Why Narendra Modi Fears the AAP’s Delhi Model

With a focus on grassroots empowerment, transparency and prioritising the needs of the poor, the AAP challenges the entrenched top-down system that has long dominated Indian politics.

In an unprecedented move on December 26, two departments of the government of Delhi – the women and child development, and health departments – sent out notices warning the public not to register for the “Mahila Samman” and “Sanjeevani” schemes, two schemes announced by Delhi’s elected Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) government. The first promised a monthly cash transfer of Rs 1,000 to the accounts of allowances for women, and the second free health care for seniors.

In their public notices, these departments called the two schemes “non-existent” because no such schemes had been notified by the Delhi government. Notification of a scheme announced by an elected government is normally a routine matter. In this case, the subjects fell far outside the limitations prescribed in Article 239A of the Constitution, which reserves only three subjects under the jurisdiction of the central government in the union territories of Pondicherry and Delhi – police, law and order, and land.

Why, then, did the two departments insist on a public notification first? The answer is to be found in the unrelenting, no-holds-barred war that Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Union home minister Amit Shah have been waging against the AAP ever since its inception and capture of the national capital territory.

Why is Modi targeting the AAP?

These notices have, however, served a useful purpose, for they have highlighted the fear that the AAP is inspiring in the greatest tyrant that has governed India since the death of Aurangzeb. That V.C. Saxena, the lieutenant governor of Delhi who is perfectly aware of his duties under the Constitution, is willing to violate Article 239A at Modi’s behest, is a measure of the fear that this prime minister inspired in the officials who have the misfortune to serve the Delhi administration.

Why is Modi going to such extreme lengths – willing even to insult the Constitution – to crush one of the smallest national parties in the country?

The answer is an almost feline awareness of what this tiny party stands for; it is the very opposite of what the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is striving to create – an authoritarian government that rules its subjects from the top.

AAP’s vision: Trickle-up, not trickle-down

Modi’s government did not create ruling from the top. This was enshrined in the Government of India Act of 1935. Regrettably, the Constituent Assembly chose to use this Act as the base upon which to create the Constitution. As a result, nearly all the immunities from prosecution enjoyed by civil servants and the police under the British were kept intact.

When the Constitution did not create a legal and justiciable system for financing central and state elections, the criminalisation of politics became complete. Since government sanctions were necessary to implement the decisions of these criminalised legislatures, the corruption of the bureaucracy and police followed closely on the heels of the criminalisation of the legislature.

Over the past 75 years, these initial mistakes have created an inegalitarian, top-down, corrupt and criminalised political system, masquerading as a democracy. That is the political system that Arvind Kejriwal’s AAP is fighting to not merely defeat but eradicate.

It is the AAP’s commitment to create a clean political and administrative system that prioritises the needs of the poor that people have been welcoming in ever larger numbers. This has been demonstrated by the rapid rise of the party in Delhi, Punjab and Surat, in the heart of Modi’s citadel in Gujarat, within 12 years of the party’s inception.

What is Kejriwal trying to do that is evoking such an electrifying response from the people? It is his party’s unswerving belief that good governance must begin with meeting the needs of the poor. Prosperity needs not to trickle down from above, but to seep up from the poor till it palpably improves the lives of the rich.

It is the AAP’s unswerving adherence to this conviction in the face of every conceivable obstacle thrown in its way that explains the party’s meteoric rise from an idea to a ruling party in two states in a mere 12 years. The party’s rapid rise shows how desperately the poor of India have been yearning for this.

The AAP owes its rise to a guiding philosophy that Jasmine Shah, a senior member of the party, has described in a book titled The Delhi Model: A Bold New Road Map to Building a Developed India.

Kejriwal’s first act upon coming to power in 2013 was to set up a helpline for complaints on corruption that the public could convey to the government. That had to be suspended within days because 90% of the complaints it was receiving were against the Delhi police, over whom the state government had no control. When he set it up again upon his return to power in 2015, it took the Modi government only three months to send in the Delhi police, seize the building of Delhi’s anti-corruption bureau and confiscate all its files.

Transforming education in Delhi

But as Modi was soon to find out, Kejriwal had far more ambitious plans for Delhi. Within days, the new government increased the state’s education budget by 45% – taking it to a quarter of the government’s entire spending – and began a teacher training programme, selecting bright teachers from all the government schools, bringing in specialists from abroad to train them and sending the best of them for further educational qualifications to universities abroad.

Kejriwal’s reason for giving education the highest priority was that “if good education is provided to every child in the country, they can eradicate poverty in their families within one generation.” This is the very essence of the difference between the Delhi model of governance, as it has come to be called, and the traditional model of school and college education. The latter is designed for recruiters and managers to serve    a “trickle down” model of economic growth. In this model – a quintessential product of private enterprise-led economic development – the rich get the cream while the poor get only the dregs.

In his book, Shah gives a riveting description of the impact that Delhi’s “trickle up” model of governance has made. In the last decade, it has built 22,700 classrooms in government schools. For comparison, 24,700 classrooms had been built in the previous 70 years. The impact of its relentless emphasis on education for the poor has not taken long to become visible. Since 2016, more than 200,000 students have left Delhi’s private schools to join government schools. And since 2016, class 12 students from these schools have performed better than those from private schools.

Addressing basic needs

There have been similar dramatic improvements in health care. The Mohalla clinic initiative has been written about extensively but the number treated is still mind-boggling – over 9 years from 2016 till end of 2024, 540 Mohalla clinics have treated 70 million patients, an average of 60,000 persons per day.

In the provision of water, sanitation and electricity, the AAP has followed a recommendation made decades ago by the World Bank, to provide a “lifeline” amount free of cost. One of its least noticed but most humane enactments has been to allow free travel to women in city buses. One of them who lives outside the city limits told this writer that it had freed 30% of her income – Rs. 3,000 a month earned from cleaning homes in the city – to pay for her children’s school fees.

Shelter is a basic right of human beings but in large cities, it is one that is obtained only by default by the poor. The AAP’s greatest achievement has been to make shelter a central feature of its policies. It has therefore laid 2,100 kms of water pipelines and allowed 20,000 litres of water per month to be provided to each family free of cost. To ensure that the water reaches its consumers, the AAP government has laid over 5,200 kms of water pipelines in unauthorised colonies, giving 99.96% of them access to it.

There are other achievements of this kind listed in the book that will take too long to describe. Among these is making 1,627 industrial units which were using coal and diesel switch to natural gas and plant almost 30,000,000 trees of which a quarter were planted in a single year, 2021.

In March 2017, the Delhi cabinet approved a 36% increase in the minimum wages of Delhi’s five million workers. The legal minimum wage in Delhi now is therefore Rs 17,494 compared to the national minimum wage of Rs 5,340 per month. To sum up the Kejriwal government’s work, it has concentrated upon building human, as against physical, capital to improve the quality of life of its people.

It is not surprising, therefore, that the AAP has become the nemesis of the BJP, the largest national political party. It is also not surprising that Kejriwal has become Modi’s personal nemesis, and that he and his closest advisors have been charged with crimes, repeatedly denied bail and kept in jail for periods of more than two years, without having found a shred of evidence of any wrongdoing on his part.

The Modi government’s animosity is, at least, understandable. But what explains the sustained hostility to the AAP in the Congress party, particularly its Delhi wing? So deep does this run that despite being in some sort of an alliance with the AAP, not one party member has felt it necessary to raise even a murmur of protest against the victimisation of its leaders. If the INDIA bloc loses a general election that it should have won, it has only itself to blame for it. For however small the AAP may be, it offers a future to which the people are able to relate. Since the days of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, no party has been able to do anything of this kind so far.

Prem Shankar Jha is a veteran journalist.

Political Blame Game Over Rohingya Refugees in Delhi Highlights the Need for a Clear Policy

A clear refugee policy would give refugees the legal status they badly need, access to their rights, clarity on procedures for asylum, and information on how security issues are to be addressed.

The issue of Rohingya refugees in Delhi has become a fierce political confrontation between the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in the last few months. The settlement of Rohingya refugees in the capital is a contentious subject in politics, entwining humanitarian concerns, national security debates, and political manoeuvering. This issue has brought to the fore deeper questions about constitutional obligations, legal responsibilities and approach to refugees, as accusations fly and counterclaims escalate.

The political tug-of-war

The political storm erupted after AAP leaders accused the BJP of playing a double game with regard to the settlement of Rohingya refugees in Delhi. Senior AAP leaders, including chief minister Atishi, MP Sanjay Singh and former deputy chief minister Manish Sisodia, pointed to a tweet by Union minister Hardeep Singh Puri from August 2022 where Puri had celebrated India’s tradition of welcoming refugees. In the same tweet, he also said that Rohingya refugees will be resettled in Economically Weaker Section flats in Bakkarwala, a locality in Delhi.

For the AAP, this was an instance of the BJP’s hypocrisy. When the official rhetoric of the BJP, especially on national security, called for the deportation of Rohingya refugees, Puri’s tweet suggested that the party had actually allowed them to settle. The AAP’s criticism was sharp; they accused the BJP of bringing Rohingya refugees to Delhi under the garb of national security concerns, creating an “us versus them” narrative to rally voters while secretly settling the refugees in the city.

The BJP responded by accusing the AAP of playing politics with national security. Puri specifically accused the AAP of helping the settlement of Rohingya refugees by allegedly helping them obtain voter identification cards. The accusations and counter-accusations are not merely a political fight but represent a larger national debate on how India should treat refugees, particularly in a climate of rising nationalism and security fears.

The legal framework for refugees

The debate surrounding Rohingya refugees also touches on India’s legal obligations, particularly those derived from its Constitution and international commitments. While India does not have a specific refugee law, the Constitution offers certain protections to refugees, particularly under Article 21: the right to life and personal liberty.

The Supreme Court has held Article 21 to extend protections to all persons within the country, not just citizens. This has been reaffirmed in cases involving refugees such as the Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi’s case vs Union of India case of 1998, where the court ruled that refugees are entitled to certain constitutional protections, particularly the right to live free from arbitrary detention and deportation. The judgement was in tune with India’s commitment to the larger human rights cause, where it stated that refugees fleeing violence should not be detained or returned to countries where they would be persecuted.

Further, Article 22 protects against arbitrary arrest and detention, which is a major issue when dealing with refugees. The government’s tendency to frame the issue in terms of national security often brings it into conflict with these constitutional protections, as refugees may face detention or deportation without adequate legal safeguards. This constitutional provision ensures that any government action against refugees must adhere to due process, ensuring their right to a fair trial.

The Constitution, thus, provides a good basis for refugee rights even in the absence of a refugee law. The legal protection enshrined in Articles 21 and 22 are designed so that the refugees, just like any other individual in the country, are accorded dignity and liberty.

National security vs humanitarian responsibility

At the heart of the political battle over the Rohingya refugees is the tension between national security concerns and humanitarian obligations. On one side, the BJP has framed the issue as one of national security, particularly focusing on the potential risks posed by the settlement of refugees in sensitive regions like Jammu and Kashmir. The party claims that refugees may become easy targets for terrorist groups to manipulate, hence a significant security threat to the nation. The rhetoric has caught fire among the electorates who rank national security highly, in a climate of growing tension in the geopolitics of the region.

On the other hand, the BJP’s critics argue that India’s tradition of welcoming refugees cannot be abandoned for narrow political gains. They further emphasise that India has been a sanctuary for refugees from various countries throughout history (such as Tibetans, Sri Lankan Tamils, Afghan refugees, Bangladeshis and many others) and that the Constitution protects fundamental rights such as the right to life and liberty. The settlement of Rohingya refugees should, therefore, be viewed against the backdrop of India’s humanitarian responsibility, more in line with international norms about protection for the vulnerable.

The political narrative, therefore, is divided. On one hand, the BJP uses security concerns to justify its stance on deportation and limiting refugee settlement. On the other hand, opposition parties call for a more inclusive approach, one that respects India’s constitutional values and the broader principles of human rights.

Also read: A Lifetime in Limbo: Rohingya Refugees Face Arbitrary Detention and Dire Living Conditions

The role of the judiciary

As political parties clash over the issue of Rohingya refugees, the judiciary has played a critical role in safeguarding the rights of refugees, ensuring that they are not unduly punished for their status as displaced persons. The judiciary has historically been active in intervening when government actions potentially violate the constitutional rights of refugees.

