‘Let your might be felt. And these stone-pelters will be seen with brooms in their hands sweeping the streets for you,’ the Uttar Pradesh chief minister said at a rally.
New Delhi: Uttar Pradesh chief minister Adityanath’s campaign trail in Jharkhand and Maharashtra has all been about consolidating the Hindu vote through the demonisation of Muslims and the promise of a UP-model style of government to ruthlessly deal with ‘stone-pelters’ who supposedly disrupt Hindu festivals – a coded reference to Muslims.
By peddling the conspiracy theories of ‘land jihad,’ ‘love jihad,’ and ‘demographic change’ due to the influx of Bangladeshis and the Rohingya, Adityanath, one of the most popular campaigners of the Bharatiya Janata Party, has unpacked his warning of ‘batengetohkatenge’ in both states. The slogan translates to ‘[we will be] slaughtered if divided,’ and ostensibly refers to Hindus.
In half-a-dozen rallies by Adityanath in Maharashtra and Jharkhand this week, not only did the theme of Ram Mandir and Hindu festivals dominate, but he also made veiled promises that the Hindu Right would take over mosques in Varanasi and Mathura just like it did in Ayodhya, where the Ram Mandir was built.
In Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, Adityanath accused the Hemant Soren-led government of allowing ‘ghuspaith’ or ‘infiltration’ of people from Bangladesh and Myanmar in a bid to cause ‘demographic change.’ The government led by the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha made “love jihad and land jihad a part of a conspiracy to change the demography” of the state,” said Adityanath.
He also alleged that the government had backed those who pelted stones on Durga idol processions and Ram Navami shobha yatras in the state. “There is only one cure for these unruly elements, bring the BJP,” said Adityanath.
In another public meeting in Barkagaon assembly seat in Hazaribagh, Adityanath resorted to more fear-mongering among Hindus about the alleged influx of Bangladeshis and Rohingyas into Jharkhand. “If demographic change takes place in this way, today they are stopping yatras. In the future, they won’t even let you ring a bell or blow the conch inside your homes,” he said.
Bulldozer praise
Adityanath publicised the way in which his government had tackled incidents of stone-pelting during Hindu shobha yatras in UP. “These pathharbaaz (stone-pelters) were also there in Kashmir. Today, all these pathharbaaz have left on a yatra of ‘Ram naam satya hai (a funeral procession cry for Hindus)’. Before 2017, they also operated in UP. Their masters would loot the state in the form of land mafia, cattle mafia, mining mafia and through organised crime. They would raise them (stone-pelters) and disrupt festivals. But now all the dreaded mafia have either left UP or gone on a trip to hell,” said Adityanath.
On the other hand, he showcased the successful conclusion of the Kanwar Yatra in UP, even though it was mired by violent incidents of vandalism and damage to public safety. The state elections in Jharkhand were to demonstrate their “might”, said Adityanath to Hindus. “Let your might be felt. And these stone-pelters will be seen with brooms in their hands sweeping the streets for you. This election is one to make your might felt. Don’t get divided into castes,” said the UP chief minister.
In Koderma, Adityanath boasted about the use of bulldozers in UP against “mafia” elements. “Prior to 2017, the mafia would walk around UP with the chests pumped. But after 2017, when bulldozers started being used, even the most dreaded mafia left the lands of UP. Today, some are in jail while others have embarked on a ‘Ram naam satya hain’ yatra,” said Adityanath.
‘Temple is just a beginning’
The UP CM also made several references to the existing legal disputes around Mughal-era mosques in Varanasi and Mathura, and hinted that like in Ayodhya, the Hindu Right would emerge victorious in the other two matters as well. “It’s natural, how is our Krishna Kanhaiya going to relent,” Adityanath said, promising that Ayodhya-like ‘darshan’ of the deity would become a possibility in Mathura as well.
“The Ram Mandir was just a beginning,” he asserted.
In Maharashtra’s Washim, Adityanath elaborated on this further. Referring to the consecration ceremony of the Ram Mandir in January by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Adityanath said the PM had described the event as “just a beginning.” “Not only in Ayodhya, now we have also moved towards Kashi and Mathura,” said Adityanath.
