November 2024 Archives

Sheikh Hasina, Extradition and International Criminal Law: Examining India’s Options

India, which is aspiring to be a UNSC permanent member, should not support impunity of an alleged perpetrator of crimes against humanity, based on its state practice.

On November 12, Bangladesh’s special International Crimes Tribunal asked Interpol to issue a red notice for the arrest of former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina in connection with the deaths of hundreds of protesters. This comes a few weeks after it issued an arrest warrant for the veteran leader, who is staying in India after her ouster by student groups. The protest which initially began to challenge and question the affirmative action policies of her government in jobs and education turned into a call for her resignation. Being wanted for alleged crimes against humanity, there is a pressing demand that she should be extradited to Bangladesh.

This demand seems legitimate and is a quite acceptable practice in any democratic country. At least this is how the Ukrainian president was ousted in 2014 with similar examples in several other countries. Important in this case is that Bangladesh is a member of the International Criminal Court (ICC). When it comes to international crimes, it has strong precedent to show the international community that it genuinely believes in the end of impunity and seeks culture of accountability, as it has established the Bangladesh War Tribunal to punish perpetrators of 1971’s crimes of genocide. It is important to note here that international criminality for international crimes is based on command responsibility and it does not require an act to be committed by the accused herself.

Existing data suggest that many students carrying out a peaceful protest were killed by state officials. At first blush, such an act committed by the government comes under the category of crimes against humanity under article 7 of the Rome Statute. Violence which was committed by the Hasina government falls under many headings of enumeration such as torture, murder, enforced disappearance of person, prosecution and other acts of like nature. Widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population and the gravity and scale of these offences do make a prima facie case against Hasina very strong and demonstrate that the state apparatus was deeply involved.

Also read: Inside Bangladesh’s Media Blackout and How Its Effects Linger

Since Bangladesh is an ICC member, it is important to mention the three ways in which ICC’s jurisdiction can be activated — by the state, by the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), and by a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) referral. ICC jurisdiction is not an abstract power, but a real one. The ICC complements national jurisdiction, and it is a court of last resort. Considering so, the arrest warrant issued against Hasina has significant implication under international criminal law.

Extradition

Although the accused is harbouring in India, there is no declaration on behalf of the Indian government that it has given asylum to Hasina. Bangladesh has made formal request to India for Hasina’s extradition. Interestingly, the extradition request stands at the crossroads of domestic and international law. Traditionally, there is no obligation on the state to extradite an individual. However, based on state practice, it has evolved as a complex regime of legal space.

Three things are important here, namely: double criminality, rule of speciality and political offences exceptions. Double criminality means an act for which extradition is sought must be criminal in both jurisdictions. Rule of speciality means a person who has been extradited must be prosecuted and punished for the specific offences for which the extradition was granted and cannot be re-extradited without the approval of the requested state.

In addition to this, there is a general rule that for political offences extradition cannot be given. Further, the criminal extradition treaty signed in 2013 between India and Bangladesh is an executive act whereas the Indian Extradition Act (IEA) is a Parliamentary statute. So, as a matter of rule, the treaty must be read harmoniously with IEA and section 31 of IEA provides exception to political offences.

In international law, there is no convention on extradition. However, there exists the aut dedere aut judicare (“either extradite or prosecute”) principle, which is a part of treaty law as well as customary international law. It says that in case of certain grave international crimes like genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture, the state under whose jurisdiction the accused is residing must either extradite or punish them. Further, under Article 3 (2) of the draft articles on Prevention and Punishment of Crimes Against Humanity, 2019, there is a general obligation on each state to prevent and to punish crimes against humanity, which are crimes under international law, whether or not committed in time of armed conflict.

Either extradite or prosecute

The State in the territory under whose jurisdiction the alleged offender is present shall, if it does not extradite or surrender the person to another State or competent international criminal court or tribunal, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution. Those authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any other offence of a grave nature under the law of that State. The precedent here is the International Court of Justice judgment on Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal).

Also read: In New Statement, Sheikh Hasina Condemns Killing of Lawyer, Arrest of Hindu Activist

In this case, on 19 February 2009, Belgium filed an application instituting proceedings against Senegal relating to Hissène Habré, the former President of Chad and resident in Senegal since being granted political asylum by the Senegalese Government in 1990. In particular, Belgium submitted that, by failing to prosecute Habré for certain acts he was alleged to have committed during his presidency, including acts of torture and crimes against humanity, or to extradite him to Belgium, Senegal had violated the so‑called obligation under aut dedere aut judicare principle provided for in Article 7 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and in customary international law.

The court found that, by failing to comply with its obligations under Article 6, paragraph 2, and Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention, Senegal had engaged its international responsibility. Therefore, it was required to cease that continuing wrongful act, and to take, without further delay, the necessary measures to submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, if it did not extradite Habré. Consequently, the Extraordinary African Chamber started the trial in Dakar and sentenced Habré to life imprisonment after he was found guilty of crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture committed in Chad between 1982 and 1990.

India’s options

India, which is aspiring to be a UNSC permanent member, should not support impunity of an alleged perpetrator of crimes against humanity, based on its state practice. However, it may opt for some alternatives. Article 17 of the Rome Statute says the ICC shall determine that a case is inadmissible where it is being investigated or prosecuted by a State which has jurisdiction over it, unless the State is unwilling or unable genuinely to carry out the investigation or prosecution. Considering the widespread clampdown on Hasina’s party in Bangladesh, a case could arguably be made that she will not get a fair trial in Bangladesh as matters stand today. So, Article 17 itself bars the jurisdiction of Bangladesh.

Moreover, based on apprehension of torture and degrading and inhuman treatment, India could argue that it is not in a position to extradite Hasina back to Bangladesh. In the landmark judgments of the European Court of Human Rights such as Saadi v. Italy (2008) and Soering v. UK (1989), the court has held that if there is an apprehension of torture, the accused person shall not be extradited. However, India’s responsibility towards international community requires a rule-based approach. India could possibly either extradite Hasina to a third country as happened in the context of the Lockerbie case or it can hand her over to the ICC with the assurance that Hasina must not be extradited back to Bangladesh.