A notable example is the intervention of the Supreme Court in the Mohammad Salimullah vs Union of India case in 2021, where the plea sought an order to prevent the deportation of Rohingya refugees to Myanmar. Though it did not immediately stop the deportations, the court made a point that India’s constitutional protections have to be reckoned with while deciding on the refugees. The court also emphasised India’s international obligations, particularly the principle of non-refoulement, that prohibits returning refugees to a country where they may face harm or persecution.

In so far as the national security concerns may override international human rights standards, the judiciary has continued to point out the adherence to international standards. This becomes more crucial now with the increased polarisation of political landscapes and the possible temptation of a government to ignore human rights concerns in favour of security. Under these circumstances, the judiciary must act as a bulwark against any possible abuse wherein the rights of refugees are taken away.

The need for a clear refugee policy

One of the crucial concerns raised due to the ongoing political and legal tussles over Rohingya refugees is related to India not having a proper refugee law at its disposal. Even though provisions through constitutional shields and international charters do provide relative protection, India still relies on policies without a sharp and well-instituted plan to deal with refugees.

A clear refugee policy would give a much-needed status to the refugees, their rights, procedures to asylum and how security issues are to be addressed. Such a policy would allow India to manage its refugee issue more systematically and transparently than at present; it would leave less scope for political manipulation and the refugees would be dealt with dignity and respect.

In the absence of a formal refugee law, India is placed in a vulnerable position where issues related to refugees become part of the political discourse rather than being guided by consistent legal principles. A robust refugee policy would not only protect the rights of refugees but also ensure that security concerns are addressed in a balanced manner.

A test of constitutional integrity

The Rohingya refugees have presented an important test to constitutional integrity. They pose daunting questions about commitments on human rights, national security and global duties. While the conflicts between political parties linger on in Delhi, the judiciary’s role will prove to be definitive while protecting these refugees’ rights with no indulgence in exploiting issues of security and national affairs.

This will be a reflection of India’s commitment to justice, equality and the protection of human dignity. In a world where political interests often supersede humanitarian concerns, India has an opportunity to demonstrate that it can balance both security and compassion, staying true to the values enshrined in its Constitution. It remains to be seen whether a comprehensive refugee policy is drafted to ensure protection from national security concerns while upholding its moral obligation as a protector, treating refugees fairly in consonance with international laws and constitutional dictates.

Gunseerat Kaur is a law student at the University Institute of Legal Studies, Panjab University, Chandigarh.

‘Nothing Will Happen, Right?’: Mukesh Chandrakar’s Fateful Question Echoes After His Death

The journalists of Bastar have given their lives to bring an utterly neglected zone to the national consciousness. It’s now for others to ensure that Mukesh’s voice doesn’t fall silent.

New Delhi: He called me dada; I called him bhai. Co-travellers, we learnt our first – and the most enduring – journalism lessons in the jungles of Bastar. I then worked with the Indian Express, the newspaper that had given me a crucial assignment to travel, report and write from Central India. I had a luxurious cushion of “national media;” he was exposed to the daily risks against which I was largely insulated.

But Mukesh Chandrakar always remained an explorer, whereas I, the unlucky one, had to abandon the jungle. If the foundation of journalism is field reporting, the daily grind in the sun and the soil that leaves your body grimy and the soul tanned, Mukesh epitomised it.

His own life experiences greatly contributed to his understanding of the police-Maoist conflict and the Adivasi life in Dandakaranya. He was born in Basaguda village of Bijapur during the early years of the Naxal insurgency. He lost his father early and was later uprooted from his village in the Salwa Judum violence. His mother, an anganwadi worker, shifted to the Basaguda refugee camp before the family was forced to move to another refugee camp in Avapalli. A decade later, he lost his mother to cancer.

He was, thus, naturally predisposed to be a remarkable chronicler, an outstanding interlocutor of the tragic zone that Bastar is. He worked for several Raipur-based media houses for nearly a decade with little salary and multiple editorial diktats before he began considering the YouTube model of journalism.

In April 2021, he and some fellow journalists, including another extraordinary reporter named Ganesh Mishra, secured the release of a commando of the Central Reserve Police Force’s Commando Battalion for Resolute Action unit from Maoist captivity. As the abduction made headlines, the country’s elite paramilitary forces remained helpless before a bunch of young journalists emerged from the jungle in jubilation. Till date, Mukesh’s X handle has the pinned tweet of a few bikers arriving in celebration, with him leading from the front and the released commando riding pillion.

A year later, when I published Mukesh’s profile in Outlook magazine, I quoted him on his decision to change his mode of journalism: “Ganesh Mishra and I played a major role in securing his (the commando’s) release. National channels were taking my bytes. But unfortunately, at my own channel, my editor-anchor hogged the space.”

I go back to our chat history amid an engulfing sadness to find the conversations we had in 2021, the messages and phone calls to discuss the title and format of the new channel.

The channel, Bastar Junction, soon became a credible voice of Bastar. He was among the first to report on the May 2021 Silger incident in which three Adivasis were killed in firing by security forces.

The video genre lent him maximum joy and a sense of fulfilment. He no longer had to send endless story pitches to negligent editors nor was there any fear of his byline getting whitewashed.

Reporting from a conflict zone is always fraught with risks; in Bastar, another tragic component gets added to it. The zone doesn’t have any representative in the national or international media or academia. Kashmir, for instance, has its interlocutors with several reputed media houses and academic institutions. In absolute contrast, Bastar doesn’t even have a voice in state capital Raipur. There is no one to write their stories except a few activists or journalists, who earlier worked in the area, and invested their emotional and intellectual energies into the jungle, but now live with a guilt of having to abandon what they once believed was their only homeland.

Also read: Prime Accused In Chhattisgarh Journalist Mukesh Chandrakar’s Death Taken to Custody

I last met Mukesh a few years ago in Bijapur. We spent a morning together and clicked each other’s photographs. My phone still has photographs from that day – of him sitting on a bench in a park, smiling.

Following an uproar over his killing, the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government in Chhattisgarh has promised justice. But last August, Mukesh and Sukma-based journalist Raja Rathore co-wrote a news story for The Wire Hindi after four Bastar journalists were arrested in an evidently false case following their reporting on illegal mining allegedly involving BJP leaders. The article suggested that the Chhattisgarh police planted the evidence to frame the journalists.

The next morning, Mukesh sent me the screenshot of a WhatsApp message by a senior police officer, expressing disapproval of the stand he had taken for the imprisoned journalists. “Kuch hoga to nahin na? (Nothing will happen, right?),” he asked me from the other side of the phone, an apprehension in his voice.

A few months later, he was found murdered; the two episodes conjoined by a belief the administration-criminal nexus in Bastar share – that journalists can only survive at their mercy. Soon after his body was recovered from the premises of a contractor, fellow journalists called it the graveyard of journalism in Bastar.

That you can be killed for reporting can discourage many. In Bastar, it can be permanently paralysing. The journalists of Bastar have given their lives to bring an utterly neglected zone to the national consciousness. It’s now for others to ensure that Mukesh’s voice doesn’t fall silent.

Note: This article was originally published in the Indian Express.

The Silent Strength of Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister Was His Moral Compass

As media adviser, I witnessed his quiet resilience, democratic commitment, and moral clarity during the turbulence of his second term. In a time of corporate discontent, media frenzy, and political sabotage, he chose integrity over coercion, embodying the values of a true statesman.

It was just a few days after I had joined the Manmohan Singh PMO as media adviser. June 2009. There a small function at 7,RCR, an award-giving ceremony for the best steel production outfit. All the corporate honchos were in attendance. The ceremony ended, and over tea the steel tycoons were telling the prime minister that ‘something’ had to be done about ‘these Naxals’ who were making their life difficult. After a few minutes of this diatribe, Dr. Manmohan Singh politely observed, “Perhaps many of them [i.e. the so-called Naxals] believe that the system we have is very unfair to them.” Stunned corporate silence.

It was the first glimpse I was to have of how Singh had evolved from the finance minister of the 1991 reforms  to a sensitive prime minister, mindful of the great inequalities and deprivations that marred the rural landscape. He had shed, if ever he was attached to it, that ponderous bunkum known as the trickle-down theory.

In retrospect, it is evident that very early in his second term, the corporate bosses had sensed that  Singh was no longer the friendly prime minister they had backed in the 2009 election [against the BJP’s L.K.Advani.] They felt scorned. Soon there was the animated but entirely bogus talk of “policy paralysis.” Many of his own senior cabinet colleagues ended up creating an impression of a regime stranded in confusion and conflict.

It was only a matter of time before the word “corruption” became the screaming headline. Very many forces, outfits and individuals—some well-meaning, some crafty, some cunning and some downright communal—pooled their resources and voices to curdle the national mood against the Manmohan Singh government. But the campaign needed an acceptable mascot. The Bombay-based lalas brought Anna Hazare out of obscurity and “the India Against Corruption movement” was launched. The Ram Lila ground became our version of Tahrir Square. All the leading anchors competed with each other to find virtue and values in the likes of a clutch of Gandhi-topi wearing “crusaders”, with Baba Ramdev thrown into the mix. The aim was to wreck  Manmohan Singh’s middle-class constituency. Why? Because unless the middle classes were alienated from  Singh’s government, the communal messaging which had been readied for deployment would not get heard across the land.

It was during those trying days that I remember asking the prime minister whether there was anything the government could do to make the corporate-backers of the so-called Anna Hazare movement be reasonable. His response was simple: “There are many ways. They are all ugly ways and I do not want to travel that path.”

Was the weakness on his part? Or, moral clarity.

It requires the greatest of certitude, self-awareness, intellectual broadmindedness and democratic commitment to resist using the coercive powers of the state. Anybody can play the daroga, but it needs a certain kind of strength to spurn the danda.

As prime minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh had enormous respect for the structures of accountability. His attitude was that whatever the government did or did not do, it had an obligation to explain itself. He thought in a democracy the regime drew its legitimacy from public acceptance and this legitimacy needed to be regularly reinforced and validated. Without public acceptance, the regime is left with a sullen citizenry. And that would not do—because without people’s cooperation and compliance, all the well-meaning schemes come to a grinding halt.

As his media adviser, I always found him respectful of the institution of  the reporter, the editor and the newspaper. On January 1, 2012 he gone to visit the Golden Temple. Those were the days of the Anna Hazare hysteria. And, all the television channels were out there, catching a glimpse of “the prime minister under siege.” The cameras lingered on two individuals animatedly waving black flags. It was an exercise in disproportionate  journalism.

As media adviser, I was disappointed and I asked the prime minister’s permission to issue a statement—something to the effect that he was entitled to be left alone to pray and that his privacy was unfairly breached. His unmeditated response was a gentle rebuke: “Harish, I have a right to pray and nobody denied me that right; I paid my obeisance. Without hindrance. The reporters have a right to report and why should there be any objection to what they choose to report.” It was a  worthy rebuke from a worthy and wise man.

Manmohan Singh was the perfect child of Nehruvian India and it was entirely natural that he should have had such a respectful attitude towards the media fraternity. He knew very many journalists personally, and thought it was unworthy of a prime minister to want to degrade an unfriendly editor.

Neither as prime minister nor after he demitted office did he ever allow himself to  give in to bitterness, even towards those who proved unfaithful and disloyal to him. Revenge and retribution was not his game.

Harish Khare, a former Editor in Chief of The Tribune and Resident Editor of The Hindu. served as Media Adviser to Prime Minster Manmohan Singh from June 2009 to January 2012.

 

Vice-President Dhankhar Is Not Expected to Take Part in the Modi Government’s Publicity

On several occasions, Jagdeep Dhankhar has instigated citizens to rise against politicians and activists who are critical of Modi’s functioning, an irresponsible act no other person holding a constitutional post has committed in the history of independent India.

“From being in the fragile five, we became the fifth global economy. It’s unthinkable we will leave behind Germany and Japan soon. Mahatma Gandhi’s dream – that corruption will be eradicated – is about to be fulfilled. There was a time when nothing could be done without middlemen. Middlemen had emerged as a new tribe in society. Corruption was the password for employment, for contract, for opportunities. A big change has occurred in the last decade. Middlemen vanished. The power corridor has been purged. Now decisions are taken with responsibility and transparency. Boys and girls, now you get the most critical advantage that nobody undermines your talent! Patronage has yielded to meritocracy.”