Across his rallies in Maharashtra, Adityanath repeated the polarising catchphrase “Ek rahoge toh nek rahoge. Safe rahoge. Bate thay toh kate thay.” Translated it means, “Stay united and you will be fine. You will be safe. Stay divided and you will be slaughtered.”
In Teosa in Amravati, Adityanath appealed Hindus to unite just like Maratha ruler Shivaji had managed to unite Hindu lords and kings during the rule of Mughal emperor Aurangzeb.
“Bato mat. Bate that toh kate thay (don’t get divided. When we got divided, we were slaughtered),” said Adityanath.
“If Hindus stayed united, nobody would pelt stones at their shobha yatras,” he added.
Police investigation revealed that all three men were Hindu and hailed from Junagadh.
A video showing three men in saffron clothes has gone viral with many users claiming they were imposters. In the video, some individuals question the three men to check their knowledge of Hinduism. Social media users claim that the men were Muslims disguised as Hindu monks.
The person recording the video confronts the three men in saffron robes, asking, “Recite at least one shloka (a verse in Sanskrit), or we won’t let you go. How many gods’ names do you know?” To this, one of the men responds, “We worship Bholenath.” The recorder then challenges them, asking how they could be true sadhus if they only know one deity’s name. The crowd gathered around them could then be heard labelling them as ‘Bangladeshi’ and ‘Rohingya’ and some proposing to beat them up. The man recording the video then tells the crowd that one of the sadhus is actually named ‘Salman’ and shows the crowd an ID card to support his claim.
Right-wing propaganda outlet OpIndia (@OpIndia_in) published a report carrying Zee 24 Kalak’s tweet. They posted a link to the report on their official X handle, with the caption: “Salman and his companions were begging wearing saffron clothes. Their true identity was revealed through an ID card. They could neither recite any shloka nor properly name the Hindu gods and goddesses.”
Gujarati News Channel Zee 24 Kalak (@Zee24Kalak) tweeted about the incident on November 2 with a caption in Gujarati that can be translated as: “Salman, disguised as a sadhu, caught! Fraud exposed as ID check reveals the truth of a sadhu begging in Surat.”
The title of the report in Hindi can be translated as: “When asked for Sanskrit shlokas, he started praying, could tell the name of only one Hindu God: Salman and gang were begging in Surat posing as ‘sadhu’, the secret was revealed through ID”. In the report, OpIndia claims that the three men were ‘Muslims who were roaming around dressed as sadhus’ and were later arrested by the police. (Archive 1, 2, 3)
Another propaganda outlet, Sudarshan News (@SudarshanNewsTV), tweeted a video report about this incident which was shared with the following caption: “In Surat, Gujarat, ‘jihadi’ Salman and his gang were begging while posing as sadhus… Three ‘jihadis’ dressed in saffron robes and posing as sadhus have been arrested.” (Archive)
RSS mouthpiece Panchjanya (@epanchjanya) also tweeted about the incident. The caption in Hindi said, “Muslims caught in the guise of sadhus! If you want to become a sadhu, why not become Hindu? A Muslim man named Salman, dressed in saffron attire and posing as a sadhu, was caught begging. This incident took place in Surat, Gujarat, on November 3, 2024, after which the police arrested him. This is not the first time—Muslims disguised as sadhus have been caught 16 times before!”.
Several other users on X such as @ajaychauhan41, @Sudanshutrivedi shared the viral video and amplified the claim that the three saffron-clad men were Muslim men disguised as sadhus. Below are a few instances.
Fact Check
To check the authenticity of the claim, we looked for news reports about the incident. We found a report by Divya Bhaskar, the Gujarati daily from the Dainik Bhaskar Group. Dated November 4, the report says that upon police investigation it was revealed that all three men were Hindu and hailed from Junagadh.
The report quoted inspector R B Gojiya of the Adajan police station in Surat, who stated that the three monks were reported as suspicious individuals, and were subsequently questioned. Following the questioning, for verification, an investigation was initiated in Junagadh to determine their true identities. It was found that the names they provided were accurate. One individual’s name is Salmanath, which raised suspicions among people that he might belong to a different religion. However, it was confirmed that he was a Hindu.