Aklavya Anand is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.

Shailesh Kumar is a lecturer in Law at the Department of Law & Criminology, Royal Holloway, University of London, and a commonwealth scholar.

This piece was first published on The India Cable – a premium newsletter from The Wire & Galileo Ideas – and has been updated and republished here. To subscribe to The India Cable, click here.

Lessons in Democracy from America’s Past and Present

As Donald Trump edges closer to a second term, the narrative moves beyond the hyperventilation over the “death of democracy” to expose deeper systemic flaws.

The hyperventilation over the death of democracy in the United States as Donald Trump prepares to take up his second term as the president of the country is overdone. As unhinged and illiberal as Trump and his choice of nominees for his cabinet are, they do not hold a candle to the Ku Klux Klan, which was a major political force in the country until just a generation or so ago. As weird as the conversation on immigration is in a country founded on the stealing of land and ethnic cleansing of the local population, it does not reach the genocidal pitch on which the country was founded, and its policies for generations thereafter. As much as the cabal of fools attack diversity and equal rights, primarily against African Americans, women and the larger queer community, it is little in comparison to the brutalisation these same communities have seen earlier in the history of the United States.

This is not to minimise the damage that Trump and his supporters have done or will do. They are both stupid and dangerous, and will hurt the country and its people deeply, as well as poison large parts of the world. We have seen the consequences of the first term, and there is every reason to believe that the second term will be far worse. But it is also foolish to pretend that the US was ever a perfect democracy. The victories won by those fighting on behalf of women’s rights, the rights of indigenous communities, the rights of African-Americans and the rights of the queer would not have been needed in a perfect democracy, the fights would not have cost so many lives, been so bitter, so long and so incomplete.

If it had been such a bastion of democracy, Trump would never have been in the running for a member of the Congress, much less the post of president. The fact that he was – not once, but thrice – and won twice, is itself an indictment of what passes for democracy in the United States.

A clear-eyed understanding of the flaws in the US allows us to truly appreciate the immense successes against difficult odds that the suffragists and the Civil Rights Movement achieved. The people who fought for democracy, spent their money, their years and even their lives to achieve a modicum of rights did not push against an open door. They fought, and they fought hard, and often it was not they, but their children, grandchildren or even great-grandchildren who were able to see some progress, if not total fulfilment.

That many of these hard-won rights are now under threat is a tragedy, but that tragedy has been facilitated by the belief that the state, the rich, and the institutions of power in the United States are essentially “good” and “democratic.” This is not merely a fallacy, but a deliberate lie by the powerful to draw a veil over the crimes they committed. Forgiveness and reconciliation may be essential for a society to continue working together, but if it is based on the falsification of the past, if the foundations of a compact are lies, then it serves as a soporific, an anaesthetic to a nation. The myth that a nation is “essentially democratic” is an “opiate of the masses” that limits them from challenging the powerful.

Also read: What Does Trump 2.0 Mean for Global Trade?

Power does not allow rights except when it is challenged by struggle. The asinine contention, so favoured by the established parties, that “the system works” is only a way to suggest that the powerful not be held to account. We are humans, and will only build imperfect systems. They will never work perfectly. The whole point of democracy is that we should not trust any system or any leader blindly. Instead, it requires the hard work of accounting, criticism and even rebellion to make sure that the government and the powerful are held to account. And it is worth remembering that the greatest rebellions expose the failures of the state. For example, J Edgar Hoover, as the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, described the Black Panthers as the “greatest threat to internal security of the country” in 1969 for the great crime of providing free breakfast at schools.

While this gives us an idea of the challenges within the United States; seeing the flaws in American democracy, and how these rights have actually been won, is also important to those outside the US. The United States is merely another state – if a uniquely militarily and economically powerful one – and the moral power of democracy rests not in the institutions of the state but among those willing to challenge it and hold it to account. The government of the United States is not interested in spreading or upholding democratic or liberal policies abroad; it is only interested in upholding its own power, just like any other state. The tragedies of US interventions, delayed interventions or lack of interventions abroad, over the last two decades when the country had unparalleled power in the international system, have shown us that US governments are neither interested or capable of defending democracy abroad.

This should put in context the fear that an illiberal and undemocratic order is coming firmly in place as Trump inches closer to the White House. While it is true that Trump is likely to support illiberal and anti-democratic leaders overseas, it was never true that any other US administration would support democracy abroad. Democracy is not the gift of any state to give to any other. States do not practice democracy, people do. Both for the United States and countries abroad, if people are watching only the White House, the Senate, the House and the judiciary for the rise and fall of democracy, they are looking in the wrong place. These institutions were created, and tamed, by those outside them – the oppressed, the broken and the despised. The glory of democracy and its shining potential lies with them and not the circus on Capitol Hill. We forget it at our peril.

Omair Ahmad is an author. His last novel, Jimmy the Terrorist, was shortlisted for the Man Asian Literary Prize, and won the Crossword Award.

A Journey Through Ladakh’s Ancient Rock Art

The landscape is stark and the rugged mountains reach for the skies. In the midst of these barren stretches, a few sia (wild rose) bushes rise out of nowhere and spread their heady fragrance in the breeze.

Ladakh, the land of high mountain passes, is nestled between the tallest mountains of the world – the Himalayas and the Karakoram Range. Here, eternity is never beyond the vision of man. Life is difficult in this high-altitude desert. There is almost no rainfall here, as the winds coming from the south lose their moisture while ascending to cross the Himalayas. Oxygen is scarce in the air and visitors to this region, coming from the plains, have to rest fully for a day or two so that their bodies can acclimatise to the thinner air. The Buddhist faith imbues the lives of the people here with patience and understanding.

There is a well-known treasure of early Buddhist art and several art-historians like myself have spent decades traversing this region to document Buddhist paintings and sculpture. While doing so, we have often noted and sometimes photographed prehistoric etchings carved on rock surfaces. However, these have remained in the realm of academicians and have not been known to art lovers and the general public. Here is where Ahtushi Deshpande has recently made a significant contribution through her book Speaking Stones: Rock Art of Ladakh. Through excellent photography and inspired writing, she takes us on an enchanted journey through the numerous petroglyphs in Ladakh carved thousands of years ago.