No, this was not an exceptionally articulate BJP spokesperson making exaggerated claims about the Narendra Modi government. Not even a hired propagandist fooling the masses about the imaginary transformation India has undergone. This was Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar addressing students at the convocation of Mahatma Gandhi Central University in Motihari, Bihar, on December 7. 

Dhankhar, who occupies a top constitutional post, is not expected to speak this language. The government’s publicity is not the assignment given to these apolitical functionaries. Yet, he has outshined every spokesperson of the government. 

Also read: A Dog-Whistling Vice-President Diminishes the Dignity of His Office

Speaking at the centenary foundation day of ICAR-CIRCOT, Mumbai on December 3, he said:

“I have seen India changing for the first time. I am feeling, for the first time, that ‘Viksit Bharat’ is not our dream but our goal. India had never attained this exalted stature. We never enjoyed such clout in the world.”

Why this is important today is because Dhankhar has become the first vice president against whom the opposition parties have moved a no-confidence motion for lack of impartiality that his constitutional position entails. Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge has said Dhankhar’s extraordinary biases as Rajya Sabha chairperson and his passionate advocacy of the Modi government in and outside parliament have bruised the nation’s dignity. 

This confrontation has been building up for the last two years and the opposition parties have been explicitly objecting to Dhankhar’s conduct. They have articulated their concerns about his blatantly partisan handling of the Rajya Sabha proceedings on countless occasions. But Dhankhar did not only suppress opposition voices, he habitually hailed the prime minister and went so far as to question the patriotism of Modi’s critics.

He even instigated the citizens to rise against politicians and activists who are critical of Modi’s functioning, an irresponsible act no other person holding a constitutional post has committed in the history of independent India.    

Also read: In Full: Opposition’s Notice for No-Confidence Motion Against Vice-President Jagdeep Dhankhar

In March 2023, Dhankhar clearly asked people to rise against opposition leaders who defame parliament and create disturbances in both Houses, insisting that only their intervention can redeem the situation. Speaking at the three-day ‘Ayurveda Kumbh’ at the Chowdhary Charan Singh University at Meerut, he said:

“Only people’s intervention can bring these elements (in the opposition) on the right path.” 

He argued:

“When India is rising, some people have decided to denigrate the country. They have taken a resolve to defame India. One instance I see in front of my eyes. Somebody goes abroad and says the mic is switched off in parliament. Lok Sabha is a big panchayat. Mic has never been switched off there. How can we tolerate it? How torturous is this experience.” 

Contending that microphones were switched off during the Emergency when patriots were dumped in jail, Dhankhar said:

“Such a situation will never arise again. I will earnestly request, entreat and appeal to you with folded hands…You express your views openly. Don’t remain silent about such people. Put forward your views fearlessly. This is your responsibility. Only you can do it. Only common people can do it.”

Members of parliament say microphones are indeed switched off in both Houses when something uncomfortable to the ruling establishment is spoken. However, what has been happening these days goes far beyond the mere denial of technical assistance to voice one’s concerns. 

While debates are not allowed on critical issues like Chinese intrusion and corporate loot, any reference to businessman Gautam Adani and his relationship with the prime minister is expunged from records. 

Using his chair to target Opposition

Suspension of opposition members has become routine and the presiding officers themselves berate, condemn and ridicule Modi’s critics on the floor of the House. Ruling party members are encouraged to make wild, unsubstantiated allegations but “nothing will go on record” starts blaring when the opposition leaders attack the government.

Also read: Mamata Banerjee, Rahul Gandhi and What It Would Take to the Lead INDIA Bloc

Dhankhar has used every platform even outside parliament to attack the opposition parties, demonstrating that impartiality intrinsic to his position has little worth. 

On December 8, 2024, addressing Gita Mahotsav in Kurukshetra, Haryana, he said:

“We are seeing some unique challenges to the country nowadays. Some forces create a narrative using money power and other mechanism to hurt India in and outside the country. They want to damage our economy, render our institutions defunct. Their sinister design, pernicious object is to taint, tarnish and diminish our constitutional institutions to run down our growth trajectory. We can’t ignore these forces. Our culture suggests that a time comes when such forces have to be crushed. That’s the message of Gita. I want to give a message that the nation is above everything else. Patriotism needs no calculation, it has to be 100%. We will always keep nation first! Some people are a recipe for chaos – they can only be critics, they can’t think in a positive way.”

This certainly doesn’t reflect the widespread concerns in the country about our domestic institutions like CBI, Enforcement Directorate and SEBI (Securities & Exchange Board of India) not acting objectively on the charges of violations of law. 

The opposition has steadfastly refused to accept that demanding accountability and implementation of the rule of law falls in the category of anti-national activity. While the Bofors case was thoroughly debated and investigated even as the Rajiv Gandhi government enjoyed a much bigger majority, demands for investigation into cases like Rafale and Adani affairs were dismissed as disruptive and unpatriotic. 

Obviously, opposition leaders didn’t sing along with the ‘radical transformation’ tune that Dhankhar wanted to set in the political discourse. He really worked hard to spread that message of magical advancement, rarely acknowledging the oppositional narrative revolving around unemployment, price rise, vendetta politics and toxic communalism.    

Persisting with his passion for painting a rosy picture, Dhankhar said on December 1, 2024, speaking at IIT Kanpur:

“India was a different country but now it’s a nation with hope and possibility. Now it’s a nation on economic upsurge, now it’s a nation with phenomenal infrastructure, now it’s a nation whose performance in sea, on land, in sky, or space is getting global accolades. In the past decade, Bharat has witnessed remarkable transformation and innovation. The landscape has been thoroughly revolutionised for the better.”

A Modi ‘cheerleader’

Speaking at the NHRC function on December 10, 2023, he said:

Our Amrit Kaal became Gaurav Kaal [time of pride] primarily due to the blossoming of human rights and values.”

While ‘Amrit Kaal’ is Modi’s imagination, the opposition’s narrative is about a phase of crisis for human rights and constitutional values. 

The vice-president doesn’t stand in between, he chooses to ride the government juggernaut and propagate their ideas. That’s the job of a public relations department, ably performed by the mainstream media these days. 

In March 2023, Congress communications chief Jairam Ramesh bluntly asked the vice-president not to act like Modi’s “cheerleader”. 

When Dhankhar attacked Rahul Gandhi for talking about diminishing democracy during his foreign interactions, Ramesh said, “There are certain offices which require us to shed our prejudices, our party allegiances and compel us to rid ourselves of whatever propaganda we may have imbibed along the way. The office of the Vice President of India, an office on which the Constitution bestows the additional responsibility of being the Chair of the Rajya Sabha, is foremost amongst these.” 

Also read: The True Extent of the ‘Modani’ Nexus Should Not Come as a Surprise to Anyone

Describing the Rajya Sabha chairman as “an umpire, a referee, a friend, philosopher and guide to all”, Ramesh said, “He cannot be a cheerleader for any ruling dispensation. History measures leaders not on the zealousness with which they defended their party, but the dignity with which they performed their roles in the service of the people.” Dhankhar smelt a conspiracy to derail India’s growth trajectory, echoing sentiments expressed by the BJP and Union ministers. 

Speaking at a book release function, Dhankhar said:

“Bharat, now in Amrit Kaal, is the most functional democracy that has evoked global recognition. India is setting global discourse on many issues. All Indians are elated that the country is on the rise like never before and its upward growth trajectory is unstoppable as we are on our way to 2047.” 

The “never-before” rhetoric lacked substance because the GDP grew at a higher rate under Manmohan Singh. Dhankhar further said:

“How ironic, how painful! While the world is applauding our historic accomplishments as a functional vibrant democracy, some amongst us including parliamentarians are engaged in the thoughtless, unfair denigration of our well-nurtured democratic values. How can we justify such wanton orchestration of a factually untenable narrative?” 

He added:

“And mark the timing of this unwholesome misadventure – while India is having its moments of glory – as President of G20 and there are people outside of the country working in overdrive to denigrate us.”

In a strong posturing that looked like a political assault, Dhankhar declared:

“Such misplaced campaign mode to taint and tarnish our parliament and constitutional entities is too serious and exceptional to be ignored or countenanced. No political strategy or partisan stance can justify compromising our nationalism and democratic values. If I observe silence on this misadventure-orchestration by a member of parliament outside the country which is ill-premised, unwholesome and motivated, I would be on the wrong side of the constitution. It will be constitutional culpability and outrage of my oath of office.” 

He went on to instigate a public uprising against the Congress leader, saying:

“I call upon everyone – intelligentsia, media and youth who are our warriors of 2047 to rise to the occasion, expose these forces and neutralise them.” 

Little wonder, the BJP government has declared its intent to defend the vice president who talks more like the ruling party’s commander-in-chief with full force.

Sanjay K. Jha is a political commentator

So, When Will the Modi Government Act on the Manipur Violence?

While Manipur has a history of long-standing tensions between communities, previous governments intervened and stopped them. Why is the current BJP government failing to do the same?

A victim in a Meitei relief camp in Imphal, who lost her family members in the ethnic tensions between Meiteis and Kukis in Manipur that has lasted for 18 months now, told me – “Imagine two kids fighting. Will the father or mother not step in to stop the fight? Now imagine the children killing each other. Will the parents still not step in to prevent the violence? Then why is the Union government not stepping in to stop Manipur state from burning?”

I don’t believe that the Union government needs to parent the people in states. They just need to truly discharge their constitutional duty. However, Prime Minister Narendra Modi is high on the ‘Modi Ka Parivar’ rhetoric. So, the people of Manipur are asking: is Manipur not part of India? Why has the prime minister not visited it yet?

The Context 

As our Indigo flight soared above Manipur, the pilot informed us, “Given the climatic conditions, it will take us another 30 minutes before we land.” With this, we got an additional half an hour of air tour above Manipur. With thick clouds, straight out of a fairyland story, I could see the lush green mountains right under us with small villages perched on hilltops. It was then that the geographical significance of the whole dispute between the Meitei and Kuki communities dawned on me.

Manipur’s capital city Imphal is on relatively flat land surrounded by hills on all sides. While the Meitei community, who follow Hinduism as a religion, live predominantly in Imphal Valley, the Kukis, who follow Christianity, live in the hills. The Nagas, another dominant tribal community who follow a mix of Buddhism, Hinduism and Christianity, live in the hills too.

Meitei are about 53% of Manipur’s population with the rest as Kukis and Nagas. However, Meiteis are politically more powerful with 40 out of 60 MLAs belonging to the community, while Kuki and Naga communities have 10 MLAs each. The major institutions such as big schools, hospitals, the legislative assembly, the high court etc. are all in Imphal. The Kuki and the Naga have been given the Scheduled Tribe status and the Meitei are also demanding the same.

Manipur is rich in mineral resources and also has an abundance of palm trees (used for palm oil) and bamboo, amongst others. These resources are found in the hills and there is an underlying question of the ownership of these resources. Like all tribal-dominated states, the ownership of land which has resources is a bone of contention with obvious vested corporate interests. At the same time, the ownership of land is determined by the ST status.

Also read: Manipur – Will the Central Government Stand In the Witness-Box Please?

Consider this: Land rights of the tribal communities in Manipur have been considerably diluted through recent successive amendments in the laws governing such rights. For instance, Section 158 of the Manipur Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960, only permits transfer of tribal land to a member of the Scheduled Tribes. However, more and more areas have been classified outside the purview of this section to enable the transfer of land to non-tribals.

Similarly, amendments have been introduced in the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, with the most recent amendment in 2023 wherein 6 critical atomic minerals – lithium, beryllium, titanium, niobium, tantalum, and zirconium – have been ‘delisted’ in order to encourage greater land encroachment by the private sector without adherence to the regulations imposed upon them in the category of atomic minerals. These amendments also violate the Forest Rights Act of 2006, which grants tribal communities the right to dwell on their land, use its produce, and crucially, access its resources. Their rights are being systematically dismantled with these dilutions.