Alt News accessed the voter ID card of the monk in question. In the image below it can be seen that the man’s name is Salmannath Parmar and his father’s name is Suramnath Parmar. The surname Parmar is associated with the Rajput clan who mostly hail from northern and central India, particularly from Rajasthan, Gujarat, Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh and North Maharashtra.
This is not the first time that monks, particularly those who go begging from door to door, have been harassed on the unfounded suspicion that they are Muslims in disguise. In July this year, a group of three sadhus were falsely labelled as Muslims in Meerut. There have been other instances where wandering monks have been falsely accused of being child-kidnappers. Related reports can be found here, here and here.
The audio recording – ostensibly of a meeting held at Biren’s official residence in 2023 – which was submitted to the Union home ministry-established Commission of Inquiry on the violence in Manipur were reported on by The Wire earlier this year.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that it will examine the audio recording which allegedly points to the role of Manipur chief minister N Biren Singh in the communal violence in the state.
The audio recording – ostensibly of a meeting held at Biren’s official residence in 2023 – which was submitted to the Union home ministry-established Commission of Inquiry on the violence in Manipur were reported on by The Wire‘s Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty earlier this year.
The Wire was unable to independently establish that the person heard speaking on the recording about the violence in Manipur is indeed Biren Singh, but confirmed the date, subject and contents of this meeting with some of the participants, none of whom was willing to be identified because of fears for their safety.
Among several incendiary statements heard on the audio recording is the claim that at least two Meitei outfits banned under the UAPA were brought together with security forces, that the use of lethally destructive ammunition was supported and that there was no proof that two Kuki women paraded naked on a viral tape were raped.
Read the ‘Manipur Tapes’ reports in parts: 1, 2,3,4 and 5.
Manipur has seen a year-and-a-half of ethnic strife now, leading to the deaths of 226 people, several thousands displaced and the state divided along communal lines.
Bar and Bench has reported that the petitioner in this case is the Kuki Organisation for Human Rights Trust, represented by advocate Prashant Bhushan. Bhushan noted that since the tapes contain recordings of Biren allegedly claiming he “fuelled insurgency and protected those who looted the arms,” the Manipur government cannot investigate the audio clips.
A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) D.Y. Chandrachud and Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra have sought details on the tape to prove its authenticity.
“We grant the petitioner an opportunity to file material indicating the authenticity of the clip. The counsel says the clip shall also be submitted,” the bench said.
The court’s decision to investigate the tapes came despite Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, “vehemently objecting to the plea,” according to Bar and Bench.
“Probe is going on. CM met all the Kuki MLAs to ensure peace and whistleblower do not want peace. Intention is to keep the fire burning,” SG Mehta said.
Mehta also entered into an exchange with the CJI over being at a distance from Manipur – and thus not having a real picture of things. Bar and Bench reported the following exchange as such:
“We have a porous border and we do not know what is there on the ground. It is because my lords are in ivory towers. I mean not in any pejorative sense,” SG Mehta said.
“We have a duty as a Constitutional court and we cannot brush things under the carpet. We also know what happened in Manipur. It is because we are not in ivory towers. That is why we are hearing it and did not dismiss this right away. Not the least Solicitor, not the least,” CJI Chandrachud replied.
The NBDSA in its order said that the godman made several statements that promoted superstition and were divisive in nature.
New Delhi: The News Broadcasters and Digital Association (NBDSA) has found a News18 interview with a self-styled godman in violation of its code of ethics and directed the news channel to remove it from all digital platforms within a week.
News18’s managing editor, Kishore Ajwani, had interviewed Dhirendra Shastri, popularly known as Bageshwar Baba, on July 10 last year. The NBDSA in its order said that Shastri made several statements that promoted superstition and were divisive in nature.
The association was hearing a complaint made by Pune-based activist Indrajeet Ghorpade.