Speaking Stones: Rock Art of Ladakh, Ahtushi Deshpande, Pragati Offset, 2024

The book is thoroughly researched and gives the reader a good introduction to the geography and history of Ladakh. The cultural similarities and interactions of this region with Central Asia, Mongolia and Siberia are well brought out. It is well known to us that artistic and cultural exchanges across this vast region have occurred through Buddhism, but the book reveals that this sharing of ideas may well have taken place since a few thousand years before that.

Deshpande travels extensively in the extremely difficult terrain of Ladakh, with its high-altitude conditions and harsh environment. It is her wonderful photography of the physical landscape and of the art, which brings alive this subject before the reader. This is not an easy task, as most readers are not accustomed to perusing an entire book on rock etchings. The writing is evocative and eloquent. It exemplifies a true meeting of historical research and a deep passion for the subject, which carries the reader through this journey.

Above all, the book transports the readers to a magical land – a cold desert where there is scarcely any vegetation. The landscape is stark and the rugged mountains reach for the skies. In the midst of these barren stretches, a few sia (wild rose) bushes rise out of nowhere and spread their heady fragrance in the breeze. Deshpande treks through this vast region, crossing many high mountain passes, to photograph the exquisite and vital art of a few thousand years ago – truly a labour of endurance and passion. The text and captions are extremely informative and help us to share her journey.

I hope this book will whet the appetite of readers to travel to Ladakh and visit not just the main tourist attractions, but also the vast expanses of mountains – where the extremes of nature have created a canvas beyond comparison and where the people still have a vision which is borne out of the love of all creation, a vision which always looks to the eternal.

Benoy K Behl is a film-maker, art-historian and photographer.

The Only Way Ahead for Progressives Post Maharashtra Election Debacle

Without urgent normative and structural reforms in our operational methodologies, we will all be complicit in hammering the final nail.

The Maha Vikas Aghadi’s (MVA’s) performance in Maharashtra has elicited both disbelief and outrage amongst progressive forces, who are now focused on a forensic audit of this shock loss. Multiple theories have been proffered — including the possibility of EVM hacking/changing, the targeted deletion of MVA voters (from the Lok Sabha poll) and addition of bogus voters (between 2019-24, there was an increase of 37 lakh voters in Maharashtra. Yet in just five months after Lok Sabha polls, 47 lakh extra voters were added) etc.

Efforts are being made to pursue these to the logical end, by both political and non-political forces. These exercises are designed to thwart a repeat of any skulduggery in Delhi, Bihar, Assam and other elections going forward. Without discounting serious allegations (which raise profound questions about the integrity of the electoral process), it would be equally expedient to refocus our energies on the imminent local body polls in Maharashtra. Many would promptly dismiss this as a localised concern, not worthy of national attention. That would be a historic mistake.

It is not an exaggeration to say that today Maharashtra is in the same place as Gujarat was in 2003. If the MVA doesn’t win a substantial number of the 27 corporations, 34 zilla panchayats, 351 panchayat samitis, 129 nagar panchayats and 27,839 panchayats (whose cumulative budget is close to ten lakh crores), it would be extremely difficult to dislodge the Bharatiya Janta Party (BJP) from one of the most powerful and richest states of India. This would be electorally, culturally and financially catastrophic, and would firmly cement a saffron-epicentre in India (along with Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh).

Also read: In Post-Election Maharashtra, Ajit Pawar Is the Leader to Watch

It is no coincidence that the BJP is according these polls the same importance as it did in the 2020 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation polls (when almost every national and state leader campaigned in Hyderabad, partly to influence other local body polls). Given Maharashtra still boasts of a vibrant progressive tradition, a comprehensive pushback can yet be mounted. However, (and at the risk of sounding like a broken record) it is incumbent on progressive forces to objectively introspect on what we got wrong and constructively course-correct. These observations are based on the author’s experiences in Maharshtra over the past four months.

Firstly, progressive parties and forces still excessively depend on creating a meta-narrative (mahaul) to shape election outcomes. This strategy is premised on large rallies and symbolic events, which are resource intensive. The assumption is that the message from these will percolate down, thus swaying the hearts and minds of people. But through bitter experience, the media systematically deoxygenated most MVA events/rallies.

Unfortunately, progressives have not invested enough in creating a concomitant social media architecture — primarily on messaging services. While there are a plethora of YouTube, X, Meta and Instagram influencers, progressives lack adequate pipelines to disseminate content to the silent majority (beyond those already aligned with parties). What progressives also lack is a more organised effort to curate content that methodically counters the disinformation/misinformation of far-right content creators.

Additionally, there is a need for greater synergies with the host of YouTube channels which are more objective than the mainstream media. While efforts were made to send party spokespersons to such platforms during the Lok Sabha elections (hence legitimising them), these efforts were not replicated in Maharashtra. As a result of all these factors, MVA parties were unable to create a hawa (wave) even though their content was factual and sharper. These systemic problems can easily be resolved in the run-up to the local body polls.

Secondly, because rallies and large events have diminishing returns, it would be expedient to take a leaf out of Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s book and organise more intimate meetings with key stakeholders before elections. During the Bharat Jodo Yatra (BJY), he interacted with small groups of influential stakeholders from various sectors that included honest conversations on difficult questions. Apart from the obvious PR potential of such meetings, they successfully converted value aligned stakeholders into para-ambassadors of the Congress party (who then actively campaigned during Lok Sabha polls).

It is no surprise that multiple senior leaders from the BJP have since vilified civil society as a national threat. However, going forward, there is a strategic need to deepen granularity in such meetings locally. From the experience of party-civil society meetings in districts like Kolhapur, Satara etc., two key challenges need to be resolved. First, civil society itself is given to spectacle tactics, focusing on symbolic events, dharnas, pamphleteering etc. While these are essential, they are no longer enough to reach or convert the silent majority. This is because the onus is on the voter to attend, hear and read what is being propagated.

