November 2024 Archives

Botswana: President Masisi Concedes Defeat Ending BDP’s 6 Decades in Power

Partial results showed the ruling party trailing in fourth place. The opposition UDC party is expected to win

Botswana’s President Mokgweetsi Masisi conceded defeat in the general election Friday, marking an end to his party’s 58 year rule.

The final results are yet to be announced, but the main opposition Umbrella for Democratic Change (UDC) was in the lead, with the ruling Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) in the fourth place according to partial results.

Several local media reports said the BDP had lost by a landslide, citing results from 36 out of 61 constituencies. A party needs to win 31 constituencies to get a majority in Botswana. The UDC had 25 seats.

“I concede the election. I am proud of our democratic processes. Although I wanted a second term, I will respectfully step aside and participate in a smooth transition process,” Masisi told reporters early in the morning.

Masisi looks forward to ‘cheering on’ successor

Opposition leader Duma Boko is poised to become the next president of Botswana. Masisi said he had called Boko to concede. Boko, 54, is a lawyer and has previously contested the elections in 2014 and 2019.

“I look forward to attending the coming inauguration and cheering on my successor. He will enjoy my support,” Masisi added.

Botswana gained independence from Britain in 1966. Since then, the BDP has dominated national politics for nearly 60 years. The southern African nation is one of the continent’s most stable democracies. It is the second largest producer of diamonds in the world. However, as global demand for diamonds has slumped, the economy has suffered. The unemployment rate has risen to more than 27%.

Masisi has received a lot of criticism for not doing enough to diversify the economy.

This article was originally published on DW.

‘ECI Response Condescending, Gave Itself Clean Chit’: Congress on EVM Batteries Complaint

“If the current ECI’s goal is to strip itself of the last vestiges of neutrality then it is doing a remarkable job at creating that impression,” Congress said.

New Delhi: The Congress on Friday (November 1) heavily criticised the Election Commission of India (ECI)’s letter to party president Mallikarjun Kharge in which the polls body had rejected complaints of irregularities in the counting of votes during the recently held Haryana assembly elections.

Congress said that it was not surprised that the poll body had given itself a “clean chit” and accused it of being “focused on diminishing complaints and the petitioner”. The party also said that the tone and tenor of the ECI’s response was unbefitting of a government agency.

In its letter to the ECI, the party said, “The answer given to the question of the machines fluctuating batteries seeks to confuse rather than clarify. At any rate, the ECI reply is nothing more than a standard and generic set of bullets on how the machines function rather than a specific clarification on specific complaints. In short, while our complaints were specific the ECI response is generic and focused on diminishing the complaints and the petitioners,” it said.

On October 29, the ECI had written to Kharge rejecting the party’s claims of irregularities in the counting of votes of the Haryana assembly elections.

It said that “such frivolous and unfounded doubts have the potential of creating turbulence when crucial steps like polling and counting are in live play, a time when both public and political parties’ anxiousness is peaking.”

“The communications carrying baseless allegations were often widely publicised by INC even before receipt of any formal letter to the ECI and mostly coinciding with peak of electoral cycle, i.e., near to or on poll day or counting day,” the ECI letter said.

The ECI said that the “persistence of this approach is disconcerting” and that the Congress has “once again raised the smoke of a generic doubt about the credibility of an entire electoral outcome exactly in similar manner as it has done in recent past”.

Following its defeat in the Haryana assembly elections, the Congress had sought clarity on the battery status of the control unit of EVMs (electronic voting machines) which was around 99% in some polling stations in the 26 constituencies.

The party had also alleged that it had raised the matter with returning officers (RO) in constituencies and claimed that there was slow counting of votes.

The ECI in its letter said that the battery status has no impact on vote counting. The functioning of EVMs was also highlighted by the Chief Election Commissioner Rajiv Kumar at a press conference while announcing the dates of the upcoming elections to Jharkhand and Maharashtra state assemblies.

The Congress in its letter on Friday said that while it is not surprising that the ECI has given itself a clean chit, the “tone and tenor”, “language used” and the “allegations” have compelled it to submit a counter response.

“The recent tone of the Commission’s communications to the INC is a matter that we refuse to take lightly anymore. Every reply from the ECI now seems to be laced with ad-hominem attacks on either individual leaders or the party itself,” it said.

It said that the ECI’s reply is in a “tone that is condescending”. “If the current ECI’s goal is to strip itself of the last vestiges of neutrality then it is doing a remarkable job at creating that impression,” the letter read.

How Majoritarianism Based on ‘Divide and Rule’ Undermines Itself

Majoritarianism is an admission of weakness which needs an ‘other’ to assert itself and feel superior to gain confidence.

The nation is not at peace. News of violence and protests have become routine. The result is diversion of the nation’s energies from tackling urgent long term national and international challenges that are piling up with implications for national well-being.

Internal strife reduces the capacity to tackle the challenges. Globally, challenges of environment and climate change, geo-political tensions and wars and rapid technological changes need to be addressed. Nationally, there is communal and caste strife, growing inequality and unemployment, persisting poverty, challenges to federalism, etc.

Lessons from colonisation

Hind Swaraj, written by Mahatma Gandhi in 1908, has lessons to offer in this regard. It not only presented a plan for India’s independence but a blueprint for the nation’s future. Why did the nation get colonised?

It answers, ‘The English have not taken India; we have given it to them”. Further, “…we encouraged them. When our Princes fought among themselves they sought assistance of Company Bahadur.” It adds, “We further strengthen their hold by quarrelling amongst ourselves.” On the divide between Hindus and Muslims, it says, “These thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false religious teachers.”

Gandhi pointed out that the English practiced “divide and rule” and succeeded because the princes and the people were disunited. So, Indians themselves have to accept blame for their colonisation. This has relevance in the present situation of growing internal strife because of the use of the divide and rule policy by the present day rulers. But to what end?

The English colonised India to enrich themselves. They undermined the Indian economy so as to capture markets for their industry. Their rule resulted in India’s deindustrialisation and the deterioration in the socio-economic conditions. When they departed, there was wide spread illiteracy, poor health infrastructure, low life expectancy, etc.