So, in Manipur, on the one hand, through legal amendments, many land/areas with important resources, are being opened up for non-ST status people to own/control, thereby considerably diluting the principle that underlies the general law of predominant ownership by tribals across the country. On the other hand, those land areas which have been cleared off for private ownership may still face resistance from the tribal population if the corporates do come in a big way – Chhattisgarh being a case in point. The government’s stance on the laws, as well as the displacement of people from their villages, all point to a seemingly orchestrated strategy of transfer of resources into a few powerful hands. In this regard, while the government seems to ‘frame’ the conflict in Manipur between the larger Meitei and Kuki communities, it is actually just about securing the interests of a few, with both communities suffering equally in the process.

A candle light vigil in Churachandpur, Manipur

FILE IMAGE: A candlelight vigil in Churachandpur, Manipur. Photo: X/@AboriginalKuki

Manipur chief minister N Biren Singh’s statements blaming the increase in poppy production and the influx of people illegally entering from Myanmar – which shares the border with Manipur – as part of the reason for the increasing ethnic tensions belies the point. Firstly, on the issue of drug control and poppy cultivation, there are clear commercial interests. Secondly, the international borders are to be guarded by the Union government.

So again, why is the Union government failing to protect the international borders between Myanmar and Manipur and stop the influx of illegal migrants? The government cannot have its cake and eat it too. Either, it is failing to protect the borders and needs to admit so, or stop blaming the illicit drug scene as the major factor in current disturbances caused in the state.

In addition, the ongoing conflict about the demand of Meiteis for ‘ST’ status will have ramifications on reservations in jobs, schools and government offices, amongst others.

This begs the question that if any community which is in the majority in a state gets ST status and its added benefits, will that not set a precedent for populist measures in other states in India? In that sense, it is also a classic dispute between communities for power and status.

Also read: Members of INDIA Bloc Parties From Manipur Say They Were Not Allowed to Hold Protest At Jantar Mantar

The Current Scenario 

The crescendo of the ethnic tensions between Meiteis and the tribes – mainly Kukis and Nagas – was reached on May 3, 2023. The Kukis, Nagas and other tribes which have an ST status in Manipur were taking out a ‘Tribal Solidarity March’ in Churachandpur district to protest the demand of Meiteis for the same following the recommendation of the Manipur high court.

When an armed mob attacked the protestors and the police failed to do anything about it, the conflict blew out of proportion. Next thing, Kuki villages were being attacked by Meiteis, and Meitei living in Kuki areas were being driven out by the Kukis.

Today, several relief camps have been set up in both the Kuki areas and in Meitei areas. But here is the thing – you have to see the reality of Manipur to believe it. There are hard lines drawn about what constitutes the Meitei area and the Kuki area. We can’t find any Kuki in Imphal today and no Meitei in Kuki hills. One can only imagine how the high court or the legislative assembly is operating in such a scenario.

The in-between borders are heavily guarded by the security forces, with volunteer groups of both communities further putting up checkpoints to ensure that the ‘other’ is not found in their area. Ironically, it was only possible to drive from one side to the other with a taxi driven by a Muslim person. That too wasn’t easy.

As one person told me in confidence, “Now, both sides are beginning to mistrust Muslims as secret agents for the other side, trading in relevant information.” So, the only person who agreed to drive us to Jiribam from Imphal did not agree easily and also charged an exorbitant fee. He thought he was putting his life on the line.

Is this where we are headed as a country? Imagine a future, with lines drawn neatly amongst different communities, both in their hearts and on the maps. Gujarat is already setting a terrible precedent with the news coming in of the Hindus and Muslims seemingly having clearly demarcated residential areas in most parts, even in the major cities. Manipur presents a much stark and gory reality of this divisiveness amongst communities, making it the new ‘normal’.

The Court 

On March 27, 2023, in WP(C) No. 229 of 2023, the Manipur high court heard a petition and disposed it at the admission stage, directing the Chief Secretary of Manipur to “submit the recommendation in reply to the letter dated 29.5.2013 of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India” and further to “..consider the case of the petitioners for inclusion of the Meetei/Meitei community in the Scheduled Tribe list, expeditiously, preferably within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order in terms of the averments set out in the writ petition and in the line of the order passed in WP(C) No. 4281 of 2002 dated 26.05.2003 by the Gauhati High Court.”

The high court, in para 3 of the order, states, “The petitioners have filed this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to submit recommendation in reply to the Letter No.1902005/2012- C&IM dated 29.5.2013 of the Government of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs within a period of two months or within a time frame and to include Meetei/Meitei community in the Schedule Tribe list of Indian Constitution as a “tribe among tribes of Manipur”, maintaining the tribal status of Meetei/Meitei existed before 21.9.1949 i.e. before signing of the Merger Agreement as part of the terms and conditions of the Merger Agreement of Manipur into the Indian Union and also direction on the fourth respondent to restore the Scheduled Tribe status of Meetei/Meitei community.”

Further, in para 7, it states, “Despite the letter dated 29.5.2013, the Government of Manipur failed to submit the recommendation to the reason best known to them. In fact, the representation dated 18.4.2022 submitted by the petitioners was forwarded by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs to the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India for necessary action. According to the learned counsel, Meitei community is the one of major/principal tribe of Manipur is not recommended by the State Government. Hence, the petitioners have been advised to file the present writ petition.”

In para 15, the high court further observes, “This Court finds some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, as the petitioners and other Unions are fighting long years for inclusion of Meetei/Meitei community in the tribe list of Manipur.”

It is to be noted that on February 21, 2024, the Manipur HC in Review Petition No. 12 of 2023 set aside a prayer contained in Para No. 17(iii) of the judgment in W.P.(C) No. 229 of 2023.

Also read: Manipur Tapes: SC to Investigate Audio Clip Allegedly of CM Biren Singh’s Voice

Whether the court should have interfered in the matter at all and made observations seemingly supporting the inclusion of the Meitei in the ST category, without hearing anyone from the political ‘other side’ is a legal question with both ‘technical’ and ‘moral’ underpinnings.

The political nature of the dispute cannot be neglected and while the courts cannot refuse to hear a matter simply because of its political characteristic, the classic adage of ‘justice should also seem to be done’ is the only anchoring principle for the courts to remember.

When a matter is finally heard at the admission stage, after hearing the state and the petitioners, with no room for objections from the intervenors – people from any community who want to have a say in the matter or be heard are effectively taken away.

Further, the larger political climate in India where a lot of disputes seem to be emerging from an analysis of history – ‘but who actually started it?’, ‘but what was underlying this structure first’, or ‘who began the violence first’ – all tend to mislead on the scope that judicial bodies are empowered to exercise in the first place.

Manipur Police conducting a search operation.

Representative image: Manipur Police conducting a search operation. Photo: X/@manipur_police

Can the courts in India, including high courts and the Supreme Court, actually go into dispute fault lines dating so far back that they have no way to measure up the legal evidence one way or the other, conclusively?

These disputes that pit communities against each other on the basis of a much older history presented and insisted upon as ‘fact’ by both sides only end up destroying the peace at present. Yes, justice precedes peace, and justice ought to be done. However, allowing one-sided, half-hearted or speedy decisions without taking all stakeholders into account does both the people and the confidence in the judiciary a disservice.

This is why there is a separation of powers between the ‘political’ (executive) and the ‘judicial’ (judiciary) questions and disrupting this would mean that the courts are now being used to discharge a political process or an issue which should be contested in the political arena instead of the courts.

This leads to a constitutional issue of creating a ‘slippery slope’, where governments, interested petitioners, or over-enthusiastic persons can ask the courts to do what should ideally be the government’s role.

The recent happenings in Sambhal are a case in point. The case of judicial overreach unfortunately seems to be becoming the new norm, albeit this time with tremendous consequences as seen in the aftermath of the Babri-Ayodhya dispute. The courts, once they begin a process not constitutionally warranted and out of sync with the ‘rule of law’, cannot reverse the hands of the clock. They will also never be able to tell where that influence will stop.

Also read: Is Amit Shah Right That ‘No Major Incidents’ Occurred in Manipur in the Last Three Months?

The History 

The history of political and ethnic conflict in Manipur can be traced back to the pre-colonial period. As early as the 16th century, multiple wars between Manipur and Burma began the fragmentation of the various communities living within the territory. This dark period saw the annihilation of half the population of Manipur by the Burmese forces. However, the current geopolitical division between the hills and the valley can find its roots in the British invasion of the Indian subcontinent. In the mid-18th century, Raja Jai Singh requested British assistance against the brutal clashes between Manipur and the then Burmese empire. As it was witnessed throughout the country, however, internal disputes within the royal family weakened their reign and allowed the British to gain a stronger hold over the region to favour their trade with China.

Apart from the Anglo-Manipur War of 1891, small forces were formed to rebel against the British throughout the 20th century such as the Kuki Rebellion of 1917, the Zeliangrong Naga Uprising of 1930 or the Nupi Lan – a massive women’s agitation of 1939-40. The inclusion of Manipur within the newly independent Indian territory continued to be fraught with tensions due to which the Armed Forces Special Powers Act of 1958, was enforced. Interestingly, Meiteis and Kukis have not been the only communities in variance with each other. The Kuki-Naga clash of 1992 also led to tremendous loss of life and property, with Nagas claiming their rights as the original settlers of the region. Due to their violent history and the territorial interest of multiple communities, everything from minute policy alterations to larger regime changes have resulted in conflicts born out of cultural and political differences, insurgency, land rights and communal insecurities.

As recent as 2004, the rape of a Manipuri woman, Thangjam Manorama Devi, by members of the Assam Rifles paramilitary had led to widespread protests, including a nude protest by the Meira Paibi women’s association. Tensions had erupted but were soon quelled by the then-Union government.

To be clear, yes, Manipur has a history of long-standing tensions between different communities but the previous governments intervened and stopped them. Why is the current BJP government failing to do the same? Manmohan Singh did visit Manipur after the 2004 tensions, so why is Modi failing to do the same? History answers some questions, but in this case, it also raises some important ones.

Also read: ‘Time for a New Manipur CM or President’s Rule, but Absence of Clear Thinking Means Problem Will Remain’

Need for Union Government’s Intervention 

We visited Manipur for five days, met several people from both communities and also visited relief camps in Imphal, Churachandpur, Kangpokpi and Jiribam which have seen a fresh spate of violence, with three women and three children’s bodies telling a gruesome tale of violence. Who committed these murders – given that no Kuki organisation has taken responsibility for them yet – is a question whose verdict is still out.

Meiteis and Kukis disagree on almost everything at this point. Both sides blame each other for ‘starting it all’. Both sides affirm that the terror that was unleashed in May 2023 was ‘pre-planned’. Both sides appeal to their ‘values’ and state that it is wrong to commit such heinous crimes against women and children. Yet, they try to justify the killings on the other side by invoking the horror stories committed on women and children on their side. At this point in time, both Meiteis and Kukis also sound convinced that they cannot trust the other side and that the other side is a terrorist organisation.

But here’s what they agree on: the Union government has not done enough to control the escalating tensions in Manipur. It does not want to intervene. Otherwise, why has it not imposed the President’s Rule in Manipur? We have seen President’s Rule being imposed at the slightest political upheaval but here in Manipur, it has been 18 months of non-stop violence without the Union government recommending that the President intervene.

Constitutionally speaking, President’s Rule would mean the need for fresh elections in Manipur in six months. Given that the people of Manipur are now so angry that they are burning down and ransacking the house of BJP MLAs, the palpable anger against BJP in Manipur is not hard to feel. The victory of Congress on both seats in Manipur in the Lok Sabha elections this year makes it clear.

So, the Union government is not imposing President’s Rule in Manipur because it knows that it will have to conduct elections in which it is most likely to lose. However, part of it is also because of pandering to different interests and trying to be politically right. While some Kukis are vehemently calling for a separate Kukiland, others want stronger Autonomous District Councils (ADCs). Others have called for Manipur to be made a Union Territory with separate areas for Kukis and Meiteis. In any of these cases, the elephant in the room is why the Union government has not attempted to take the first step – removing weapons from both sides as a logical precursor to any peace dialogue.

Manipuri armed forces.