Consequently, many a time, civil society groups were restricted to their respective bubbles, whose occasional overlaps were confused for enhanced outreach to new catchment areas. This was exacerbated by the fact that while many civil society leaders constructively acted as catalysts for our shared cause, some myopically made their interventions about themselves.

In stark contrast, it was ironically the Sangh Parivar that effectively replicated the BJY’s methodology. In western Maharashtra for example, small sabhas, satsangs and closed-door meetings were organised with various communities as well as sectoral interest groups at the ward/panchayat levels. Eschewing large events and the media glare, the Sangh led these micro-interactions for at least three months — to convert the uninitiated, to prod the already initiated into becoming active campaigners, and to confuse traditional voters of the Congress party. To borrow a sporting metaphor, this man-to-man-marking paid rich dividends for the BJP-led Mahayuti. This is something progressives can start doing now, in preparation for the local body elections.

The second problem progressives parties faced in civil society interactions in western Maharashtra was conceptual. Building on the pre-Lok Sabha samvidhan samman sabhas, discussions invariably began with exhortations to protect the constitution and safeguarding Maharashtra’s asmita (pride) and sanskriti (culture). But demands were inevitably made for more.

While agreeing to a normative alignment based on constitutional values, civil society leaders pointedly asked how parties intended to take this further. Some questions stood out in most meetings, namely what the MVA would do to tangibly stand with communities under attack (western Maharashtra saw many riots in the last few months), what MVA’s answer was to sub-categorisation (which the BJP openly positioned as a panacea for greater politico-economic mobility to Dalit and OBC sub-castes), what MVA would do to stop attacks on religious structures and how the MVA’s economic blueprint for India was different from the BJP’s. The slew of measures taken by the MVA including sadbhavana marches, commitment to the caste census, and the proposal to remove the 50% cap on reservations were dismissed (even by Dalit and OBC groups) as inadequate to resolve immediate problems.

Also read: The Maharashtra Election Puzzle

What civil society hoped the MVA parties (especially the Congress) would offer was protection against various kinds of attacks, a deeper and sustained engagement with Dalit, OBC and Muslim communities as well as firm and timely stands on thorny issues. They wanted answers on what we would do concretely, not rhetorically. Like what Rahul Gandhi did in the BJY (and what Mahatma Gandhi did through the constructive programme in the 1930s), they expected MVA to go beyond transactional electoral engagements.

Thirdly, it was clear that such expectations can only be requited if progressive parties also work on socio-cultural and ideological issues at the ward and village level (and not booths, which are essentially election-oriented and don’t invoke ownership by either political or social activists).

Such work would have to complement the work of district-level leaders because even if leaders are normatively proactive (as in Kolhapur, Chandrapur, Amravati, Sangli, Baramati etc.), electoral exigences overwhelm them. To counter Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s (RSS’s) shakhas, progressives need multiple champions and boots on the ground. But parties will need an institutionalised structure for this because clearly, merely exposing the Sangh’s agenda isn’t adequate anymore.

This was acutely clear when it came to countering BJP’s polarising campaign in western Maharashtra (Batenge toh Katenge slogan (if you are not united, you’ll be slaughtered), communal disturbances, polarising rhetoric spread through a web of social media groups etc). Some valiant efforts were undoubtedly made by MVA leaders (who took out inter-faith communal harmony marches) and saints from all communities, who proactively organised a dharma sansad condemning hate and divisiveness. But these were not as granular as the Sangh’s microscopic Sajag Raho (Be Vigilant) campaign, which had warkaris and kirtankars urging Hindus to stand by BJP through pravachans and powadas (traditional Marathi ballads). Such micro-local campaigns were partly how the BJP beat massive macro-level anti-incumbency.

Ultimately, the key takeaway for progressives to remember going forward is that those who love peace must organise as effectively and microscopically as those who spread hate. Can we not try to reorganise ourselves, solicit alliances with new stakeholders locally, and then programmatically channelise them for the forthcoming Maharashtra local body polls?

There were undoubtedly other variables that shaped this election. On one hand, the Sangh could have been flexing to show it can survive without Prime Minister Narendra Modi and home minister Amit Shah (which is why their campaigns were limited). Similarly, cash transfers (through Ladki Behen Yojana and alleged disbursals before polling), the weaponisation of state agencies, the propping up of dummy candidates and the Election Commission’s partisan role aided the Mahayuti coalition.

On the other hand, problems in seat-sharing, ticket distribution, social engineering and dissident management, as well as a cohesive MVA campaign (premised on a joint war-room and streamlined coordination) hamstrung MVA. The net result of these interconnected factors is an unprecedented upending of Maharashtra’s progressiveness (and the values of Shivaraya-Shahu-Phule-Ambedkar which are ingrained in the state’s cultural ethos).

Few outside Maharashtra can understand how massive a leap backward this is, and the true import of this loss to India. This is why we all need to shake off any sense of despair, and redouble our focus and energies on Maharashtra for the next three months.

Many legitimately fear that the very survival of the constitutional idea of India is at stake (ironically in the 75th year since our constitution was adopted). As concerned patriots, we all do have a right to demand greater focus and efficiency from progressive parties, who unfortunately lost the momentum from the Lok Sabha polls. But the protection and furtherance of the idea of India is a collective responsibility.

Therefore, it cannot be business as usual for all of us, not just parties. Without urgent normative and structural reforms in our operational methodologies, we will all be complicit in hammering the final nail. We all need to be more than what we are, irrespective of the odds we face. This is the only way ahead.

Pushparaj Deshpande is the spokesperson of the Congress party and the author of “Bharat Jodo Yatra: Reclaiming India’s Soul” (HarperCollins).

Maharashtra Voting Irregularity Allegations: EC to Meet Congress Delegation on December 3

The Congress party had alleged “arbitrary deletion of voters and subsequent additions” and an “inexplicable increase” in voting percentages between 5 pm and the final figures released on polling day.