Divide and rule was used to thwart Indians from rising against their unjust and pauperising rule. It is the national movement that united large sections of Indians.

Clearly, the lesson was that outside powers take advantage of a divided nation to gain at its expense. Further, the divisions are used to divert people’s attention from the real issues. These lessons from colonisation need to be taken note of by the current rulers.

Divide and rule results in growing instability

Divide and rule in a formally democratic system, results in growing social, political and economic instability. Conflict among the groups grows, making it difficult to arrive at a consensus on national policies. Those in power, corner the gains for their groups. So, capturing power becomes an end in itself and that leads to growing conflict and partisanship.

Since independence, India has followed “trickle down” policies so as to quickly achieve western modernity. This was the ruling elite’s self-serving policy which was accepted by the rest in good faith. But, with little trickle down over time, the people at the margins have lost faith in the developmental policies of the rulers.

Today, every caste and community group wants to capture power to benefit their people. This accentuates the national divide with people voting for their own community leaders while distrusting national leadership. People have lost faith in any long term promises of national development and demand immediate tangible gains.

So, political parties are competing with each other in offering immediate lucrative benefits. As the long-term perspective gets diluted, instabilities get aggravated and problems grow.

This is an ideal situation for vested interests to capture power via financing of political parties and their leaders. Democracy is becoming more and more formalistic with voting not leading to representation of people’s interest. Huge sums of money are used to contest elections and stay in power.

The money spent is largely illegal and provided by businesses and the corrupt who expect a quid pro quo. So, on attaining power, the ruling dispensations serve the interest of those financing them and their politics, no matter what the electoral rhetoric. This is cronyism and it has grown in scale.

The net result is that the economic gains are cornered by the vested interests leaving little for the marginalised – this is a variant of colonisation which Gandhi referred to.

Majoritarianism is an admission of weakness

Currently, divide and rule is being used to promote a divide between the majority and the minorities. Is the goal to energise the former to overcome its inferiority complex and regain its confidence that it lost during colonisation? Will it strengthen the nation in spite of the growing conflict between the communities? Will it raise India’s standing in the world?

Actually, majoritarianism is an admission of weakness which needs an ‘other’ to assert itself and feel superior to gain confidence. Unfortunately, conflict adds to the nation’s problems and weakens it, rather than strengthening it. This is what Gandhi enunciated. Majoritarianism depends on assertion and not reason. It sees any critique as an attack on itself and counter attacks that aggravates the conflict leading to greater instability.

Narrowing of perspective results in policy induced crisis

The impact of rising instabilities and cronyism weakens the investment climate for private investment which is 75% of the total investment. The government has raised capital expenditure substantially hoping that would crowd in private investment. But, that has not transpired and the shortfall in private investment persists with adverse impact on growth and social welfare.

The narrowing of perspective has also led to policy induced crisis due to demonetisation, structurally faulty GST, sudden lockdown and pro big-business policies. These decisions have damaged the unorganised sectors which employ 94% of the workers. The capital intensive organised sector which generates few jobs has grown at the expense of the labour intensive unorganised sector, thereby curtailing employment generation. The result is growing unemployment, persistence of poverty and rising inequality.

To divert attention of the people from this highly iniquitous development strategy, divide and rule is used by accentuating divisive social and political issues. The sub-conscious fears of the public are aroused. This is far easier than filling the societal cracks that would enable harmonious existence.

Adverse impact on knowledge generation

Growing conflict in society results in rising social waste. People get diverted from productive endeavours. This impacts the critical task of generation of socially relevant knowledge – something the institutions of higher learning are to fulfill.

But, they have been also drawn into the arena of conflict which has setback to higher education and research and development. This has weakened technology development which is crucial to face the challenge of globalisation.

India’s dependence is visible in the import of not only strategic defence items but also in trade. India is the largest importer of armament. It depends on Russia for legacy defence equipment and on the western powers for advanced armament it has obtained in the last 20 years. This dependence prevents it from taking an independent line in the evolving geo-political alignments.

In trade, it has a whopping $85 billion deficit with China, an enemy. Many of its factories are dependent for their functioning on Chinese engineers.

The drawing of Indian institutions of higher learning into the arena of conflict and politics has led to the appointment of poor quality ideologically correct faculty. Further, the autonomy of these institutions has been curtailed so as to prevent them from critiquing the ruling party’s ideas and its strategy of divide and rule. Both these impact generation of new knowledge which crucially depends on critiquing existing ideas.

The result is a lowering of standards in Indian institutions of higher learning. The response to this decline has not been to set things right but invite foreign institutions to establish campuses in India. Assuming that they raise the standards of some institutions, they will bring their own context and not generate knowledge relevant to India.

This will also put paid to the present regime’s pet idea of ‘decolonising’ the Indian mind. Further, the foreign institutions will undermine the existing moribund Indian institutions. Finally, the new institutions will also need autonomy to generate new knowledge – something the present ruling establishment is not willing to grant and was trying to circumvent.

Increase in wasteful expenditure

Growing strife in India requires increased expenditures on law and order. At present India already has a much larger police force than the number of personnel during colonial rule. The courts are packed with cases which take years to resolve. Given these difficulties, people often resort to instant justice through illegal means. This undermines faith in justice, leads to corruption and in a vicious cycle, results in rising alienation. The result is a decline in faith in the leadership and that degrades their capacity to implement policies.

Foreign powers take advantage of these weaknesses and foment trouble to weaken the nation. This calls for increased expenditures on law and order machinery and on defence of the country. The rising social waste diverts resources from development and inadequate allocation for education, health, research and development, etc.

Social waste, together with weak policy implementation makes it appear as if the nation’s problems are due to shortage of resources and foreign resources are needed. Prior to 1991, India depended on foreign aid and after that it is seeking capital flows from global markets. In the markets, there is competition for capital, so, concessions have to be offered.