Representational photo of Manipuri armed forces. Credit: PTI

Firstly, yes, AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act, 1958) has been imposed. However, AFSPA has always been there in the Kuki-dominated hills, and it has further been imposed in the six police stations in Meitei-dominated Imphal, which are close to the hills, and not in the entire valley. Given that both sides are heavily armed, doesn’t it make sense to ensure equal application of AFSPA to remove the weapons on both sides as first priority? Just to be clear, I am not advocating for the imposition of AFSPA, but if it is done, it has to be done equally and without discrimination to neutralise both sides. In any case, one cannot escape the tragic irony of AFSPA in Manipur.

While the world’s longest hunger striker – Irom Sharmila did a hunger strike for more than 500 weeks, from November 2000 to 2016, to remove AFSPA from Manipur, here we are, again grappling with AFSPA and potential human rights violations in Manipur. It is as if the more things change, the more they remain the same.

Secondly, an attempt has to be made to bring warring groups to the negotiating table to arrive at a resolution. The news about weapons being stolen from the police stations is a story hard to believe. The lack of  Manipur’s police intervention on May 3, 2023, is also difficult to understand. All of this collectively points out the criminal culpability and the corresponding lack of intent of both the state and Union governments to contain the violence in Manipur.

Manipur – the far north-eastern state – has become BJP’s political laboratory away from the attention of the people of the so-called ‘mainland’ while the national media chooses to remain silent as the people of Meitei and Kuki community adjust to the new ‘normal’.

It is not as if Manipur hasn’t seen unrest before May last year but never before was it allowed to fester on for so long. This itself brings the Union government to the witness box.

If the Union government does not intervene fast, the complex labyrinth of issues in Manipur will fester on and make it an issue that will last for generations. If the government thinks that it can take political advantage or find ‘opportunity in chaos’, it needs to be reminded that history has shown that when you use hatred as a tool for political benefit, it comes to bite you back.

There seems to be a mix of reasons for the Union government’s diabolical attitude towards Manipur. Yes, it is about the ‘ownership of resources for a few’, but it is also about sending a political signal of what they can do with minorities – Christians, in this case – and also the fear that when they use a majority’s sentiment for political benefit, the same people when they see the government’s true intent, won’t come to support them.

Ultimately, a few can keep the larger set of people fighting over their vested interests but truth always prevails. Love always wins. Above all, people want peace. And so, all regimes learn their lessons in due time. The damage done to people’s lives and the social fabric and turning a blind eye to the egregious human rights violation in the interim is unforgivable.

But for a moment, let’s keep the politics aside. Let’s keep the corporate interests aside. The Union government should intervene because it is not okay for women to be paraded naked. It’s not okay for both Meitei and Kuki women to be raped, tortured and abused. It is not enough for the National Commission of Women to pay a cursory visit and do nothing significant. It is not okay for the BJP to say ‘Beti Bachao, Beti Padhao’ while turning a blind eye to the plight of women in Manipur. If we Indians stay silent now, we have no right to speak of women and their place in our society. It is time we pay women more than lip service. It is time we stand up for them. This is not a story of just one woman. Women in the Northeast, specifically in Manipur, have been fighting for too long. If the government stands by women and human rights and has still refused to speak up – it should be pronounced guilty.

A version of this article was first published on The Womb.

Avani Bansal is an advocate in the Supreme Court and a national spokesperson for Congress. Parika Singh is an advocate in the Supreme Court.

The Controversial Pursuit of a Death Sentence for Yasin Malik

In the shadow of Kashmir’s decades-long turmoil, the case against Yasin Malik – a prominent separatist leader accused of a 1990 attack on Indian Air Force personnel – has resurfaced, raising critical questions about justice, political motives and the rule of law.

The high voter turnout in the September and October legislative assembly elections in Jammu and Kashmir demonstrated that, despite five years of near-total political disempowerment and strict military rule, Kashmiris have not lost their faith in democracy.

However, this fragile trust could be irrevocably shattered if the Narendra Modi government follows through on its determination to execute Yasin Malik, the chief of the Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF), for a crime that occurred 34 years ago. While few Kashmiris may actually like Malik, he commands widespread respect. Among the separatist leaders who emerged from the unrest triggered by the rigged elections of 1987, Malik has been the most steadfast advocate of self-determination through peaceful means—a stance that sets him apart in the region’s turbulent history.

The Rawalpora incident and its alleged perpetrators

The crime for which the Modi government is demanding his death is the killing of four Indian Air Force (IAF) men, and the injuring of 22 others, in an early morning assassination bid by three scooter-borne terrorists at Rawalpora, on the outskirts of Srinagar, on January 25, 1990.

At 7.30 a.m., when some 30 to 40 IAF men were waiting for the bus that would take them to work that morning, three persons on a motorcycle approached them and opened fire with Kalashnikovs, killing four and injuring 22 others.

The CBI filed a report within days of the shooting, claiming that the assassins were Malik, the chief of the JKLF, and Javed Ahmed Mir, also known as Nalka, who were armed with Kalashnikovs; and Mushtaq Ahmed Lone, who was the driver of the motorcycle, armed with a .30-bore pistol. It also identified five other members of the JKLF who had helped to hatch the conspiracy – Ali Mohammad Mir, Manzoor Ahmed Sofi alias Mustafa, Nanaji alias Saleem, Javed Ahmed Zargar and Showkat Ahmed Bakshi.

But although all of these eight have been arrested and imprisoned multiple times in the past 34 years, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) court has been forced to release them because of the lack of evidence against them. The Rawalpora case has therefore lain dormant for 34 years for want of evidence. This is the case that the Modi government is now determined to revive.

In March 2020, only months after the Modi government read down Article 370 of the Constitution and turned the entire state into a de facto occupation run directly from New Delhi, it charged Malik and six others with a string of crimes that fell under the headings of criminal conspiracy to commit murder, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorist acts, conspiring to commit such acts, being members of a terrorist organisation, hatching criminal conspiracies, and advocating sedition.

Malik refused to contest the charges levelled against him, so the trial court awarded him life imprisonment and two consecutive 10-year sentences that would ensure that he remained in jail for the rest of his life. But it concluded that the crimes of which he was being convicted did not fit into the category of “the rarest of rare cases” and rejected the government’s demand for a death sentence.

Dubious accusations by Tushar Mehta

This verdict did not satisfy the Modi government because Malik’s refusal to contest the charges had robbed it of the publicity that his trial, in the full glare of the media, would have given it. So a year later, solicitor-general Tushar Mehta came back to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) trial court with the assertion that Malik had to be given the death sentence on two additional grounds. The first was his “attempt to separate one part of the country from the rest of it.” The second was his having personally participated in the attack on the IAF men at Rawalpora on January 25, 1990.

Both these actions, Mehta told the court, fell within the “rarest of rare” cases in which capital punishment was merited. Mehta also accused Malik of pleading guilty to the lesser charges levelled against him only to avoid the death penalty. He argued that allowing Malik to escape the death penalty would set a dangerous precedent, paving the way for other criminals who deserved capital punishment to avoid it and continue living.

To bolster his plea for the death sentence still further, Mehta claimed that Malik had not only committed the “sensational killing of the four IAF officers” in 1990, but “even kidnapped the daughter of then Home Minister Mufti Mohammad Sayeed” a month earlier in Srinagar. This, he castigated the court, had led to the release of four dreaded criminals “who masterminded the 26/11 attack in Mumbai in 2008.”

This was an outright lie that banked upon the ignorance of the judges hearing the case to further reinforce his case, for Mehta would have to be both deaf and blind not to know that David Headley in the USA and Tahawwur Rana in Canada, had confessed more than a dozen years earlier that they had been the mastermind and financier respectively, of the 2008 attack on Mumbai by the Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and the Jaish-e-Mohammed, working hand in hand with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

Kashmiris cannot have failed to perceive this blatant contempt both for human life and the truth. So a sentence of death upon Malik, coming on top of the sentences passed upon Maqbool Butt (1984) and Afzal Guru (2013)  will complete their alienation from India, and give Pakistan the success it has been working towards ever since the Kashmiri insurgency first broke out. If the Modi government succeeds in adding Malik to that list, it will hand Pakistan the victory it has been hankering for since 1947. So the case being built against Malik needs to be examined in the minutest possible detail to ensure that Modi does not score a self-goal for India and help Pakistan’s ISI.

Questionable testimonies and missing links

To target Malik, the Modi government has revived the almost 35-year old case against him by suddenly finding not one, but two, alleged “eyewitnesses” who are prepared to swear that they recognised Malik as one of the assassins at Rawalpora. These are Rajwar Rajeshwar Singh, who sustained four bullet injuries but survived, and Nirmal Khanna, the wife of Squadron Leader Ravi Khanna, who was killed in the attack.

Neither witness is even remotely credible. Firstly, neither of them claim that he or she actually saw Malik at the time of the shooting. Rajeshwar Singh, a corporal in the IAF in 1990, has stated that he was amongst the group of IAF personnel waiting for the staff pickup bus at Rawalpora on the outskirts of Srinagar on January 25, 1990, when he saw a man pull out a gun from under his “pheran” and open fire at them, killing four men. He was questioned by the CBI shortly afterwards but said that he had been in too much pain himself to be able to notice anything else.

In 2020, however, 34 years later, his memory had cleared. Deposing before a special TADA court in Jammu, the former IAF corporal said, “I was among the IAF personnel waiting for their bus to get to office.” Pointing to Malik, who appeared in court via video link from Tihar Jail in Delhi, he said, “He had pulled out his gun after lifting the ‘pheran’ and opened fire on us.”

The second witness was Nirmal Khanna who has, for some reason, changed her first name to Shalini. She described what happened thus: “I lived in Rawalpora and our house was just 50 yards away from the crime scene. Amid curfew, I heard sound of crackers that morning. At wit’s end, I went to the roof top and saw some army vehicles and men in uniform. I went there to see what actually had happened and spotted my husband’s briefcase with a bullet mark on it. I realised that something wrong has happened.”

“At a distance, I saw my husband lying in a pool of blood. I saw a bullet injury in his abdomen. Initially, I felt embarrassed thinking that if my husband could not endure a single bullet, then how could our borders be secured,” she added. But she claimed that Flight Lieutenant B.R. Sharma, who was with her husband at the time, told her that Malik was behind the attack. “Malik was leading the attackers and had sought directions for Natipora from my husband,” she told newspersons. “Ravi was giving him directions in a friendly manner when Malik fired the first bullet in his abdomen. Following a scuffle, Malik emptied an entire magazine on my husband’s back.”

Incongruities in witnesses’ accounts

There are profound incongruities in both these accounts that need to be explained. The CBI report stated that there were three shooters who had come on a motorcycle, but Rajeshwar Singh’s account mentioned only one assassin who was on foot when he opened fire. This may be because the shooter had first dismounted and approached the airmen with an incongruous question before pulling out his Kalashnikov from underneath his “pheran.” It could also be that, having been severely wounded himself, he was in no position to know what else was happening.

Nirmal (Shalini), on the other hand never actually saw Malik and relied entirely upon what Flight Lieutenant Sharma, who she claimed had been standing close to her husband, told her. Her account is entirely second-hand. The witness who needs to be found is, therefore, Flight Lieutenant Sharma.

Given the fervour with which the government is pursuing this case, it is surprising that the CBI has been unable to find, and get a deposition, from him. One possible reason is that he does not exist, for there is no mention of him anywhere, by anyone, in the CBI’s files or in subsequent news reports. When I tried to find him through a search of the Bharat Rakshak database of IAF officers, I got the following information: “Flight Lieutenant Baldev Raj Sharma: Service No & Branch 10852 AE(M) (Orig: ARMT); Commissioned: 03 Jun 1967; Died in Service 29 Apr 1973.” Another Baldev Raj Sharma retired as a Squadron Leader in 2002 and died in 2016 but if he was already a Flight Lieutenant in 1990, he ordinarily ought to have made the rank of Wing Commander by 2002.

Despite dying a hero’s death, Ravi Khanna’s name was somehow not included in the National War Memorial for Indian soldiers killed in combat. Shalini (aka Nirmal) Khanna spoke in detail to Open magazine in two stories about this exclusion, and about what she saw in the immediate aftermath of the January 25, 1990 incident. Her accounts were carried on September 12, 2019 and October 23, 2019. The first story appears to have been based on the reporter’s earlier conversations with her, before the trial began that day, where she mentioned her husband’s exclusion from the War Memorial but did not say anything about Flt Lt B.R. Sharma identifying her husband’s killer as Malik. The second story, by the same reporter, drew on her testimony at the trial. On October 6, the government rectified its “mistake” in omitting Squadron Leader Khanna from the war memorial and had his name duly engraved.