New Delhi: A day after the Congress party submitted a memorandum to the Election Commission of India (ECI) raising concerns over alleged arbitrary deletion and addition of voters prior to the Maharashtra assembly elections, the ECI has invited the party on Saturday (November 30) for a discussion on the issue on Tuesday (December 3).

The poll body will meet a delegation of the Congress party to discuss concerns raised about voter data. In its memorandum, the Congress party had alleged “arbitrary deletion of voters and subsequent additions” and an “inexplicable increase” in voting percentages between 5 pm and the final figures released on polling day.

The ECI acknowledged the Congress party’s concerns and reaffirmed its commitment to conducting free and fair elections, emphasising the importance of political parties as vital stakeholders in the electoral process. The commission stated that electoral rolls are prepared with the involvement of all parties and that the issues raised will be examined.

Also read: Congress Alleges Voter Fraud in Maharashtra Elections, Submits Memorandum to EC

“ECI has always accorded the highest attention, to the political parties, in particular, the National and State Recognized Parties, which it considers as the most vital stakeholders of the electoral democracy in India. The commission assures INC that it will make all efforts to address party’s all legitimate concerns,” the ECI said.

Regarding the discrepancy in voting percentage data, the ECI pointed out that it has previously addressed this issue, explaining that presiding officers have multiple statutory responsibilities at the close of polling, leading to a delay in data entry into the voter turnout app.

The ECI also noted that total votes polled at each booth are provided to agents of the candidates in form 17C part 1 at the end of polling, a figure that cannot be changed and contributes to the final turnout.

The meeting is scheduled for 5 pm on Tuesday at the ECI headquarters in New Delhi.

The Challenges of Modernising Ayurveda

A recent notification in The Gazette of India: Extraordinary has formalised the initiative of the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine to start Doctorate of Medicine (DM) courses in ayurveda. DM courses will be introduced for six subjects: psychiatry, hepatology, oncology, orthopaedics, reproductive medicine and gerontology. They are “intended to produce super specialists with deep understanding in ayurveda classics with updated knowledge in contemporary sciences in the relevant speciality areas.” This step appears temerarious because traditional medical systems like ayurveda can claim no major role in speciality and super speciality areas.

Traditionally, DM courses are meant to train medical postgraduates in super speciality areas. While a graduate degree equips a physician to function at the level of primary care as a general practitioner, postgraduate medical study is meant to create specialists who deliver secondary care. Programmes such as DM, which usually select only specialists for training, aim to create doctors with a deeper expertise in a particular subspeciality.

Ayurveda is an ancient science that developed when the methods of collecting and evaluating evidence were nascent. Its understanding of life-processes in health and illness was sketchy and often conjectural. However, its observations on health-promotion and illness-management, reinforced by the documented experiences of physicians across centuries, retain validity; but this validity comes with caveats. The foremost caveat is this: given that traditional medical systems are backed only by soft evidence, it is imprudent to use their prescriptions as stand-alone treatments in high-risk clinical situations.

To illustrate, mild depression is a common presentation in primary care settings. It can be addressed safely and effectively with the interventions of ayurveda and yoga. Ayurveda’s emphasis on holism and the gentleness of its approach, as well as its cultural acceptability, make it especially relevant in managing such cases in the context of the psychosocial stressors underlying them. The option of referring to higher levels of care if the condition does not improve is always open. But severe depression with psychotic symptoms and suicidal risk usually requires an urgent referral to specialists trained in psychiatry. Ayurveda and yoga are good to use only as complementary systems in the management of severe cases; they cannot serve as alternatives to conventional management.

By and large, traditional medical systems are usable in primary care when employed after careful safety netting and with scientific prudence. As the Oxford Textbook of Medicine explains, “When it is of proven quality, safety and efficacy, traditional medicine contributes to the goal of ensuring that all people have access to care that they feel they need.” Even in primary care, cases that need acute management are best left to modern medicine.

Ayurveda’s sketchy understanding of life-processes, its diagnoses based on ancient heuristics and the soft evidence that backs its prescriptions are features that diminish its role in speciality areas. Merely supplementing ayurvedic texts with current science will not rectify these lacunae. While current sciences certainly help in making a more prudent use of ancient knowledge, they cannot artificially stretch its scope. Conceiving a super speciality DM hepatology course based on a system that had only a vague understanding of liver functions and pathologies is a result of policy-makers’ misdirected zeal. Likewise misdirected are plans to start a DM oncology course based on ancient texts that had not the remotest idea of cancer as a generic pathology. Parity between systems does not come by merely mimicking the academic hierarchy of modern medicine. Medicine is not mimicry.

Researchable propositions in speciality areas may certainly be gleaned from the ayurvedic classics, but a researchable proposition does not ipso facto become an employable clinical guideline. It is the mandate of the Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and its numerous regional centres to look into ayurveda’s researchable areas. Super speciality courses in under-researched areas cannot justifiably usurp that mandate.

Such a usurpation would have two undesirable consequences. First, it would misinform the public, suggesting that ayurveda has a major role in the management of serious pathologies like cancer. Misinformation of this sort would only lend credence to the overblown claims that charlatans make time and again. It may be recalled that the Supreme Court has recently come down heavily on an ayurvedic drug company for its misleading claims. Second, ayurveda, which has always insisted that its physicians be humble and truthful in their claims, would become subject to further caricaturing by its vociferous distorters.

The Charaka Samhita showed contempt for fraudulent physicians and warned, “Fraudulent physicians blow their own trumpet and move from place to place in search of victims. They seldom ask or entertain questions. They are the envoys of death.” In its temerarious zeal to promote ayurveda, may the National Commission for Indian System of Medicine not end up becoming an unwitting supporter of the type of fraudulent physicians whom Charaka despised.

G.L. Krishna is an ayurveda physician. He is also a research scholar at the National Centre for Biological Sciences – Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bengaluru. Views are personal.

This essay was originally published in BMJ Blogs.

Both of Them are Learning to Ride a Bicycle

This story was published in the short story collection Daddy Gaam with the title O Dunu Cycle Sikhait Achhi in 2007.