This further reduces resource availability in the country and makes the nation more dependent on capital from big business and MNCs. Countries and markets are governed by the institutions of global governance, such as the World Bank and the IMF. They represent the interests of MNC capital and to further its interest, they impose cross-conditionalities. This amounts to truncation of sovereignty since policies get determined more by foreign interests than the needs of the Indian public.

Gandhi’s idea can be reformulated in the current neo-colonial phase as “foreigners have not captured policy making; we have ceded control to them.” This is a result of our rulers weakening the nation by practicing “divide and rule” through accentuation of the divides.

Arun Kumar is retired professor of economics, JNU.

How We Marginalise Disabled Experiences When We Speak of the Blindfold of Lady Justice

The assumed neutrality of the blindfold of Lady Justice comes from ableist frames of liberal thinking.

Much has been said since the removal of the blindfold from the eyes of Lady Justice. An opinion piece in Indian Express, ‘Can a new statute of Lady Justice lead to a new conception of Justice?’ lauds this change as “presenting Lady Justice with open eyes and in a decolonial form is a welcome symbolic gesture.” Several other opinions were expressed on different platforms on this symbolic change. However, the voices of disabled people or visually impaired people on this issue are either missing or marginalised. In fact, this entire discourse that was started by the Chief Justice of India, D.Y. Chandrachud, is deeply problematic, and it marginalises the disabled hermeneutically.

Miranda Fricker opines that hermeneutical injustice occurs when socially powerful groups, through their access to knowledge resources, tend to appropriate the experiences of the marginalised groups and thereby prevent the marginalised from making sense of their own experience. This whole discourse around the blindfold is one such glaring episode where disabled people have been blocked from meaning-making and meaning-sharing their own experiences.

‘The lady with blindfold’ – or even without blindfold – privileges the meaning bestowed by abled-bodied people on disabled lived experience.

The privilege, to tell a story, is a social privilege. The social privilege of the abled-bodied allowed them to make a caricature of the disabled, according to the privileged reading of disability and its experiences. A visually impaired cannot have a fuller sense of an elephant, we are told.

With the advent of ‘reason’ and ‘modernity,’ Nirmala Erevelles points out that European, bourgeois, heterosexual, healthy, male body and their ways of knowing were set as normative standards. Compared to this normative standard, disabled bodies and other marginalised bodies were considered ‘deviant.’ Their embodied knowledge and lived realities were considered what Michel Foucault called ‘naïve knowledge’ that lacks scientificity.

Against this backdrop, liberal modern theories took shape. Be it Kant’s ‘Sapere Aude’ or John Rawls‘ ‘veil of Ignorance,’ they all marginalised disabled experiences. Disability studies scholar Ravi Malhotra highlights that Rawls blatantly excluded disabled people from his social contract model. Shelley Tremain points out that Rawls ‘set aside’ disabled people in his theoretical suggestion that the oeuvre of a just society is for “normal and cooperating” people. The famous theoretical assumption of the ‘veil of ignorance’ by Rawls inherently suggests that people with disabilities cannot have a ‘fuller’ ‘authentic’ reading of wealth, status, or circumstances. The assumed ‘neutrality’ of this veil or ‘blindfold’ of Lady Justice, too, came from these ableist frames of liberal thinking.

As the earlier investment of meaning in the ‘blindfold’ came from the ableist framework of liberal theories in which blindness is equated with neutrality, so did the recent removal of the blindfold. The present Supreme Court, which has championed the liberal accommodationist inclusion of persons with disabilities in recent years too, has privileged the sighted people and their understanding of ‘truth’, ‘impartiality’ and ‘justice’ as if only sighted people can understand the complex and intersectional reading of the societal realities In both readings of Lady Justice, blindfold or otherwise, it’s the abled people who are trying to invest meaning in disabled experience.

In a famous letter exchange between BBC host Bryan Magee and professor Martin Milligan, Magee could not agree that Milligan, a visually impaired person, could have a correct understanding of colour. Milligan was considered a ‘defective knower.’ In such a reading of ‘knowing,’ the subject position of ‘knower’ is always given to an abled-bodied person who monopolises ‘reality.’

Abled-bodied people approach disabled people and their experiences through what Anita Ghai calls the ‘epistemology of ignorance’ that denies expression to disability. Approached from these apparatuses, what Fiona Campbell calls ‘ableism,’ “Disability then is cast as a diminished state of being human.”

This entire process and discourse results in testimonial injustice where disabled experiences, lived realities, and understanding of justice and equality are not taken seriously as the dominant ableist discourse considers them fundamentally flawed. These meanings given to the blindfold coerce what Robert McRuer calls ‘compulsory able-bodiedness’ that subdues disabled existence and experiences.

Critical theorists have demonstrated that a fuller understanding of reality comes from marginalised positions, not from privilege. Yet philosophy, jurisprudence, and law continue to prefer privileged reading of knowledge. Shelley Tremain suggests that philosophy as a discipline has marginalised the embodied knowledge and philosophies of disabled people while mainstream non-disabled philosophies have continued their claim of neutrality and rationality. Through this power, jurists and philosophers invest meanings in disabled experiences while simultaneously marginalising the voices of the disabled.

Liberal toleration of disability is not enough. We do not need lady justice with a blindfold or otherwise. To have inclusive justice, we need to question ableism as a network of beliefs to find a better reading of our disabled experiences. Passing the mic to the disabled can be a small and formidable democratic step in this regard.

Vijay K Tiwari is an assistant professor of law at West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences, who teaches jurisprudence and is a disabled academician.

‘List RSS, Affiliates as Hate Groups’: South Asian Communities in Canada Write To Trudeau

The open letter urges the Canadian government to extend protection to South Asians and other minority communities.

New Delhi: Members of 25 South Asian communities in Canada have written an open letter to the country’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, urging the government to list the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and its affiliates in Canada as hate groups/far right extremist entities.

The development comes amid an unprecedented escalation of tensions between India and Canada over Ottawa’s allegations that Indian government agents were involved in killing pro-Khalistan leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar in Canada in 2023.