“In the instant case, the seer who was invited by the broadcaster made several claims during the broadcast, which promoted superstition. Furthermore, during the broadcast, several statements were made by the seer concerning Hindu Rashtra and religion, which were divisive in nature, such as that in order to live in India it would be mandatory to say “Sita Ram” and that Islam asked men to trap young Hindu girls in love jihad and then kill them,” the NBDSA observed.
The association said that the broadcast violated its specific guidelines covering reportage relating to ‘racial and religious harmony, supernatural, occultism and paranormal’ as well as the advisory on ‘reportage spreading superstition, occultism and blind belief’.
“NBDSA observed that programmes which advance belief in superstition and tend to create disharmony between communities should not be countenanced and should not be broadcast,” the order read.
In the interview, Shastri had claimed that he could find diamonds, predict polls and heal people through supernatural powers among other things.
The association also warned the channel and advised it against inviting individuals whose views could be construed as promoting superstitious beliefs and practices.
‘News value attached to the seer’
In its submission to the association, News18 had argued that there was significant news value associated with the godman to justify why he had been invited to the programme.
The channel also claimed that it did not promote or support any statements made by Shastri in an individual capacity and were therefore not responsible for them.
Ghorpade, in his rebuttal to the channel’s claims, said that News18 was well aware of Shastri’s tendency to make such statements and questioned Ajwani’s failure to adequately interject during the interview.
“In rebuttal, the complainant submitted that, as admitted by the broadcaster, the seer was known to make controversial statements such as on Hindu Rashtra and love jihad; the channel was well aware of the seer’s tendency to make controversial statements and had therefore invited him in the broadcast.
[Ghorpade] submitted that the broadcaster’s submission that it had not raised any question regarding the seer’s supernatural abilities was false, as it was the anchor who had himself, during the broadcast, questioned the seer whether he could predict election results. Therefore, the interview was well crafted, as the channel knew what Mr Shastri would say,” the NBDSA order said.
Before the ruling elite attempts to further damage the constitution, all civil, military and judicial services will do well to remember the two landmark judgements.
On the eve of Diwali, the Bharatiya Janata Party government in Uttar Pradesh carried a full page advertisement in many national and vernacular dailies, highlighting the lighting of more than 25 lakh diyas in Ayodhya along with the worship of ‘Mata Saryu amongst Vedic chants’.
Dear @PM0,you are the PM of a secular nation. Do you think it is morally and constitutionally correct to spend crores to advertise a Hindu festival? Will you do the same for Eid, Christmas, Buddha Jayanti? Remember the State has no religion.
But obviously the BJP and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh do not think so, especially after Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s innings started in 2014.
Now in Maharashtra and Jharkhand, as the state prepares for the polls, the BJP has raised the slogan of ‘ghar ghar samvidhan (the constitution in every home)’.
This is nothing but sheer hypocrisy.
Thanks to the Bharat Jodo Yatra and the successful ‘save the constitution’ campaign by the INDIA bloc in the Lok Sabha election, the BJP is trying to turn the tables with this belated move which is not going to cut ice with the electorate of Maharashtra, much less Jharkhand.
Long before the BJP came into existence, nearly four decades ago, the Sangh Parivar has many times betrayed its uneasiness with the constitution. In fact, many of the sarsangchalaks of the RSS took a public stand for scrapping the constitution. They even opposed the first revolutionary legislation of the Nehru government for the upliftment of Indian women. The authors – Bipin Chandra, Mridula Mukherjee and Aditya Mukherjee – of India After Independence, write:
A major step step forward in this direction ( social position of women) was taken when the Hindu Code Bill was moved in Parliament in 1951. The bill faced sharp opposition from conservative sections of society, especially from Jan Sangh and other Hindu communal organisations.
The Bill had been moved by Dr B.R. Ambedkar in his capacity as the country’s first law minister.
On December 25, 1992, a few days after the demolition of the Babri Masjid, a press conference was held at the residence of a BJP member by two front-rank Swamis of the Parivar – Swami Muktanand and Swami Vamdeo Maharaj. They gave a call to reject the ‘anti-Hindu constitution’. “We have no faith in the country’s laws,” they said, along with the proclamation that “the sadhus are above the law of the land.” Indian citizenship law which considers all born in this country as its natural citizens is humbug, they appeared to claim.