The city was gripped by fear of riots. But the two of them were quite determined to learn how to ride a bicycle. They had been promised that once they learned, they’d get a new bicycle. Communal tensions were escalating. People were whispering anxiously, and rumours were flying around. The place where they went to learn cycling was in a densely populated Muslim neighbourhood.

Actually, bicycles were available there for rent at just two rupees per hour. Once they saved up enough for two to four hours, they could finally ride. They hadn’t even known renting bicycles was an option until Jasim Ahmed, a classmate, told them about it. He led them to a small bicycle mechanic’s shop right next to the field where they could practise. Jasim introduced them to the mechanic with a smile: “Chacha, this is Sudhir and Ramesh. They study with me, and they have to learn how to ride a bicycle. I can vouch for them! There won’t be any trouble. Could you please get two bicycles out for them?”

From that day on, whenever Sudhir and Ramesh arrived, the bicycles were always ready for them. They would roll the bikes over to the field to practice. Although they had learned to ride, they still struggled while getting on and off. To overcome these challenges, they found that the steps of the stage in the field were perfect. They would place their feet on the steps, hop onto their bicycles, and ride off without a hitch. They had mastered handling the handlebars, but full control was still a challenge. Turning remained a bit tricky, yet their determination to master the skill was unwavering.

Sudhir and Ramesh were in middle school, eagerly looking forward to high school next year. Their houses were right next to each other, and they had been friends since childhood long before they even knew what an ‘onion’ was. They had picked up many English words over the years, but ‘onion’ never seemed to stick. One day, Ramesh’s uncle came to visit and gifted him Rs 200, a princely sum in their eyes.

At that moment, Ramesh felt a rush of joy; he had never received so much money before. The idea that he could spend it however he liked thrilled him. Elated, he rushed over to Sudhir’s house to share the news. The two friends quickly began plotting how to spend their unexpected windfall.

Sudhir suggested, “Let’s go grab some gupchup!”

But Ramesh wasn’t in the mood for gupchup; he had eaten it countless times before. “No, let’s go to Bharat Café. I want to try their dosa,” he insisted. And with that, the two friends set off right away.

When they arrived at Bharat Café, Sudhir glanced at the menu and exclaimed, “Onion dosa!”

When their order arrived, they were met with a dosa stuffed with raw onions. Both boys recoiled, unable to eat the onions. Instead, they peeled off the crispy edges of the dosa and savoured it with sambar and coconut chutney. It was then they realised that “onion” simply meant pyaaz in Hindi.

Eager to master riding bicycles, Sudhir and Ramesh were excited about getting new bikes for high school. The thought of riding their brand-new bicycles to school filled them with anticipation. However, their enthusiasm was tempered by the ominous rumours spreading through the city. Whispers of impending riots, fuelled by claims of Muslims stockpiling arms in Masjid and Hindus preparing for battle, hung in the air. They both knew that if riots broke out, it could lead to loss of life and a long curfew, locking everyone in their homes — no going out, no shopping, and certainly no bicycle riding. The mere thought of being unable to practice their newfound skill filled them with frustration and anger.

As they were about to leave for bicycle practice that day, Sudhir’s kaka, Shyam Babu, stopped them in their tracks. “Where are you both going? The situation in the city isn’t good right now. You shouldn’t go out too often,” he warned.

Sudhir felt his excitement deflate. “We’re just going to practice riding our bicycles. We’re getting better every day,” he replied.

But Shyam Babu wasn’t interested in their cycling progress. He said, “You need to stop for a few days. The field you go to is surrounded by Muslim neighbourhoods.”

Ramesh replied, “So what, kaka? Why would Muslims harm us for no reason?”

Shyam Babu shot Ramesh a glance but remained silent. Instead, he turned to Sudhir. “You kids don’t understand. You don’t know what Muslims are like. They’ll start a fight over the smallest issues.”

The two boys exchanged sceptical looks. “But we have Muslim friends, and they’ve never caused us any trouble. They’re just like us,” Sudhir insisted.

Shyam Babu was furious. His voice was filled with anger. He said, “You all don’t even try to understand the point. There’s no use in arguing for nothing. Muslims are known for their fiery temperament. They eat chickens and roosters. They eat beef. They eat onions and garlic. What don’t they eat? Consuming such forbidden things heats up the blood. Their nature becomes completely violent. They start resorting to fights at the slightest provocation. Taking someone’s life is like child’s play for them.

Sudhir and Ramesh found Shyam Babu’s words amusing, but they didn’t laugh. “No point in making Kaka angrier,” they both thought. But Ramesh said, “Everyone eats chicken, Kaka! People say that Hindus eat more chicken than Muslims these days.”

Shyam Babu became even more upset. He was completely furious now. He said, “It’s difficult to make you all understand. Don’t you get it? Muslims hate Hindus. They call Hindus ‘kafir.’ That’s why they’re planning to eliminate Hindus from this country. Then this land will become theirs. Hindustan will turn into Pakistan.”

Sudhir and Ramesh stood in stunned silence, struggling to comprehend his words. Shyam Babu’s frustration boiled over, and he stomped off, leaving the boys bewildered. Determined not to let the situation ruin their day, they headed to the field for cycling practice.

When they reached the field, it was already four o’clock. They regretted being delayed because of Shyam Babu. The man who rented out the bicycles greeted them cheerfully, “Here you are! I’ve got two bicycles ready for you.” He wiped them down and stood them up for the boys. Sudhir looked at him closely, noticing the happiness on his face. He was known as a good mechanic, always busy with repair work. There were always four or five people working for him. With a smile on his face, the mechanic asked, “How long before you’ll be ready to ride on the road?”

“It’ll take a few more days, Chacha! I’m not steady on it yet. Need to find some flat ground,” Ramesh replied. The mechanic laughed again. Laughing was his habit. That was just the kind of person he was. Everyone spoke highly of him. His name was Alauddin.

When both arrived at the field with their bicycles, the sun was already setting towards the south. They thought it would get dark in two hours. There was still some sunlight left, but because it was winter, it had become weak. People sitting in the field were starting to leave, though a few boys were still playing marbles on one side. A game of cricket was also going on in another corner. The field was big enough that they still had plenty of space to ride their bicycles.