“The recent RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) announcement has revealed the “involvement of agents of the Government of India in serious criminal activity in Canada” and that the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies in Canada have investigated and charged a “significant number of individuals for their direct involvement in homicides, extortions and other criminal acts of violence.” The assassination of a Canadian Sikh leader, Hardeep Singh Nijjar last year, and its alleged hand by India’s Hindu nationalist government appears to be the tip of the iceberg,” says the statement from the members of the South Asian communities.

“The Guardian reports that the “allegations of an India campaign of transnational violence and harassment have emerged not only in Canada but in the US, UK and Pakistan, where prominent Sikh activists say they have received threats to their lives,” the statement adds.

The statement cited a 2023 report published by the National Council of Canadian Muslims that has linked anti-Sikh violence in Canada to the RSS and the Sangh Parivar.

“The presence of Sangh Parivar and RSS-related groups sadly but predictably overlaps with various incidents of Hindu supremacist rhetoric and actions in Canada,” states the 2023 report.

‘Minority populations made second class citizens’

The statement adds that the BJP is the political arm of RSS – which is a paramilitary organisation which promotes “Hindutva” or Hindu nationalism, inspired by European Fascism.

“Founders of RSS explicitly espoused Fascist ideology In the ten years of BJP rule in India we have seen blatant examples of this, as the government takes India toward their goal of making the country a Hindu ethno-nationalist state in which the 200 million Muslim population and other minority populations such as Sikh, Dalit, Adivasi (indigenous peoples), and Christians are made second class citizens,” adds the statement.

The signatories to the statement are – Academics for Palestine – Concordia, Association des Femmes Musulmanes de Québec, Canadian Council of Indian Muslims (CCIM) Canadian Council of Muslim Women, Montreal Canadian Forum for Human Rights and Democracy in India, Canadians Against Oppression and Persecution (CAOP), Canadians for Indian Democracy (CID), Canadians for Peace and Justice in Kashmir (CPJK), Centre sur l’asie du sud (CERAS), Critical Diasporic South Asian Feminisms, External Affairs – Students’ Society of McGill University, Femmes de diverses origines/Women of Diverse Origins, Hindus for Human Rights, International Council of Indian Muslims (ICIM), Just Peace Advocates/Mouvement Pour Une Paix Juste, Justice For All Canada, Palestinian and Jewish Unity (PAJU), Quebec Public Interest Research Group – Concordia (QPIRG), Rang Collective: Arts for Solidarity, Solidarity Across Borders, South Asian Dalit Adivasi Network-Canada (SADAN), South Asian Diaspora Action Collective (SADAC), South Asian Women’s Community Centre (SAWCC) Tadamon! and Teesri Duniya Theatre.

‘Investigate influence of RSS and its affiliates’

“Under this Hindu nationalist government, atrocities against minorities in India have been carried out with impunity and often with complicity. The evidence in recent reports confirm a network of these extremist groups are targeting Sikhs and other diasporic Indian minority communities and activists in Canada and the US. The extensive network of Hindu nationalists and their affiliates in Canada and worldwide is well documented, and now we know this network in Canada is involved in a disturbing pattern of coercion, organized crime and deadly violence,” adds the statement.

The statement urges the Canadian government to extend protection to South Asians and other minority communities, investigate the human rights violations and influence of the RSS and its affiliates and list the RSS and its affiliates in Canada as hate groups/far right extremist groups.

“HSS-Canada, VHP-Canada, Coalition of Hindus of North America (CoHNA)-Canada
and Canadian Organization for Hindu Heritage Education (COHHE), SEWA International.
These groups often deflect criticism by invoking “hinduphobia”, which has been profusely
debunked,” says the statement.

Property, Affection, Dynastic Prestige: Everything at the Heart of the ‘Jagan Versus Sharmila’ Feud

Vijayamma’s letter to Jagan also raises a perplexing question – how did Rajasekhara Reddy accumulate such vast properties for Jagan to inherit and develop, given that he wasn’t known as a businessman during his extensive political career?

Hyderabad: In a rare public appeal, Y.S. Vijayamma, widow of the late Y.S. Rajasekhara Reddy, has intervened in a family feud dividing her children – former chief minister of Andhra Pradesh Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy and his sister Y.S. Sharmila.

Through an emotional letter released on October 29, 2024, Vijayamma implored her son to honour a promise he allegedly made to his late father, urging him to uphold a family agreement on property distribution. Once confined to private discussions, the dispute has now spilled into the public domain, carrying implications for both the YSR family and Andhra Pradesh’s political landscape.

The feud revolves around valuable assets, including shares in Saraswati Power and Industries and 20 acres in Bengaluru’s Yelahanka area. Once unified behind Rajasekhara Reddy’s legacy after his sudden death in 2009, the family now faces fragmentation driven by property disputes and political rivalry. Accusations of betrayal and legal manoeuvring threaten to splinter the family and cast a shadow over one of Andhra Pradesh’s most influential political legacies.

The first years

Following Rajasekhara Reddy’s death, Jagan and Sharmila collaborated closely to strengthen their family’s political position. As Jagan’s closest ally initially, Sharmila played a crucial role in rallying supporters for the YSR Congress Party (YSRCP). Her tireless campaigning efforts significantly contributed to the party’s triumph in the 2012 by-elections, securing 15 out of 18 contested seats and cementing the family’s political clout. Throughout Jagan’s ascent to the chief minister’s office, Sharmila remained steadfast by his side, enhancing the party’s image and cultivating loyalty among their father’s supporters.

The YSRCP’s overwhelming victory in the 2019 Andhra Pradesh assembly elections, securing 151 of 175 seats, marked the zenith of the siblings’ unity. However, tensions had already begun to simmer as Sharmila’s role in her brother’s administration waned. By 2021, her launch of the YSR Telangana Party raised eyebrows and unsettled Jagan’s supporters, casting doubt on her intentions.

The property

In 2024, after struggling to gain traction in Telangana, Sharmila merged her party with the Congress. Her subsequent appointment as Congress state president for Andhra Pradesh pitted her directly against Jagan in the upcoming general elections – a move that formalised a rift that had been quietly deepening for years.