On January 1,1993 the Sangh Parivar published a ‘white paper’ labelling the constitution as ‘anti-Hindu’ and outlined the kind of polity that must be established.
In its foreword, Swami Hiranand, a leading light of the Parivar, wrote:
“The present Constitution is contrary to the country’s culture, character, circumstances, situation etc. It is foreign oriented…It has to be discarded completely as a matter of high priority…The damage done by two hundred years long rule of the British is negligible as compared to the harm done by our Constitution…the conspiracy to convert Bharat into India continues…in post- independence India, Hindustan and Vande Matram have been exterminated. Jana Gana Mana, a song to welcome George V, has become our national anthem.”
The RSS chief Rajendra Singh apparently agreed with the views expressed in the white paper, and wrote:
“All this shows that changes are needed in the constitution. A constitution more suited to the ethos and genius of this country should be adopted in the future.”
Murli Manohar Joshi, who was then the president of the BJP, demanded “a fresh look at the constitution.” The
The white paper condemned reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and backward classes and went to the extremely foul extent of calling the constitution “a pile of garbage” and “an enemy of the nation’s unity and integrity.”
Though the Vajpayee government (1998-2004) made attempts to alter the basic structure of the constitution, it failed to do so as there was a big hue and cry after it appointed a commission to go into the working of the constitution. Advised by the then president K.R. Narayanan, it inserted a clause in the terms of reference of the commission – the basic structure of the constitution will not be altered.
But the BJP governments, under both Vajpayee-Advani and Modi-Amit Shah, have found administrative means to bypass the constitution. This was perhaps foreseen by the chairman of the Drafting Committee. While introducing the draft constitution in the constituent assembly on November 4, 1948, Ambedkar had clearly spelt out:
“The form of the administration must be appropriate and in the same sense as the form of the constitution.”
A communal civil service cannot work a secular constitution. Ambedkar warned:
“It is perfectly possible to pervert the constitution without changing its form, by merely changing the form of the administration and to make it inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the constitution.”
The then home minister Sardar Patel in a letter dated April 27, 1948 to prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru agreed with him:
“The service must be above party and we should ensure that political considerations, either in its recruitment or in its discipline and control, are reduced to the minimum.”
How far away have we travelled today from the path lit by the founding fathers of India’s constitution.
K.S. Sudarashan was appointed the sarsanghchalak of the RSS on March 10, 2000. Soon after taking over he declared that constitution of India should be scrapped, but added that the RSS did not expect the review committee to do this as it has been asked not to alter the basic structure of the constitution.This statement was made after the Vajpayee government, under public pressure and advice of president Narayan, had to assure that the Review, as stated above, will not cover the basic structure of the constitution.
At the annual Vijayadashmi speech at Nagpur, on October 7, and later at Agra, on October 15, he made highly provocative anti-constitution speeches:
“We need to have an Indian national church for the Indian Christians…Muslims and Christians must return to Hindu roots.”
With home minister L.K. Advani present in the latter meet, it was obvious that the RSS and Vajpayee government, to quote A.G. Noorani, acted in impressive concert.
This concert is the new norm. Since 2014 there have been many frontal assaults on the constitution by the RSS and BJP governments in the Union government and states where it is ruling. No questions are asked, no eyebrows are raised and the mainstream media does not even report many incidents of violations of the constitution – mixing religion with politics, lynchings, communalising the police, bureaucracy and even the judiciary. Hindu Rashtra has not been declared officially but the country’s administration under the Modi regime has become, as foreseen by Ambedkar, “inconsistent and opposed to the spirit of the constitution.”
Though the words ‘secular’ and ‘socialist’ were added to the Preamble in 1976 by the 42nd amendment, the concept of secularism was always inherent in its provisions. As Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru reiterated on July 10, 1962:
“We have laid down in our constitution that India is a secular State. This does not mean irreligion. It means equal respects for all faiths and equal opportunities for those who profess any faith.”
