but now it is difficult to get work to begin with. Even if we are able to find work, wages are only Rs 200-300 per day.”

Also Read: The Ambitious Visionaries of NITI Aayog Are Ignorant of India’s Hard Realities

With fewer privately funded infrastructure projects, and an increasing desperation for employment, the employer-employee power dynamic has changed since the pandemic. Employers – mostly private labour contractors – enjoy greater bargaining and market power and offer lower wages that many forlorn workers have no choice but to accept. In absence of any formal labour union support, or a formal mandi in place, many workers – who even before the pandemic had little agency or bargaining power as a collective, now feel more cheated and exploited. The state has done nothing in this regard.

Respondents (like Mohd. Haroon) cited many incidents that took place pre-pandemic when they were cheated out of their rightful wages too, when thekedars (contractors) would often impose heavy wage cuts for being ‘late to work’, even if the worker was late by just five minutes.

As per Ansuiya, when workers would protest, thekedars exerted their power: “They say, ‘Take it or leave it’, so what can we do?”

However, when workers started negotiating in groups and clusters, which happened near the Engineering College mazdoor mandi in Lucknow, they noticed that such incidents of exploitation took place less often. Most workers, left in a more vulnerable state now, favour state-supported unionised mechanisms that can help workers seek employment in smaller clusters (than on individual basis) and get collective bargaining power on issues such as wage-determination and on working condition standards (especially those working with their family with them on-site).

Expenditure and borrowing trends

From the survey data collected, overall spending by workers (from Lucknow and Pune) rose post-lockdown by Rs 5,000 on a monthly basis. A lot of this increase, as seen from the aggregate expenditure allocation from each worker’s household expenses, was attributed to debt-interest related payments, rental costs, healthcare costs, children’s education, and conveyance costs (that have substantially increased now).

The average number of in school children per daily wage worker household in Lucknow was approximately three, which implies a significant level of ‘educational spending’. However, the team found that for the sample of 48 participants in Lucknow, mean educational expenditure fell from Rs 560 to Rs 430 per month. This reflected how more and more parents with low incomes took their kids out of school (as schools shut and classes went online), or couldn’t educate them (in the absence of a smartphone).

Figure 1. Source: Authors’ calculations

Despite restrictions on movement and travel, the mean expenditure on ‘Conveyance’ in Pune has increased from Rs 890 to Rs 1,030 per month. This increase was not due to an increase in the frequency of travel, but rather due to a rise in the daily travel fare from Rs 60 to Rs 100. Respondents explained that due to the closure of public transport facilities and the imposition of social distancing restrictions, they had to explore more expensive, private transport networks to get to the mandis.

‘Medical expenses’ also for most workers’ households. The amount that a daily wage worker household would spend on healthcare increased due to a rise in the average spending on medicines from Rs 1,900 before the pandemic to Rs 4,700 per month since the pandemic and this increased spending was evident for those availing private healthcare services for maternal patients, pregnant women, or in treating non-COVID-19 related ailments for the elderly in the household. In a previous study, in Lucknow and Pune as well, we discussed how reproductive healthcare services and costs were impacted since the pandemic struck (for details see here).

Figure 2. Source: Authors’ calculations

In Figure 2, we see how consumption (%) increased for most workers in Lucknow as against Pune. Explaining this, and beyond the other overheads mentioned, a major overhead for expense for most workers was on ‘debt-related payments’, or simply on interest of borrowings. Almost every borrower, as studied, availed larger sums of money through intra-community borrowings at informalised interest rates, as borrowing institutionally through banks wasn’t possible (due to lack of proper paperwork and security ownership).

This pattern of ‘informal lending’, as reported by workers in our interactions, informed us how in most cases a lender charged 5% for every Rs 100 taken as loan. On asking why it was necessary to borrow at such high and exploitative interest rates, most workers (especially from Lucknow) cited two reasons: for increased medical expenses, and for household weddings (mostly for dowry-related expenses, where ‘marriages had been already fixed prior to the pandemic’).