At the core of the feud is a property dispute that questions Jagan’s loyalty to his father’s legacy. Sharmila contends that their father explicitly instructed an equal division of assets among his four grandchildren. She claims these assets, acquired during her father’s lifetime using family resources, were intended to benefit all descendants equally.

Vijayamma’s recent letter corroborates Sharmila’s assertions, implying that Jagan’s actions violate family principles. She claims her late husband directed that his wealth – including stakes in Saraswati Power, Bharati Cements, Sakshi Media, Classic Realty, and properties in Hyderabad and Bengaluru – be equally shared among his grandchildren. According to Vijayamma, Jagan initially agreed to these terms but has since changed his stance.

The role of ‘love and affection’

Jagan, however, contended that his significant contributions to the assets’ growth entitle him to allocate them as he sees fit. In a petition filed with the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) in Hyderabad on September 10, 2024, Jagan alleged that Sharmila and Vijayamma improperly transferred shares of Saraswati Power. He asserted that a 2019 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) regarding the assets was signed as a gesture of “love and affection” and was contingent on resolving certain legal and financial issues, including pending Enforcement Directorate (ED) cases. Citing potential “adverse implications,” he seeks to void the MoU, claiming his sister has exploited his initial goodwill and that there is “no love left” between them.

In response, Sharmila maintained that the MoU is legally binding, representing Jagan’s commitment to honour their father’s wishes. She contended that her interest in the family’s assets stems from a desire to uphold her father’s principles, not personal gain. Sharmila claimed that Jagan himself proposed dividing the assets during a 2019 trip to Israel shortly after becoming chief minister – a proposal she and Vijayamma initially resisted.

The politics

The family feud has created an opportunity for the Telugu Desam Party (TDP) to capitalise on the discord within the YSR family. Within hours of Jagan’s NCLT petition becoming public, the TDP, under Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu’s leadership, shared Sharmila’s September letter on its X (formerly Twitter) account.

The TDP labelled Sharmila’s letter, which accused her brother of breaking a promise to their father, as a “big exposé.” Naidu, a shrewd strategist, is leveraging the family’s turmoil to challenge Jagan’s credibility, implying that the internal strife indicates broader instability within the YSR Congress Party. Sharmila, however, has remained silent on the TDP’s use of her letter.

Political analyst K. Nageshwar, in a conversation with The Wire, highlighted two key points from Vijayamma’s letter. Firstly, he emphasised that property disputes – not political disagreements – sparked the rift between Jagan and Sharmila. “Vijayamma’s letter clearly states that this property dispute emerged shortly after the 2019 elections, subsequently driving a wedge between the siblings,” he noted.

The question of origin

Secondly, Nageshwar highlighted a significant contradiction in Vijayamma’s assertion of family ownership. “The long-standing disproportionate assets case against Jagan alleges he used his father’s political influence to amass wealth. This raises a perplexing question: How did Rajasekhara Reddy accumulate such vast properties for Jagan to inherit and develop, given that he wasn’t known as a businessman during his extensive political career?” he asked.

“Essentially, Vijayamma is suggesting that since Jagan used his father’s legacy to develop these properties and amass wealth, his sister should also have a share in it.”

While Jagan dismissed the issue as a “family affair,” Professor Nageshwar argues that Vijayamma’s letter has elevated it to a political matter. “This isn’t just a family dispute—it involves a political dynasty,” he explained. “If Vijayamma’s claims are true, it raises questions about the assets’ origins. Are they solely from Jagan’s efforts, or are they inherited – a legacy of Rajasekhara Reddy’s influence? This transcends Jagan and Sharmila’s private disagreement; it’s about family honour and YSR’s integrity and legacy, which hold immense significance in Andhra Pradesh. The conflict has now become a matter of public interest.”

This property dispute, rooted in a legacy of wealth and political influence, now carries symbolic weight for YSR’s supporters, who remember him as a populist leader devoted to Andhra Pradesh. As the feud escalates, supporters question whether YSR’s legacy can withstand the family’s internal fractures. Once a unifying force in the state’s politics, the Reddy family has become a focal point for questions about inheritance, loyalty, and leadership responsibilities.

For the YSR Congress Party, the implications are far-reaching. Vijayamma’s support for Sharmila has cast doubt on Jagan’s loyalty to his father’s ideals. Those who revere the YSR family legacy now grapple with reconciling principles of integrity, equality, and shared prosperity against a bitter, public family dispute. The values they cherish clash with political ambition and lingering personal resentments, raising challenging questions about the legacy of one of Andhra Pradesh’s most influential political dynasties.

Shoddy Police Work, Ineffective Courts: PUDR Highlights Struggles of 1984 Sikh Massacre Victims

‘The legal battle continues for some of the families, even after 40 years of the incident. Ironically it is their words against the powerful.’

New Delhi: On the completion of 40 years since the massacre of Sikh people across the country, the People’s Union for Democratic Rights has released a statement essaying the inordinate delay in bringing justice to the victims.

November 1, 2024, marks 40 years since violence against Sikh people after the assassination of former prime minister Indira Gandhi by two of her bodyguards led to the death of thousands across India.

Since then, the PUDR has noted, investigation and trials have been delayed to an extraordinary extent – in Delhi a total of 587 FIRs were registered, of which 241 were shown as untraceable and could not be proceeded against. Out of a total of viable 302 cases, legal battles continue against 20. In many of these, powerful leaders of the then ruling Congress party are named.

The statement is signed by PUDR secretaries Paramjeet Singh and Joseph Mathai.

The PUDR has called for the opening of all pending cases, proper police investigation into them and retrial of all the cases where prime witnesses turned hostile.

The full statement is below.

November 1, 2024, marks the 40th year of pan-India massacres in which thousands of Sikhs were brutally maimed and killed. Although the official figure on the number of deaths in Delhi alone was 2733, other estimates placed the total number between 3,000 in Delhi to 30,000 deaths all over India. The scale and design of the organised massacres clearly pointed towards the complicity of the then ruling political party which later used the state’s executive and other agencies for acts of commission and omission.