Either way, the identity of Flight Lieutenant B.R. Sharma, present or retired, circa 1990, is not clear, nor is it apparent why he ever came forward with his testimony to the authorities at the time or subsequently.

Also read: Plea for Death Sentence to Yasin Malik Spotlights Limited Period for Appeal Under NIA Act

There are two other purely situational reasons for regarding the identification of Malik at Rawalpora by anyone as worthless. The first is that, on January 25, the shooting took place at 7.30 am. But the sun rose in Srinagar at 7.32 am on January 25 so it took place in the pre-dawn twilight, when the landscape is still fairly dark. To get a good look at any person in that pre-dawn light, one would have to be only a few metres away. But Rajeshwar Singh was not close enough to do so, and B.R. Sharma’s very existence is in doubt.

The second is that the minimum temperature anywhere in the world is reached at dawn just before the sun rises. In Srinagar, this minimum is between minus 3 and minus 5 degrees Celsius throughout January. In such bitterly cold weather, is it conceivable that anyone would not have his or her face covered by a heavy muffler while riding on a motorcycle? So for his face to have been seen, Malik would have had to remove his muffler for some reason, and risk being seen.

The inescapable truth is that, for the assassins, it would have been essential to keep their faces covered by thick mufflers not only to avoid recognition and identification but simply to stay warm. So there is no way in which either Rajeshwar Singh or B.R. Sharma, if he exists, could have seen the face of the person who killed Squadron Leader Ravi Khanna.

The final flaw in the case Mehta is trying to build is the way Malik has been “recognised.” Every police force in the world knows that visual recognition is a highly subjective act. The human eye is not a camera. In virtually every situation, people see what they are prepared, or want, to see. That is why police procedures for ensuring that a visual recognition will stand the test of cross examination are elaborate and rigidly specified.

The most frequently used way is to line up a group of persons with similar characteristics, make them turn, bend or speak as required by the witness, and ask them to identify the culprit. A second-best procedure is to show the witness a set of photographs of persons and do the same. But it is apparent from all that has been reported or presented in court that the prosecution has used neither of these methods to recognise Malik. Instead, it seems that the NIA has not required a visual recognition at all, and has relied solely upon “confessions” extracted from other prisoners by the police, or on photographs of Malik that it has shown to witnesses, and asked them whether this is the man they saw.

Neither of these procedures can stand a moment’s examination in a court of law. This is especially true of Malik, whose face has appeared a hundred or more times in newspapers, TV news channels and the internet, so he would be instantly recognisable to the witnesses, but for the wrong reason.

Note: This article was edited at 1625 IST to add references to Nirmal Khanna’s comments in OPEN magazine in September and October 2019.

This is the first of a two-part series on the trial of Yasin Malik.

Prem Shankar Jha is the author of Kashmir 1947–The Origins of a Dispute and a former media adviser to former Prime Minister V.P Singh.

 

From Annexation to Reunification: The End of the Two-State Illusion

As Israel inches closer to annexing the West Bank and Gaza, the illusion of the two-state solution collapses, exposing the apartheid reality of governance between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.

As Peter Beinart has argued convincingly, Donald Trump’s choice of advisors, combined with the messianic fanatics who hold the balance of power in the Israeli government, virtually guarantee the annexation by Israel of the West Bank, and, ultimately Gaza.

Annexation will completely expose the apartheid nature of the State of Israel. Today, there are approximately 7.2 million Jews and 6.3 million Arabs between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. All of the Jews are citizens of Israel with full rights and access to public services. The myth of Israel as a “Jewish democracy” depends on the fact that only 2.1 million of the Arabs are citizens of Israel, though with fewer rights and limits on their access to public services. 362,000 Arabs in East Jerusalem are citizens of the city but not of the state. The remaining approximately 4 million Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza are stateless, and subject to either military rule or open aggression. The lack of an agreed international status for the territories conquered by Israel in 1967 has left them with what we might call a maliciously ambiguous status. Their Palestinian residents have a supposedly temporary status as subjects of Israeli occupation (a term Israel rejects), pending a mutually agreed solution to the conflict. They are the people that the two-state solution needs – their ambiguous status will supposedly turn into citizenship of a Palestinian state. The malicious way they are ruled, allows Israel to hold so-called “democratic” elections in which more than a third of the population under its rule is ineligible to vote.

Defenders of Israel rebut charges of apartheid as ridiculous: Palestinian Arabs (about 21% of the total number of Israeli citizens) have the right to vote, they are represented in the Knesset, and some are judges and members of the armed forces. This specious argument depends on the fiction that the West Bank and Gaza are not in Israel. In fact, Palestinians constitute nearly 49% of the population ruled by the State of Israel, and most of them cannot vote or participate in the government that rules them.

Annexation of these territories will officially proclaim that they are part of Israel. But annexation will not involve extending citizenship and its rights to all Palestinians. Members of the Israeli cabinet like security minister Itamar Ben Gvir have been openly calling for the “voluntary” transfer of most of the Palestinians out of Israel. The genocidal campaign in Gaza and the accelerating ethnic cleansing of the West Bank provide a glimpse of what they really mean to do: confront Palestinians with a choice of emigration or perpetual violence, so they “voluntarily” choose emigration.

Most of those who claim to oppose such an outcome today advocate the two-state solution. But Ian Lustick, in his book Paradigm Lost, shows that the long-dead corpse of the two-state solution lies buried in the rubble of Gaza. The two-state solution is a fiction that has served for too long as a cover for Israeli apartheid. Once the cover is ripped off, the two-state solution is not a solution but an obstacle to overcome on the way to the only alternative there is to apartheid: equality.

Therefore opposition to the Jewish supremacist policy of annexation should organise not around the now-empty slogan of “two states for two peoples,” but around the slogan: “No to Annexation, Yes to Reunification.” Reunification was what happened in Germany. East Germans were not kept as stateless serfs of the West Germans; they received the full rights of citizenship.

It is not hard to show that it would be almost as difficult for these two peoples to coexist in a single state in Palestine/Eretz Yisrael as it would be to disentangle them to form two separate states. In fact, the so-called “two-state solution” never offered Palestinians a sovereign state; it hinted that the Palestinians might one day pick up their own garbage, while Israel controlled their borders, limited their security forces and dominated their economy.

The rights of the Palestinians require not mere opposition to annexation, but the demand that the inevitable annexation should become an initial step toward the democratic reunification of Palestine. The naked racism of the one-state reality would surely power a global movement as powerful as that against South African apartheid and, most importantly, shatter the now crumbling pro-Israel consensus in the United States. Reunification will not happen during the duopoly of Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu but it is time to cut through the confusion, recognise the inevitability of what Lustick calls the “one-state reality” and demand that those who will impose rule by a single state upon the land between the river and the sea will set before us a blessing, not a curse.

Barnett R. Rubin is Director, Afghanistan Regional Project and Associate Director, Center on International Cooperation of New York University. He is the author of Blood on the Doorstep: the Politics of Preventing Violent Conflict, The Fragmentation of Afghanistan: State Formation and Collapse in the International System, Afghanistan from the Cold War through the War on Terror, and other books.

This article was originally published on the author’s Substack account. It has been edited slightly for style.

The Curious Case of the ‘Former Terrorist’

The phrase “former terrorist” categorises terrorism as a day job from which you can presumably retire.

One of the pleasures of former editorship is enjoying the dilemma faced by gracious masters of ceremony who are in two minds on how to introduce “ex-editors” (an alliterative headline word): veteran journalist (translation: past expiry date like a Gelusil bottle), senior journalist (euphemism for unemployed/unemployable hacks) or observer (a voyeuristic Peeping Tom that is not exactly a charitable description in polite company)?

Most master of ceremonies steer clear of the evocative and descriptive phrase “former editor,” possibly fearing that it would be taken as “has-been” editor. Against this backdrop, I found salvation this morning in an uncommon phrase the Press Trust of India (PTI) has used to describe the suspected shooter of Badal: “former terrorist.” PTI reported, “Amritsar: A former terrorist opened fire at Shiromani Akali Dal leader Sukhbir Singh Badal from a close range while he was performing the duty of ‘sewadar’ outside the Golden Temple here on Wednesday but missed as he was overpowered by a plainclothes policeman.”

The phrase “former terrorist” is a forgiving and reformative term, much like “correctional homes” that has replaced “jails.” The inclusive phrase “former terrorist” also categorises terrorism as a day job from which you can presumably retire. The next level in precise journalism should be “retired terrorist.” It raises the pertinent question: what do you do when a terrorist applies for voluntary retirement – do you offer a golden handshake in a hazmat suit? It is also not clear whether the said shooter had sent any resignation letter to the alleged terrorist outfit to which he had been linked.

Since William Safire – the oracle of language and the arbiter of usage who deployed merciless, if not outrageous, wordplay – is no longer around, I did not know how to check the chequered past of a “former terrorist.” I did find a reference in the New York Times (NYT). The PTI will be happy to know that the NYT had conferred such an honour on a subcontinental sibling: a Pakistan-origin “former terrorist” called Majid Shoukat Khan.

The NYT reported in 2023, “Belize City – A small Central American nation, known for its barrier reef and ecotourism, has taken in a former terrorist turned US government informant whose tale of torture by the CIA moved a military jury at Guantánamo Bay to urge the Pentagon to grant him leniency.” But the NYT has a reason for calling Khan a “former terrorist.” Although Khan had contributed to acts of terrorism, he was brutally abused and tortured and he served time.

He repudiated radicalism, cooperated with the US government in the fight against terrorism. Khan pledged in a statement to become “a productive, law-abiding member of society,” adding, “I continue to ask for forgiveness from God and those I have hurt.” The suspected shooter PTI has described as “former terrorist” has been in and out of prison but it has not been reported in the agency report whether he had been convicted of any crime.

Neither is it clear whether he had admitted to being a terrorist and whether he denounced terrorism. In the absence of such information, I am not sure how PTI reached the conclusion that the suspect is a “former terrorist.” I am also not sure if the suspected shooter, an alleged member of a pro-Khalistani banned group, had surrendered. Which makes him a “surrendered” terrorist, a phrase that commands a certain degree of official precedent.

The erstwhile Saikia government (I think) in Assam gifted us an innovative phrase: Sulfa (Surrendered Ulfa). Never mind that Gerhard Domagk introduced the term “sulfa” to describe the first successful chemical treatments for bacterial infections in humans. Now that the suspected shooter has returned to terrorism (opening fire at a former chief minister qualifies so, I suppose), will it be more apt to say “former-terrorist turned-incumbent-suspected-terrorist?” Should he be convicted, can it be “former-terrorist-turned-incumbent-terrorist?” The PTI desk has a lot to chew on.

The phrase “former militant” (used by the Indian Express, the Hindu and the Times of India) is clear. It suggests that a person had been a member of an outfit that supported militancy and that he may no longer be the member of that organisation or that the organisation does not exist any more or that he had denounced militancy.

Newspapers used to be very careful about the use of the words “terrorist” and “terrorism,” mindful of the complexities associated with the terms and the nebulous nature exemplified by the saying “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” 9/11 changed all that with some patriots in the US insisting that newscasters use the phrase “terrorist,” not militant or extremist.

In India, too, most of the media have fallen prey to the intimidatory tactics so much so that all insurgents in Kashmir are now called terrorists, not militants or extremists as was in the case in the last decades of the 20th century. The same goes with “martyrs.” Some newspapers indiscriminately use the term to describe slain soldiers, even before the circumstances that led to the death are clear or established.

The Indian Army has gone to the extent of issuing a letter to all its commands, discouraging the use of “martyrs” to describe soldiers killed in the line of duty. “Martyr refers to a person who suffers death as a penalty for refusing to renounce a religion or a person who suffers very much or is killed because of their religious or political beliefs,” the Indian Army’s letter in 2022 said.