Both climbed onto their bicycles from the steps near the stage. After riding for a while, Ramesh headed towards the bushes on one side of the field. He tried to steer his bicycle between two bushes, but couldn’t make it through and fell, getting scratched by the branches. Seeing this, Sudhir also gave it a try. His first attempt ended with him falling into the dust, but he quickly stood up and went back to the steps to get on the bicycle again. He was determined now. He wouldn’t rest until he managed to ride through the bushes. He kept trying, falling two or three more times, but kept getting back up right away. The branches scratched his body, but finally, he managed to ride his bicycle through the bushes without falling. His face lit up with joy, and Ramesh also praised him. However, Ramesh himself didn’t dare try again and avoided going towards the bushes.

Both were enjoying riding their bicycles. Sudhir had gotten off a couple of times, resting his feet on the steps, and after taking a short break, he would start riding again. Suddenly, a man appeared in front of his bicycle. The man was carrying a wooden box on his head and was dressed in a lungi and kurta. Sudhir was right behind him and noticed that the man was walking slowly, probably because the box on his head was heavy. Sudhir’s bicycle didn’t have a bell, so he couldn’t ring it to make the man move out of the way. Seeing that the man wasn’t moving aside, Sudhir panicked. He tried to steer around him but couldn’t manage it. The front wheel of the bicycle hit the man, who lost his balance and fell. The box on his head also fell, and the scissors inside it scattered all over the field — scissors without any handles.

The man got up, stood tall, and slapped Sudhir twice.

Slowly, a few people started gathering there. Most of them were young men. They surrounded Sudhir. Sudhir realized that these people were from the nearby neighbourhood. Ramesh also arrived there with his bicycle. Ramesh rushed over, trying to explain the accident, but one of the young men grabbed Sudhir by the collar, his eyes blazing with anger. Thankfully, the man with the box intervened. “Let it go; he’s just a kid. It was an accident,”. Mistakes happen. I’ve already slapped him twice, and that’s punishment enough.” He then freed Sudhir’s collar from the young man’s grip, and Sudhir felt relieved. He quickly moved over to Ramesh.

The man then said to both, “Listen, babua! Now you should leave the field quickly. It’s getting dark.” Saying this, he began picking up the scattered scissors and putting them back in the box. The man was a scissor repairman, fixing broken scissors for a living. Seeing him collect the scissors, Sudhir and Ramesh started helping him. There were many scattered pieces, and together the three of them put them all back in the wooden box, which was now full.

The two boys then lifted the box and placed it back on the man’s head. He went on his way, and the others in the crowd also began to leave gradually. Darkness was starting to spread across the field. The two boys quickly took their bicycles and exited the field. They parked the bicycles at the repair shop, paid the repairman, and headed back home.

As they were leaving, they could hear the repairman’s voice behind them, asking, “When will you come back to learn cycling?” They pretended not to hear him and kept walking.

On the way back home, Ramesh and Sudhir walked silently. The incident that had just occurred was still fresh in their minds. After a while, Ramesh broke the silence and said, “Maybe we should take a break from learning to ride the bicycle for a few days.”

Sudhir looked at him and, after a moment, asked, “And what about going to school?” They fell silent again.

When they reached near their home, Ramesh suggested, “It’s been a long time since we’ve had some snacks. Let’s go eat some ‘gupchup’ at Sardarji’s shop.” The two friends quickly headed towards Sardar Joginder Singh’s shop for gupchup.

This story was published in the short story collection Daddy Gaam with the title O Dunu Cycle Sikhait Achhi in 2007.

Kathakar Ashok, is a celebrated figure in Maithili literature, renowned for his contributions to Maithili storytelling. His works include the poetry collection Chakravyuh and short story collections Ohi Raatik Bhor, Maatbar, and Daddy Gaam, along with essays in Maithil Aankhi, Katha Path and a critical piece, Baat Vichar.

Translated from Maithili to English by Ashutosh Kumar Thakur. Thakur is a Bangalore-based management professional, literary critic and curator.

Imran Khan May Well Have Done the Same as Shehbaz Sharif: Shahzeb Jillani On Pakistan Protests

Watch senior journalist Amit Baruah in conversation with Pakistani journalist Shahzeb Jillani.

As street battles raged in Islamabad, eminent journalist Shahzeb Jillani says Imran Khan may well have done the same as Shehbaz Sharif.

India Calls for Immediate Ceasefire and Two-State Solution on Palestinian Solidarity Day

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a statement marking the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on November 29, reiterated India’s support for a negotiated two-state solution.

New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in a statement marking the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People on November 29, expressed deep concern over the ongoing conflict in Gaza and reiterated India’s support for a negotiated two-state solution.

In a press statement released on November 26, Modi called for an immediate ceasefire, the release of hostages, an end to terrorism and unimpeded delivery of humanitarian assistance. He reaffirmed India’s commitment to the Palestinian cause, emphasising the need for a sovereign, independent and viable State of Palestine living side-by-side in peace with Israel. Modi also highlighted India’s role as a steadfast development partner for the Palestinian people.

The Embassy of the State of Palestine in India commemorated the day with a strong call for an end to Israeli aggression in Gaza and an appeal for India’s continued backing for a sovereign Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. The Embassy highlighted the devastating consequences of the prolonged Israeli offensive, citing a death toll exceeding 43,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, and the near-total destruction of infrastructure in Gaza. They accused Israel of pursuing ethnic cleansing, using starvation as a weapon of war, and systematically targeting journalists. At least 188 media professionals have been killed, hindering the world’s ability to witness the full extent of the devastation.

Beyond the immediate violence, the embassy condemned what it termed Israel’s systematic policy of expanding settlements in the West Bank, isolating Palestinian cities and confiscating Palestinian funds. Furthermore, the statement criticised Israel’s increasingly adversarial stance toward the UN, including barring its secretary-general from entry and attempting to curtail the activities of United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, a critical lifeline for Palestinian refugees. These actions, the embassy asserted, demonstrate Israel’s unwillingness to engage in meaningful peace negotiations and its disregard for international law.