In Delhi a total of 587 FIRs were registered in all. Of which 241 were shown as untraceable and hence could not be proceeded against. 11 others were quashed by the Police and 3 were withdrawn leaving a total of 302 cases. Of these, it was only in 25 cases that conviction happened, while in 264 cases the accused were either acquitted or the cases discharged. Although the total number of persons charged for murder was 1286, only 60 persons were convicted of murder charges while 68 others were convicted for petty crimes such as theft, violating the curfew, criminal trespass etc. The inordinate delay tactics adopted and engineered by the police in presenting facts of the cases resulted in many of these cases failing to progress beyond the trial courts. At present there are about 20 cases that are pending in various courts in Delhi. Of these 6 cases are against the senior Congress (I) leader and former Member of Parliament Sajjan Kumar (3 in trial courts, 3 in High Court of Delhi and 1 in Supreme Court) and 2 cases against another Congress (I) prominent leader and former Member of Parliament Jagdish Tytler.

Also read: 1984: That Which We Cannot Name

The legal battle continues for some of the families, even after 40 years of the incident. Ironically it is their words against the powerful. For example, even though 34 years after the carnage that Sajjan Kumar was finally found guilty on the charges of IPC 120B, 302 and 436, by Justices S. Muralidhar and Vinod Goel in 2018; another judgement pronounced by Gitanjali Goel at the Rouse Avenue District Court acquitted Kumar of the charges brought against him under Section 109 IPC read with Sections 147, 148, 149, 153, 295, 302 and 436 IPC. Sheela Kaur who lost her husband, father-in-law and brother-in-law, has challenged the decision in the Delhi High Court.

In yet another case involving a prominent member of the Congress (I) party, having held even higher office, is that of Jagdish Tytler. Here, the CBI had filed three closure reports in 2007, 2009 and 2014. But Delhi’s Karkardooma courts rejected the CBI closure report on December 4, 2015, on the protest petition by Lakhwinder Kaur, who lost her husband in the Gurudwara Pul Bangash attack. Notably, it was during this attack that three Sikhs by the name of Sardar Thakur Singh, Badal Singh and Gurcharan Singh were killed. The court asked the CBI to continue its probe, which eventually resulted in filing of the chargesheet in May 2023 and the Rouse Avenue Court asking the police to frame formal charges against Tytler in August 2024. Unlike his colleagues H.K.L. Bhagat or Sajjan Kumar, Jagdish Tytler up until 2024 had never had formal charges framed against him.

In the report “Who are the Guilty” (1984) based on the investigation of PUDR along with PUCL, published within the fortnight of carnage, 17 November 1984, names of these prominent Congress (I) leaders and their involvement as per allegation levelled by the victims was clearly highlighted. It also included the names of over 140 police officials, many of whom played active roles in the killings. Based on these finding PUDR and PUCL also moved the Delhi high court for a comprehensive enquiry, which was dismissed. However, facing pressure from various civil rights and other organizations, the government started setting up committees to look into the cause of this carnage and to provide relief and compensation to the victims. Till 2015, altogether 12 commissions and committees have be setup in this regard. Despite all this, cases hardly moved and there was hardly any justice provided to the victims. PUDR reports “Justice Denied” (1987) and “A Report on the Aftermath” (1992) critically reviewed the working and findings of these commissions and committees and status of cases.

The shoddy work of police officials and ineffectiveness of judiciary process and providing justice to the victim has been clearly highlighted in the findings of Justice S,N. Dhingra committee, latest being set up in 2015. The cruel twist can be clearly understood by the fact that even of the cases recommended by Dhingra Committee on April 15, 2019, three of those were dismissed by a Delhi High Court Bench consisting of Justices Pratibha Singh and Amit Sharma in October 2024. The dismissal was approved by the Court on grounds of the accused having already been cleared of charges over 36 years ago. Irony cannot be amiss because the dismissal of these three cases could very well establish a precedent for 10 other cases, eventually compromising the essence of justice.

Despite all such hardships, few victims and survivors of the 1984 massacres have continued their struggle with unwavering determination. Despite reposing little faith in police investigations and even lesser towards political parties in power, their hope now rests squarely upon the judicial process, which has already taken years of toll on their health, family and relationships.

PUDR Demands:

1. To open all the pending cases and reinvestigate with proper police investigation as pointed by the Dhingra Committee

2. Retrial of all the cases where prime witness had turned hostile.

3. Speed up all the pending appeal in higher courts.

4. Action against all the police officials who did not perform their duty in presenting credible investigation by colluding with the accused.

Bibek Debroy, Chairman of PM’s Economic Advisory Council, Passes Away

Debroy was an economist and frequent columnist. He was known for his multi-faceted interests.

New Delhi: Bibek Debroy, the chairman of Prime Minister’s economic advisory council, has passed away. He was 69.

Debroy was an economist and frequent columnist. At the time of his passing, he was chairman of the Expert Committee for Infrastructure Classification and Financing Framework for Amrit Kaal under the Union finance ministry.

He has been a member of the government think tank NITI Aayog from 2015 till 2019.

He was awarded the Padma Shri in 2015.

Debroy was born in Shillong in Meghalaya. He studied at Kolkata’s Presidency College, the Delhi School of Economics at the national capital and Cambridge University.

He had multifaceted interests, and was known for translating the Bhagwad Gita, Mahabharata, Ramayana and the Puranas into English.

Indian Express has published a column he wrote for the paper four days before he passed away, with a note that it was to be an “unusual column” and “short of a requiem.” He wrote in it: “The same boring news, the same boring high-decibel debates. It all seems so transient and puerile. But so am I, transient and puerile, a dot that might have been wiped off. In that event, what would have happened? A few condolences, perhaps even from important people.”

In a post on X, prime minister Narendra Modi noted, “Through his works, he left an indelible mark on India’s intellectual landscape.”

How a Film Enquiry Committee Paved the Way for the Film Finance Corporation

The Committee’s recommendation for an FFC was initially found unacceptable but the government yielded to the demand by 1956.