So “the continued reference to Indian Army soldiers as martyrs may not be appropriate.” Evidently, the WhatsApp University is mightier than the Indian Army. Under pressure from nationalist trolls, some newspapers continue to use the term “martyrs.” In these matters, the Indian Army has been more diligent than many modern-day chief subs who clear copies that say “former terrorist.”

In 2014, the Indian Army issued a circular for retired personnel informing them that the correct form of addressing a retired officer is “Rank ABC (Retd) and not Rank (Retd) ABC.” An example is: “Brigadier Sant Singh (Retd).” The stated rationale of the army was, “Rank never retires, it is an officer who retires.” The army circular added that “the privilege is only given to service officers.” So, PTI should not say “Terrorist XXXXXXXX (Retd).”

This article is sourced from R Rajagopal’s social media posts.

R Rajagopal is editor-at-large of the Telegraph.

This article was originally published on the AIDEM. It has been edited slightly for style.

R.G. Kar: Five Lessons From an Urban Power Struggle

In the wake of neoliberal reforms and relentless urbanisation, crime and urban insecurity have joined to become an interlinked theme overwhelming the public mind.

I

After the ghastly rape and murder of a young female junior doctor in R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata, on August 9 2024, the junior doctors of the city mobilised for justice. The city also erupted in fury and solidarity with the murdered doctor.

For the first week following the murder for about the next fifteen days, there was a spontaneous upsurge of emotion, grievance, fury, and a fervent desire for a new chapter in the collective life of the city which would be henceforth free of the maladies of the urban. The upsurge overwhelmed the city. Women “captured the night” of Kolkata, youth occupied roads and major junctions, and medical colleges were virtually non-functional with the entire community of junior doctors on strike. The condemnation by the city populace of the alleged negligence and incompetence of the government in preventing rape and murders of women was nearly universal.

Newspapers, established news channels, established political parties belonging to the opposition (initially included among the political activists on the roads were even cadres of the ruling populist party of West Bengal, the Trinamool Congress), do-gooders, militant feminists, and radicals for all seasons occupied the city. Holy declarations, pious wishes, determined proclamations, “hot” news produced each hour of the day with generously mixed dosages of unfounded information and specialists’ comments, and – not to be left behind – rumours in large measure, decided what was to be included and excluded from the “public sphere.”

The city had not witnessed such a mood in recent memory. 

This was the first phase of the “movement for justice.” Yet, no one knew exactly what this phrase and the rallying cry, “we demand justice” meant – legally, ethically, and politically.

To some it meant avenging the death of the murdered doctor by hanging the accused; for some it meant safety of working women; for some others improvement of the medical college and hospital environment; for still some others an end to a seemingly all-pervasive corruption in the administration; and for the determined Left and the Right parties, justice meant an immediate resignation of the chief minister and the populist government.

The phase also saw the build-up of a mix of “non-political” claims and “political” claims of the slogan for justice. Women protesters and some among the junior doctors claimed that their slogans and demands were not politically targeted against the ruling party or the government and they did not represent any political party. Left and the Right activists and leaders avowed that this was indeed a political mass movement against a government which survived on rape and murders of women, loot of money and wealth, hooliganism, and outright maladministration.

At the same time this second group said that they respected the desire of the masses to stay out of openly political claims. The ambiguity of the situation and the not unexpected ambivalence of the urban society towards “politics” helped the cry for justice to grow at a fast pace. It meant everything to everyone, or at least offered space to protesters of various kinds and dispositions to articulate their own ideas and prescriptions of justice.

The movement for justice was a classic case of “counter-conduct.” People, as if, wanted to say that they disagreed with the conduct of the government. By occupying the nights, streets, squares, coining new and innovative calls, and raising moral questions they had signalled their own ideas about conducting life.

Solidarity and the cry for justice spoke of their counter-conduct.      

A cardboard cutout of Durga at a TET protest in Kolkata. Photo: Joydeep Sarkar.

The ambivalence about the exact formulation of the demand for justice however gradually gave way to clarity from around August 25, and certainly from the first week of September, with the intervention of the Supreme Court. The second phase of the movement, crucial to lend teeth to the amorphous feelings and sentiments, had begun.

Demand for justice acquired a legal form. It had four components: (a) establishing culpability for the murder; (b) corruption of the R.G. Kar administration; (c) any possible link between rape, murder, and corruption; and (d) general lessons to be drawn in terms of legal redress of such situation in medical colleges and hospitals in the country.

Thereafter, whatever spontaneous outpouring of grief and sentiment may have followed on the street, the affective character of the movement was gradually superseded by the legal dimension of the demand for justice, and equally importantly the increasingly political character of the conflict between the urban middle classes and the lower classes of the society who suffered due to closure of public health facilities throughout the state. As if the conflict shaped and mirrored two parallel realities: aspiration and desire of the educated middle class of the city and the seeming “unconcern” of the outlying sections of urban society (and of course, the larger society beyond the urban, that is the mufossils, suburban towns, and big villages) to the issues animating the middle classes.   

By late August, the protesting doctors and, distinct from them, various other sections of youth claiming to be “independent”  had used their weaponry with telling effect – embarrassing the police, trying to “storm” the Nabanna, the administrative headquarter of the government, laying siege to the office of the health department, the Swasthya Bhavan, occupying the streets, coining new slogans, coming up regularly with new or revised charters of demand, engaging top notch lawyers in the Supreme Court, building network with the larger medical fraternity, capturing international attention, and mobilising the entire political and cultural brigades of the city – in sum, displacing the old pattern of politics with something that many imagined to be new politics – for a cleaner life, corruption-free society, and responsible government. The Left posed to be the natural contender for such a dream. But the Right was also determined not to be pushed behind. In any case, it appeared as a war between a moral populace and a thuggish populist party. Battle lines were now drawn clear.

A protest in the aftermath of the RG Kar brutality in Kolkata. Photo: X/@MinakshiMukher8

Yet, by the end of the first fortnight of September, the arsenal of the agitators and the political forces supporting them stood depleted. With the government firing not a single shot on the occupying forces, no case of lathi change except when there was an attempt to lay siege around Nabanna (August 27), the police force without fuss accepting insult by the young doctors in the form of being presented with the replica of a spine (September 3), and the political force of the populists by and large staying quiet and disciplined, the administration seemed to be recovering some of the lost ground. It stayed put, denied charges of complicity and corruption, but most importantly, took initiative for dialogue as a way out of the impasse (September 13). 

Meanwhile patients suffered, some hospital OPDs remained closed, and the parallel reality of the exclusive nature of the demands of the medical community in contrast to the latter’s loud claim of representing the society emerged as part of the undeclared social war. Gradually, the demand for justice for the murder of the young doctor lost prominence, safety and security of working women lost out totally in terms of public attention, and stoppage of health services for the poor patients was acknowledged only in a round-about way and that too when pressed for a response. 

Senior doctors, junior doctors, and legal fraternity – all focused on the righteous character of the junior doctors’ charter of demands. As doctors’ demands crystalised, clarity replaced ambiguity, and the political spirit eased out the social spirit, the battle reached a deadlock. The Supreme Court could not rescue the holy warriors, who now resorted to the last weapon left in their armoury. The fast unto death by a few representatives of junior doctors (from October 5) raised massive concern. Pressure on the medical community mounted, the government again offered a dialogue (October 19). Some demands were met. Hunger strike was withdrawn. Doctors went back to work. The third and the last phase ended in this predictable way. The city heaved a sigh of relief.    

Lesson one

It is important therefore to mark out carefully the phases of a movement, watch for the critical moments, and shape tactics accordingly. Patience is important. Though, acting on moments of conjuncture is equally necessary.            

II

Yet, we may ask, what ordained the pattern of mobilisation and its dynamics? Here class analysis is unavoidable. 

Protest in the wake of the rape and murder of a caregiver, a young lady doctor, in her workplace – a public health facility – was spontaneous and cut across social barriers. However, the protest was typically urban, which is to say that those who protested had possibly ignored similar violence against women of working classes, and the fact that the victim now was from a middle class educated family and was a doctor, a respected figure in society, had now shocked the middle classes. The general question of insecurity of working women crystallised around an “urban” figure. As indicated earlier, the murder signified all the misdeeds and calumny of the popular classes and the desire for a clean life where men and women could pursue their vocations without fear or a feeling of insecurity. The popular classes had experienced such violence on their bodies all through their histories. To them, it was a part of what we may call the daily violence on embodied lives. The regime of urban biopolitics opened up with its internal contradiction stemming from different meanings of violence in everyday life, and therefore the untold question: was this death exceptional? 

The consequential build-up of arguments meant a lot in terms of the class nature of the movement. In some sense, this was not a unique situation, for after all, classes have their respective utopias of a clean and virtuous life. The feature of this situation lay in the ambition of the articulate classes to ride on the wave of the movement to topple the government and capture power, and make society clean by getting rid of the popular classes. These popular classes by educated reasoning are involved in occupations like smuggling including cow smuggling, drawing rent-income from construction and other activities, living off chit funds, hawking, and peddling goods by occupying streets and pavements, and engaging in illegal sand mining, coal mining, tree felling, timber sale, unauthorised fisheries, and living off in the service sector by engaging in domestic work, unlicensed auto-rickshaw driving, waste disposal work, and the like. The educated class terms this as “parallel economy” and no longer thinks of this as “informal economy.” Thus, the black-market economy or the tax dodging economy is not a parallel economy anymore; or, we should not say that national debt operates in a country’s economy in the long run as a parallel economy; but these petty occupations make the “parallel economy.” (See for instance, Sekhar Mukhopadhyay, “Sankhya ki bole, kotota bole” [“What numbers tell and how far they tell”], Anandabazar Patrika, 25 October 2024).

Educated reasoning went further: There must be a correlation between incidence of rape and the extent of this parallel economy. Frustrated, unemployed, angry men rape women. If men are unemployed and still are not raping, then crime figures must be wrong. There were other variations of this sort of reasoning. Nobody said that this is exactly the way racist logic worked. If a member of the civic police force has raped a woman, then hospitals cannot have civic police as part of the protection force. In this way, a new criminal race was born in front of our eyes in the past two months. From the court to the medical fraternity to radical feminists to finally the left-liberal intelligentsia – all agreed that civic police cannot be entrusted with the duty of protecting public health facilities. No one said that we had given birth to a new underclass, a new race – the civic police or civic volunteers. The populists were universally damned. They had created a civic police force made up of lumpen youth. They had patronised rapists and murderers.  

Photo: Pratik/Nagorik.net

The urban conflict that Kolkata witnessed was thus not one as the liberal-Left would have liked us to believe between on one hand an authoritarian, murderous, and corrupt government and on the other citizens in opposition rallying in defence of life, liberty, and values. It was also not a struggle waged jointly by feminists and a community of ethical practitioners like the doctors. It was and still is a social war among groups and classes – mostly conducted underground, but at times raising its head with a ferocity that takes the society by surprise. The social war is a civil war, where the middle classes and the popular classes are arraigned against each other. This is the new twist brought in by neoliberalism to the story of class struggle. The uneducated and uncultured populists will never be respected by the middle classes, in as much as the metropolis thinks, it is self-sufficient and has no need for small towns and the vast hinterland beyond. Yet the irony is that populists and the popular classes cannot do without the middle classes who have gained most from neoliberal investment in education and health of the society. The middle classes everywhere have contributed to the deterioration of the condition of the toiling classes. Yet the latter will have to co-exist with the former and try to reorient it, in the process reorienting itself.    

Lesson two

The urban is thus at once a transcendental as well as a class story. The cleavage between the middle classes and the working classes is deep. Any popular government will have to negotiate this rift towards strengthening the popular will that has been the basis of its existence.

III

Education and health bring the social question headlong in the story of the urban and complicate the struggle. At the same time, we must not be surprised that this new twist to urban struggle has once again materialised around what historians have termed as the “women’s question.” In country after country (Afghanistan in the wake of US withdrawal and Gaza in Palestine being the two recent instances), the most conflictive moment during any major transition in this neoliberal age has been marked by the “women’s question,” particularly by issues of their education and health. Women’s security and protection have crystallised around these two issues. It will not be an exaggeration to say that biopolitics in Southern countries is taking shape around the body of the woman. For the neoliberals, women’s emancipation is the war cry. Women must be freed from obscurantists. For the liberals, developing women’s condition and ability is the ethical goal of democracy. For the Left, it is an embarrassing situation, for they cannot oppose the neoliberal twist to the issue, while they know that this “emancipation” and “development” of women hardly touch the lives of women belonging to the popular classes.