The missing link: Absence of government support?

The ‘aam’ worker during a pandemic struck catastrophe was forced to become more and more ‘nirbhar’ on debt-entrapping, ultra-exploitative, asset owning class of workers (and informal money lenders), which has only made their living condition worse over time.

Despite the government’s efforts to ensure food security during the months of the lockdown and thereafter, most workers were unable to avail the benefits of receiving ration packages. Poonam Sahu, a daily-wage worker from Lucknow, resents:

“As far as I am concerned, the government can say whatever on paper, or in person about providing (food) aid and support. Daily wage workers have been living through a horrid period and none of the announced government measures are to be seen. It didn’t help the workers in any way.”

The interference of bureaucratic intermediaries and the need for an ID and paperwork to receive food packages resulted in making more workers being forced to fend for themselves.

Aklima, a worker staying with her two kids, did not receive the much-touted government food support. She says, “We didn’t get ration here. Where and when do we get ration? Whatever we get, we need to buy it. If we work hard, we eat. Otherwise, we remain hungry.”

A family stands next to temporary shelters built on an empty plot at Jankipuram area, Lucknow city, India. Photo: Jignesh Mistry

Ansuiya’s statement quite tragically sums up the situation of these essential yet unsecured working group:

“If we ask for help, who will extend it? People send us away by saying, ‘What can we do to help you if you have come to earn money?’ This is what they tell us. So, help is never on offer. What we can get is ‘work’. At least that will help us manage our livelihood. Else, it is we who suffer and die.”

Names of all respondents have been changed to protect their identity.

Deepanshu Mohan is associate professor of economics and Director, Centre for New Economics Studies (CNES), Jindal School of Liberal Arts, O.P. Jindal Global University. Jignesh Mistry is senior research analyst and the Visual Storyboard Team Lead, CNES. Advaita Singh, Sunanda Mishra, Snehal Sreedhar, Shivani Agarwal and Vanshika Mittal are all senior research analysts at CNES. Ada Nagar is a research assistant at CNES. This story is produced as a part of the Visual Storyboard initiative of CNES. Please click here for a playlist on video essays and here for photo essays produced from this Storyboard.

Tamil Nadu: AIADMK Finales Seat-Sharing Agreement With PMK, in Talks With BJP

The PMK party’s decision to join the alliance came soon after the AIADMK agreed to their long-pending demand of a separate reservation for the Vanniyar community.

New Delhi: The ruling All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) finalised its seat-sharing with ally Pattali Makkal Katchi (PMK) for the upcoming April 6 assembly polls. The decision came a day after the Election Commission announced the election schedule. The PMK party headed by S. Ramadoss has been allotted 23 seats.

Deputy chief minister and AIADMK coordinator O. Panneerselvam told the media that as per the agreement reached between AIADMK and PMK, 23 seats have been allotted to PMK. The seats, however, have not been made public yet.

The AIADMK has also begun holding talks with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). A BJP delegation comprising of Union minister G. Kishan Reddy, Tamil Nadu in-charge C.T. Ravi and state party chief L. Murugan held talks with E. Palaniswami and Panneerselvam. The ruling party is also reportedly holding talks with the Vijayakanth-led DMDK.

While the AIADMK clinched the deal, the DMK too has set up a committee under senior party leader T.R. Baalu to hold talks with alliance partners including the Congress and Left parties on seat sharing.

Also read: BJP’s Electoral Strategy for Tamil Nadu in 2021 is the De-Dravidisation of State Politics

The PMK party’s decision to join the alliance came soon after the AIADMK agreed to their long-pending demand of a separate reservation for the Vanniyar community in jobs and in admission to educational institutions. Hours before the Election Commission announced the election dates, the state assembly passed a bill envisaging 10.5% internal reservation for Vanniyars, a Most Backward Community.

Of the total 234 assembly seats, AIADMK had contested 227 in the 2016 elections. The remaining seven seats were distributed among its allies. Of them, the party had won 134 seats and DMK got 98.