The following is an excerpt from Sudha Tiwari’s The State and New Cinema in Contemporary India published by Routledge.

The Film Enquiry Committee (1949)

The Ministry of Information and Broadcasting noted in 1948-49 that an enquiry into the film industry was necessary. The last enquiry was conducted in 1927-28. A fresh enquiry was necessary in view of the growth of the film industry since that time, in order to examine how the organisation of the industry could be improved and on what lines its future development should be directed. A Film Enquiry Committee was formed on September 2, 1949 by the Government of India to “make recommendations regarding its further development as an industry and as a medium of education and entertainment”.

Sudha Tiwari,
The State and New Cinema in Contemporary India,
Published by Routledge (2024).

According to Kumar Shahani, “the intention of calling for that report to be written was absolutely Nehruvian…it fitted into the kind of state that Nehru imagined…should be created for the Indian nation”. The Committee was constituted by a Resolution of the government of India in the MIB dated 29 August 1949. As per the Resolution, the government of India did regard “the importance of the cinema in modern life and the magnitude and complexity of the problems relating to films”, making it essential to conduct a thorough enquiry into the film industry. Of the three important terms of reference given to the Committee, one of them was, “To examine what measures should be adopted to enable films in India to develop into an effective instrument for the promotion of national culture, education and healthy entertainment.” (Emphasis added). The Chairman of the Committee was S.K. Patil (Member, Constituent Assembly), and the rest of the members included M. Satyanarayana (Member, Constituent Assembly), V. Shantaram (Rajkamal Kalamandir Ltd., Bombay), B.N. Sircar (New Theatres Ltd., Calcutta), Dr. R.P. Tripathi (Head of the History Department, Allahabad University), V. Shankar (I.C.S., representing MIB), and S. Gopalan (Secretary of the Committee).

Response to the Film Enquiry Committee Report and its Recommendations

In 1954, when the recommendations were finally discussed in Parliament, Mr. Patil was disappointed again at the callous attitude of the government and at its turning down of the most important recommendation of the Report, i.e. the Film Finance Corporation (FFC). The government had declined the establishment of a film corporation with the usual excuse of the “priorities of expenditure to meet the urgent requirements of the development projects and programmes of the Five Year Plan”. The government had also rejected one of its other central suggestions, the forming of a statutory Film Council of India citing similar reasons. Mr. Patil opposed the government’s proposal to establish a National Film Board which was to direct and supervise the work of the proposed Film Production Bureau and the Film Institute. He said that such an arrangement would be an “enlarged edition of the present Central Board of Film Censors”.

The FFC in the Making

One sees two united voices emerging from filmmakers and producers: that there is a need to change the way Indian cinema looks, and that financing and changing the production ethics is the key to bring radical changes in the Indian film industry. Many from within and outside the film industry saw the state playing a crucial role in bringing these two changes. Though the state was present in all these debates and discussions, in providing a platform to the film community to come together and discuss the issues troubling the industry, it was still hesitant to take up its responsibilities towards the film industry. The recommendations of the Film Enquiry Committee were yet to be taken up seriously by the government.

The press reported in May 1954 that the government had rejected the FFC plan. Dr. B.V. Keskar, the then Minister of Information and Broadcasting, presented a statement to the Parliament on the action taken by the government on the recommendations of the Film Enquiry Committee. The government had decided instead to set up a National Film Board with a view to “developing the film as a medium of national culture, education and healthy entertainment”.

The Board was to direct and supervise the work of two new bodies, the Film Production Bureau and the Film Institute. The Film Production Bureau would give advice on scripts, offer guidance to producers on various aspects of production such as story, scenario, artistic talent, and cost estimates. It would provide a library and research service. The functions of the Bureau would be purely advisory. The Ministry told the Parliament that in the present state of the industry, the setting up of a representative statutory Film Council of India, as recommended by the Enquiry Committee, would not be advisable. It was feared that such a Council, at this stage – when there are diverse elements in the industry in different stages of development and with the attendant difficulty of reconciling several interests – would find it difficult to wield authority and take the responsibility of shaping the affairs of the industry. The Government would, however, be prepared to encourage any move on the part of the film industry itself to form a Film Council based on voluntary co-operation.

The Committee’s recommendation for an FFC was found “unacceptable both in view of more urgent commitments under the Five-Year Plan and the business risks involved in the proposal.” It only offered ‘suitable machinery by legislation’ if producers were inclined to find necessary funds for a corporation by contributions or otherwise. The government had, however, decided in principle to provide suitable grants for specific purposes such as the production of educational and children’s films. In October 1954, State Awards for Films were inaugurated “to encourage production of films of a high aesthetic and technical standard and educative and cultural value”. Films like Shyamchi Aai (1953) and Do Bigha Zamin were presented with the President’s Gold Medal and Certificate of Merit respectively. These decisions received a mixed response. The FFI urged the government to help stabilise the film industry by creating a film finance corporation as early as possible on mutually acceptable terms and conditions.

By September 1956, the government yielded to the demand for a finance corporation. News came that the government had decided to constitute a National Film Board and a Film Finance Corporation to help the development of the motion picture industry. First rejected, it was later realised that the film industry with its “tremendous educative and entertainment values, should be given State aid for proper development.” The proposed Board was to have, as its constituent units, the present censorship organisation, a production bureau, and a film institute. The FFC would initially have a capital of Rs one crore. The Bill to this effect was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on 10 December 1956. The National Film Board was being set up “to promote the development of film as a medium of culture, education and healthy entertainment.” The FFC was to render financial assistance to film producers by way of loans. The Annual Report also informed that the form and details of organisation and the general principles governing the method of financing were being worked out.