Reaffirming their commitment to self-determination, the embassy declared the Palestinian people’s unwavering resolve to continue their struggle for an independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital. They rejected all displacement policies and emphasised their faith in the UN and the principles of international justice. The statement underscored the urgent need for international intervention to protect Palestinian civilians and hold Israel accountable for its actions.

Also read: One State or Two States? A Deep Dive into Omar Barghouti’s Vision for the Middle East

On this day of solidarity, Palestine appealed to India, citing the historical friendship between the two nations, to leverage its influence to halt the Israeli aggression, provide humanitarian and financial support, and actively promote a just and lasting peace. The embassy expressed its continued belief in India’s role as a voice for peace and stability in the region, particularly in facilitating the reconstruction of Gaza.

The embassy statement also acknowledged significant milestones, such as Palestine’s 2012 recognition as a UN non-member observer state and the raising of the Palestinian flag at UN headquarters in 2015.

‘Neither Unselfish Nor Philanthropic’: India’s Foreign Policy Post-Independence

The lessons learnt and the conclusions drawn from the past often determine the course of future events.

The following is an excerpt from Negotiating India’s Landmark Agreements by A.S. Bhasin.

History, as Professor E.H. Carr, the distinguished historian put it, is ‘anunending dialogue between the past and the present’. It is not a one-time event as most people think. Its impact is often felt from generation to generation. Eventually, history becomes the on-going story of a nation.

The lessons learnt and the conclusions drawn from the past often determine the course of future events. If history describes the events, historiography helps us understand them in their broader perspective and overlying characteristics that shape the events. It is important that we keep studying the phenomena, their shapes and colours, to ensure that changes do not bewilder or mislead us.

For more than two centuries before Independence, the British who ruled over us decided who would be India’s friends and what would be good for us. India and its peoples’ interests were subordinated to the larger interests of the colonial ‘mother country’. This inevitably meant that India’s foreign policy and relations with other countries, even in the neighbourhood, were seen through the prism of British interests. The starkest example was of Indians being offered as cannon fodder in battles across the world for the benefit of the imperial power.

Negotiating India’s Landmark Agreements, A.S. Bhasin, Penguin Random House, 2024.

Independence opened up new vistas and horizons. The entire foreign policy was seen through a new perspective and had a new look. India emerged into Independence in a world which was different than when they had lost it. The world that existed prior to the arrival of the British in India was one of empires and imperial rule. Colonialism, foreign control and racism were the phenomena of the eighteenth century world. Post Independence, India fought to secure independence, self-governance, freedom and non-discrimination for all colonized peoples. It was an emerging new order that demanded a more nuanced and sophisticated diplomacy with a new lexicon of its own.

A free India found itself grappling with multiple challenges, both at the domestic and diplomatic level. Being a successor to the British Raj, India could not forsake the inherited legacy though imperialist, negative and often disruptive. The Partition of India created another country, and another challenge, in the form of Pakistan. The emergence of communist China in our neighbourhood was a most disruptive phenomenon and a new challenge to contend with. As it happened, India found itself not fully prepared to meet it.

The agreements which have been discussed in the aforementioned pages were spread over several decades. Some were rooted in history, and some, the product of history. Each one posed a new challenge, and the experience gained in each case, provided some direction for the nation’s journey in diplomacy.

The India-China Agreement on Tibet, 1954, was then India’s most important agreement and the first agreement of any significance that India negotiated. It exposed India’s lack of preparedness and experience in negotiations. The trust displayed on the other party during negotiations was out of proportion to what was warranted. India made erroneous presumptions that it held the initiative to set the terms of the agreement and that China would pander to its diktat. No attempt was made to study and evaluate the strength of China and the extent to which it would accommodate India’s agenda. Too much reliance was laid on factors which were outside India’s control. The people asked to negotiate were given a vague, but negative brief, and were found deficient in experience. Relying on the friendship of another country in matters of state was a fundamental flaw which spilled over even after it was found to be misplaced. It was forgotten that an agreement is the product of give-and-take and while giving away something, it needed to be balanced with something gained which was of vital interest to us. No such attempt was made, and on the contrary, all efforts were toward gaining the goodwill of the other party.

The Soviet Union, suo moto, offered India a Treaty of Friendship, Peace and Cooperation. The Soviet Union was a superpower of the day and India was still struggling to come out of its third world status. The treaty offered by Moscow was neither for India’s economic development nor social amelioration. The underlying character was defence or security. India was quietly sailing through after the disastrous events of 1962, trying to build its economy, security apparatus and the morale of the nation. It had been adjusting its relations both with the West and the East, though leaning toward the latter, while trying to maintain a balance. The Bangladesh developments were then nowhere on the horizon.

As far as the Soviet Union was concerned, its motives in offering a treaty of this kind in 1969 remained shrouded in mystery. India did drag its feet on the treaty offer for two reasons: (i) the right wing of the ruling Congress party was quite strong and would not allow it to happen, and (ii) it would be a violation of non-alignment—India’s fundamental principle of foreign policy since the days of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. If India did finally accept the treaty, it was under the circumstances which developed much later, and not when the treaty was first offered.

As the narrative shows, its offer was neither unselfish nor philanthropic, but for a purpose. It wanted to involve India in its ideological and political dispute with China, taking advantage of India’s strained relations with Beijing. And later, when India would not bite, the Soviets denied India vital weaponry to replenish the war losses of 1971.

If a big nation and a superpower at that, was being magnanimous toward a developing country and a less powerful country, to the extent of offering to jump into a war in its favour, it should have aroused some suspicions in Delhi. Due diligence was called for. At the end, given India’s desperate need for Soviet assistance to meet a developing situation, New Delhi’s reluctance for a treaty reflected in the external affairs minister’s talks with the Soviet leaders, should have given some clue of Soviet intention. But it was too late and also perhaps New Delhi had been left with no option. India decided to go ahead. Such situations do arise but not too frequently.

A.S. Bhasin retired from the Ministry of External Affairs in 1993 after three-decade of service as head of the Historical Division.