The social and the political are thus the eternal jostling duo in the liberal annal. In this scenario, the old notion of “Left” and “Right” no longer makes sense. When we analyse the politics of our time, we have a natural tendency to copy and paste the political map of our past and place it onto our time which is a different time. It is a useful shortcut on certain occasions, but not always. What was “Left” fifty years ago is not so in face of new realities and new contradictions. The social is assuming a new form. It baffles the “Left.” The “Left” persists with old politics. It has no answer to new features. In this context we may remember how the social/political dynamics played out in the colonial past. Recall the social reform legislations in early and mid-nineteenth century in India over widow burning and widow remarriage. These and other reforms strengthened the social basis of colonial rule, and these hardly touched lives of peasant women, for in low caste societies these were not the major issues of life. When the nationalist leaders were speaking of “reforms” of a caste-bound society, Ambedkar the Dalit leader spoke of “annihilation of caste.” Who were the “Left” and the “Right” in those days? 

And today, how shall we relate the question of the popular classes with women’s safety, security, education, and health? This appears to be a non-question for the “Left.” Hence, their almost total failure to comprehend the social/political dialectic and integrate the dialectic in their transformative strategy is apparent.    

Also read: R.G. Kar: An MD Thesis I Could Submit, an MD Thesis She Could Not

On the other hand, the need to decolonise the security question is more urgent than ever. Efforts are on in many countries of the South to decolonise the security question and relocate it in the context of the post-colonial societies – their problems of underdevelopment, issues of basic rights such as of food, shelter, education, work, and health. The security question in the South is entangled with issues of life – life of the nation, people, and in particular lives of the vulnerable population groups in society, who face a generalised state of insecurity of life. To look at the question of security from the biopolitical angle is to disengage it from the colonial paradigm and to decolonise the security problematic.

Remember, the traditional approach to the security issue has been unable to reflect on the massive transformation in the last few decades, consequent to the impact of globalisation on countries of the South. It has thereby failed to achieve a deeper understanding of the insecurities and vulnerabilities of marginalised people and the emerging new underclasses of society. These insecurities require attention, analysis, and call for a proper approach that is suffused with a new approach to justice. The more the macro security of State, polity, and the big institutions has been reinforced, the more it has produced micro insecurities in society, leading to clashes, spread of homeland demands, conflicts over resources, public health disasters, and not the least – mob lynching in the wake of the spread of racial, religious, community, and caste hatred. They have also resulted in making women from the impoverished classes the permanent underclass who find it particularly difficult to get out of that condition. Probably this is the question of women’s security in a post-colonial world. The issue of security is now at the crossroads of rights, justice, and vulnerabilities. 

Protests in front of RG Kar by SFI, DYFI & AIDWA. Photo: File.

In the wake of neoliberal reforms and relentless urbanisation, crime and urban insecurity have joined to become an interlinked theme overwhelming the public mind. Crime has become synonymous with the growth of the city. Urban governance structure, increasingly shaped by global governance norms, is geared towards managing and pacifying claim-makings of urban population groups with tools of surveillance and coercion. The overriding aim of urban governance is to ensure conditions of reproduction, including reproduction of an unjust urban order characterised by a growing impoverished and criminalised underclass. Cities world over have had experiences of urban governance creating mayhem in the city in the name of abolishing crime. Rudy Giuliani, the mayor of New York City (1994-2001), was not only trying to free New York City of crime. That figure of a cleaner of crimes has been part of the contemporary history of many cities of the South. And, almost everywhere the assumption has been that immigrants are the root cause of crime, or, in general the underclasses. They are the scourge. Prostitution, drugs, trade in illicit goods, corruption, trafficking, gang warfare, and mafia activities… The crime line is straight. We are told, all that a city needs is a determined and ruthless cleaner who can order his/her forces to press triggers to save the city. On the other hand, everyday life of the lower classes in the city is marked by for instance lack of safety of female commuters in public transportation system, lack of drinking water, housing, fuel, even lack of minimum sanitation facilities, various consequences of repressive approach to street vending, and insecurity associated with street level economic activities resulting in two parallel figures of the policeman and the street vendor or the sex worker – each watching the other as the typical margin of a society marked by disorder, crime, and informality, yet constantly interacting with each other. The question of security emerges at this intersection of issues of daily life. Security cameras, civil guards, anticipatory arrests, creating a race of habitual offenders, and repressive techniques of surveillance and crowd control – these are marks of an urban biopower geared towards controlling the lives and bodies of the popular classes. Not unexpectedly, several of the demands of the doctors focused on the security technology, and thus the wrangling over the number of CCTVs to be installed.

Lesson three

Urban contentions congeal the dialectic of social and the political. Migration, new frontiers of work, new boundaries, new professional classes, new subaltern groups, and new insecurities of life define the urban. Any transformative strategy must build on these new realities and new contradictions. The insecure woman of the society is the congealed figure of these new realities and contradictions.

IV

For long, the urban form had been taken as an open, liberating form of human existence. Yet this is a near-mythical history, as every incident of insecurity has been used in urban history to kill that assumed openness. Thus, civic police – the new group of rapists and dangerous people – is to be thrown out of hospitals and other institutions. They cannot be entrusted with protecting the latter. Among others this is an indication of the city taking a camp form. Like the civic volunteer or the civic police, in cities across the world immigrants or suspected immigrants have been declared as illegals. Court-inspired as in the case of civic police or administration-ordered drives, verification campaigns, etc., transform the city to a camp or an assemblage of protected places, which are camp-like existences. The camp is a form of existence always on the margins of protection, detention, and illegality. The “camp form” symbolises the always temporary, precarious, and informal zones of a city. These zones create fractures in the political, spatial, and temporal relation between citizens as legal subjects and their proper representative rulers. The insecure medical college like the R.G. Kar represents the life condition of the confined and the differentially included in the urban world. Such a place is present, like an ulcer, with which the city as an organism will have to live. It cannot be surgically separated, because in that case the city will die. Hence is the question for city rulers, namely, how can these settlements be governed? Almost everywhere the urban response has been in the form of creating the demand and riding on the crest of such demand that the insecure place in the city must be turned into a camp, a protected and securitised place. 

The conjuncture of the effect of a specific time, occupation of the space, and imponderables of a physical domain created the insecure place of R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital. In this way, a supposedly healthy district, which is to say, the place where people were nursed back to health, became morbid. As if, the physical existence of the subjects of this place must be morally purified to protect the city and the nation. The government cannot do it; the city will not trust the government; and power in these insecure places must be geographically localised to ensure the safety and purity of these contaminated places. Thus, doctors must be empowered to run the place and clean it. The government must agree to a situation of perpetual conjuncture of a geographical, physical, professional, and ethical milieu and must accept the autonomous existence of an urban populace insofar as the latter has a body and a soul, a physical and a moral existence. This is the neoliberal transformation of a city, where urban democracy will ensure urban peace. Perpetual peace will reign in the city only in this way. We shall have solved the problems of salvation, obedience, and a decriminalised human existence. Sacrifice of openness is the necessary cost towards a decriminalised world. In conventions held in solidarity with the protesting junior doctors, middle class speakers went on to denigrate public health institutions, and alleged that these institutions had completely broken down. One argued, rape in a red-light district is understandable, but in a medical college and hospital?

Middle classes spit on the same bowl from which they eat. Public institutions are unclean and insecure. They call for a big broomstick. This is the known path to privatisation of institutions and no wonder the middle class of Kolkata led the charge.    

A protest against the RG Kar incident. Photo: X/@cpimspeak

Lesson four

The desire we are speaking of here is universal. The same urban form that produces insecurity produces this desire also. Against this desire is the reality of conflicts in a city, which lives like a collection of atoms. City represents the fractured geography of human existence. The propertied, the professional communities, and cultured classes want a city secured from the hazards of precarious existences. But they need the public nature of a city to push their respective sectoral demands. Yet, that public nature must not be extended to the uncertain frontiers and outlying areas of the city. Given the predictable chorus of these groups in defence of their gated existences, as the political experiences of Kolkata in these two and half months showed, the challenge is: How can a politics of social transformation confront the various phantasmagoria that constitute the urban? How can such politics place the popular classes back to its original place as the “heart of the city”? What will be the new urban? Or, should we think of moving beyond the urban towards a politics of transformation of places?

V

As in Kolkata, populist forces run the administration in many cities such as Mumbai, Chennai, or Delhi, where populist administration represents the will of the popular classes consisting mostly of people working in informal economy, living in slums, shanty settlements, and irregular, insecure places of the city. These populist administrations have the stupendous task of managing the city in a new way. They try to turn the police into a “civil force” to be accepted by the lower classes, become accountable to the demands of the inhabitants of the “inner city,” transform the intolerable lives of the precariously surviving people into tolerable ones, indeed improve them, reach the lower classes access to education and public health, and make co-existence of the lower and middle classes possible in an urban form that will tolerate pluralities of urban life. It is easier said than done. With dreams competing in a combustible milieu, the city is often delirious. The administration must calm the frayed nerves, rising temper, and moderate class hatred that at times threatens to break apart the fragile existence called the city. It is doubly difficult because popular classes exist on the margins of legality. A substantial part of their survival practices consists of what a philosopher of the last century termed as “popular illegalism.” Populist government tolerates such “illegalism.” In a sense, the lives of the popular classes are marked by counter-conduct, counter to the prescribed norm of urban existence.

Also read: The R.G. Kar Protests Reveal a Political Vacuum

In such milieu, rape becomes to the urban citizenry a symbol of the illegal, deranged, dehumanised lower classes. Blacks, immigrants, seniors and toughs in camps, child care homes, and hospitals, and all others with no stable earning, become pervert races. They inhabit the “non-places” of a city. Think of the night of 14-15 August 2024, when a group of mostly slum dwellers attacked the R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital, vandalised, and broke furniture and equipment in one part of the facility. Where did they come from? Who were they? To whom did they pay their allegiance? What was their motive? Whom did they want to scare? They emerged from the shadows and retreated to the shadows. Observers have various explanations of the incident depending on their political views. Yet the fact is that as mysteriously they vanished as they had arrived in the first place carrying various flags and slogans. Their anger against a shut-down place of care was evident. Such incidents will keep on happening under populist administrations as the lower classes will go delirious. The lower classes will remind you of Lukka, the character played by Nasiruddin Shah in Ravindra Dharmaraj’s Chakra (1981). 

Like Delirious Naples (2018), Kolkata reminds us of a city in a delirious state. The populist government because of its intrinsic formation cannot abolish illegality, yet cannot but represent the lower classes in city life. One hundred years ago Antonio Gramsci had thought that intellectuals of Naples under the leadership of the workers of the North will transform the “Southern” city hitherto exploited by Catholic Church, banks, and the propertied classes. The permanently ambivalent attitude of the lower classes of the city to education, morality, and order will be transformed. 

But today? The task is incredibly tougher with neoliberal transformation of the educated gentry and the emergence of a technologically empowered stratum of society. For any emancipative politics, respect for the lower classes will have to be the base from which reconstruction of social life can begin. It is not a pipe dream, for the non-spaces of a city are in effect spaces of reconstruction. In the post-Lefebvre age, space is no longer natural. It is produced. It has an unbreakable relation with sociability.  It is produced through the interlinkages of geography, built-in environment, life practices, symbols, and resistance. Many spaces in a city are non-spaces to the urban, but in their own histories they carry stories of survival and possibilities of self-transformation. 

Lesson five

Events in Kolkata in the last two and half months show that only an awareness of the paradoxical nature of the transformative agenda for a southern city can make radical urban politics possible in this neoliberal age. If the rape and murder of the young doctor can impart such awareness to radical activists, which many other rapes and murders failed to convey, we shall be able to say that society has honoured the murdered doctor in the fullest meaning of the phrase, “honouring the death.” Speaking of Delirious Naples, recall Pasolini who perhaps anticipating his own death had said, “It is only at our moment of death that our life, to that point undecipherable, ambiguous, suspended, acquires a meaning.”       

Ranabir Samaddar is Distinguished Chair, Calcutta Research Group.