However, there was again a long silence on the formation of the Corporation and the Board. While replying to a debate on the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill in Lok Sabha in December 1958, Dr. Keskar stated that the government was taking steps to establish an FFC “on a modest scale”. He also said that the preliminary work in this direction was already over, and the question would have been taken up much earlier but for the financial difficulties of the government. He also advised the gathering of producers, exhibitors, distributors, and film artistes to organise itself on sound business lines to overcome its financial and other difficulties. He invited the industry’s co-operation in achieving the ideal of a “wealthy and prosperous country”. He also stressed that the film industry was essentially a “social industry”. It provided entertainment and also served as a medium of instruction to the masses. It had, therefore, an important part to play in the evolution of society. It should not divorce itself from the society from which it drew its sustenance. Ministers still used phrases like “duty to society”, “people’s and the country’s welfare in their minds”, and films having a “beneficial influence” in their speeches and statements while talking about the film industry. Mr. Keskar was told that the Indian film industry was still facing the problem of lack of finance, and the high rates of interest which the producers had inevitably to pay the financiers were aggravating the problems. A suggestion was placed with the Minister that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) could help the industry, with its large funds, by advancing loans.

The Film Finance Corporation Limited finally came into existence in March 1960. It started functioning in May 1960 in its Bombay office, with the appointment of a nine-member board of directors with Mr. N.D. Mehrotra, a retired Income-tax Commissioner, as Chairman. The main objectives of the Corporation were: to promote and assist the film industry by providing, affording, or procuring finance, and/or other facilities for the production of films of good standard and quality with a view to raising the standard of films produced. The FFC started with an authorised capital of Rs one crore to be subscribed entirely by the government of India.

Sudha Tiwari teaches History at the School of Liberal Studies and Media, UPES, Dehradun.

Should Newspapers – Owned by Billionaires – Endorse Presidential Candidates?

From the conduct of the owners of the ‘Los Angeles Times’ and ‘The Washington Post’, it is clear that the bigger threat is not engaging with the public on important issues and allowing multiple voices to be heard.

This past week, there has been a great deal of controversy in the United States over surprising developments at two of the country’s largest newspaper companies – the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post – related to traditional presidential endorsements, or in this case the decisions not to endorse.

On the surface, what transpired at the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post appears to be much the same. However, a closer look based on reports would indicate that the decisions made by the owner of The Times, Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong and Post owner Jeff Bezos differ in at least one important way.

As reported, Dr. Soon-Shiong decided not to publish the endorsement after his editorial board had already presented their endorsement of Vice President Kamala Harris, because he did not agree with their decision. As the owner of the Times, that is indeed his prerogative, but it also clearly undermined the work of his editorial staff.

The Washington Post editorial board was also clearly preparing to endorse US vice-president Harris for president, but that endorsement never materialised. Rather, the owner, Bezos, recently made it known that he no longer wanted the newspaper to make any presidential endorsements. His motive is less clear and naturally became open to widespread speculation. His argument, as he explained after the fact (and amid massive subscriber cancellations) in a Post opinion piece, was that presidential endorsements have no impact on voters’ decision and that presidential endorsements run the risk of further eroding the public’s trust of news media.

He essentially argues that publishing such an endorsement only reinforces the public’s perception of “news bias.” Therefore, The Post would break from recent tradition and no longer engage in any presidential endorsements. Again, as the owner of The Post he is entitled to make that call, but given the timing of his decision he should expect the same outcry as The Times received.

From my perspective, had either of these two owners made their decisions not to endorse known even six to nine months earlier, they would face much less criticism if any at all. As it stands, they have opened themselves up to the current storm of criticism over “billionaire bias” and meddling.

As a former publisher and CEO of major newspapers in the U.S. for many years, I have had a front row seat at seeing how the impact of newspaper endorsements have changed over the past few decades.

Frankly, I would agree with Bezos’ argument that any news organisation’s formal endorsement of a presidential candidate has little to no impact on a voter’s decision when they cast their vote for president these days. Regardless, if, for that reason, a news organisation makes the decision not to make a presidential endorsement, they should make that position clear to their readers and audience well in advance. Being on the record early makes a big difference. Stating that position weeks before the election is wrong.

Having reflected on these recent developments over the past few days, at least two other thoughts occur to me.

First, while indeed presidential endorsements may not have the impact they once did, other endorsements do indeed matter, and news organisations still play an important role. This is especially true in local and state elections. Whether it is the election of local judges, mayors or state representatives, the insights of the local news media can provide important, additional insight to voters in considering who can best represent their communities’ interests. I would hope news organisations would continue to do their homework and weigh in on these important decisions.

Secondly, regarding the issue of “trust” in media and the idea that allowing opinions to be expressed necessarily show a direct correlation to bias is missing the point on at least one very important component of any responsible news organisation.

To really understand this point, we have to remember that a well-rounded news organisation generally is comprised of at least two distinct components: 1) news, and 2) opinion. We owe it to our readers and audiences to be clear how we distinguish between these two components.

Hard news is to be factual, accurate and unbiased in describing the events as they happened. This is a fundamental tenet for all professional journalists and cannot be compromised.

However, there is and should also be a place for opinion pieces. This is certainly true for individual columnists whose expertise and insights provide a certain personal perspective on things. And traditionally this has also always been true for great Editorial and Opinion sections of a newspaper.

In fact, this is where the institutional voice of an editorial page works to serve the community. Strong editorial positions offer a community a well thought out opinion or “point of view” on a subject generally advocating a position that the editorial board believes best serves the community. Importantly, the editorial position should also be complimented by various alternative voices and opinions to provide readers and audiences with opposing or alternative points of view.

I would argue that such an approach, that of offering both the institutional voice of the editorial page and alternative points of view, is more important today than ever. We live in a world where too many of us are only exposed to “echo chambers” of like thinking. We all benefit from learning and understanding alternative thinking.

Bezos may feel that there is a threat to trust in journalism by the editorial page of a news organisation taking a position on an important issue like a presidential election, but the bigger threat is not engaging with the public on important issues and allowing multiple voices to be heard.

Terry Egger has worked in newspapers in the United States for more than 40 years. Most recently he was CEO and publisher of The Philadelphia Inquirer. Prior, he served as the CEO and publisher of The Plain Dealer in Cleveland for eight years as well as publisher of The St Louis Post-Dispatch.

This article was republished under a Creative Commons licence. The Wire has changed the headline and made slight edits to accommodate style demands.