Does the Hindutva (let’s not confuse it with Hinduism) ideology believe in equal respect for all faiths and equal opportunities for the minorities? Why are the minorities, especially Muslims, being treated as second class citizens by the BJP governments in the Union government and states? Why are they being denied equal opportunities in the parliament and legislatures? The BJP has no Muslim MP in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha and hence no minister in the Cabinet. This is indeed shocking as this is the first time after independence that a ruling party in the Union government has no Muslim representative in parliament. It may not be against the letter of the constitution but certainly it is against its spirit, and the vision of the founding fathers who laboured tirelessly to bequeath us a document that saw Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists and others, as equal citizens of India.
Before the ruling elite attempts to further damage the constitution, all civil, military and judicial services will do well to remember the two landmark judgements, the Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, in 1973, and S. R. Bommai v. Union of India in 1994. In the first judgment it is categorically stated, “India is a secular state in which there is no state religion” and, the second emphasises, “Secularism is part of basic structure of the constitution…encroachment of religion into the secular activities of the state is prohibited.”
Let these two historical judgments be the loadstar of all those who swear by the constitution and Baba Saheb Ambedkar. The latest observation of the Supreme Court, on October 21, that “secularism is an un-amendable and core part of the basic structure of the constitution,” is therefore very timely and appropriate.
Praveen Davar, a former Army officer, is a columnist and author of Freedom Struggle and Beyond.
The Maharashtra state president of the Nationalist Congress Party’s Sharad Pawar faction is hopeful that the statewide atmosphere is pro-MVA.
Voting for the Maharashtra legislative assembly will be held on November 20.
In a contest unlike any other time before, this assembly election will see the Maha Vikas Aghadi (MVA) and the Mahayuti alliances go head to head. Jayant Patil, the Maharashtra state president of the Nationalist Congress Party’s Sharad Pawar faction – a major party in the MVA – spoke to The Wire about key political and social issues ahead of the assembly elections.
Patil also discussed Ajit Pawar’s alleged involvement in the irrigation scam, the effects of caste politics, and the status of Maratha and Other Backward Class reservations in Maharashtra. He also addressed critical campaign issues for the MVA, including challenges faced by farmers, youth unemployment, and other pressing concerns.
The NCP’s influence is particularly strong in western Maharashtra, but the party is divided into two. The Mahayuti presents a significant challenge, with Ajit Pawar’s NCP currently aligned with it.
The following has been translated and transcribed by Manya Singh.
You have toured the entire state of Maharashtra. What do you think will be topics relevant to campaigning and on which the elections will be decided? What will be the strategy of the MVA?
Across Maharashtra, before the elections to the parliament, the atmosphere was such that the Bharatiya Janata Party would have got elected. But as soon as the elections started, the voters of Maharashtra took a different form. Out of 48 seats, 31 candidates were elected against BJP.
After that, when I toured the state, the only atmosphere that I saw was one in which people had high expectations.
If the MVA returns to power, many questions of development by farmers will be resolved by the MVA, especially by Mr. Sharad Pawar. That is what I believe.
That is why people have supported us in a big way. The result of this was that the government of the state led by Eknath Shinde and BJP, took many decisions out of fear.
They took about 1,000-1,500 quick decisions, out of which many, like distributing food, reflected that they were scared. Despite all their strength, the situation became such that if you asked for the moon, they would tell you, ‘It will take some time, but we will bring it.’
The most important issue that has come up often is the Ladli Behna Yojana. You have been the finance minister of Maharashtra for a long time. The way the government has announced the schemes, many have said that they have tried to appease voters. For example, they forgave toll tax in Mumbai, a few days back. Do you think these schemes will stop? Or will it continue after this elections?
What they have done is, after announcing the scheme, they adopted this way of distributing money among households where there are at least 3-4 women in a house. This is how they implemented the scheme.
In Maharashtra, the families below the poverty line, they need help first. Along with that, the women around the poverty line, even they need support. But the government did not think about this.
Out of fear, they announced the scheme in the budget.
The result was that, even before the budget was announced, they announced the scheme, but they did not think about the budget. There was no budget for the schemes.
Secondly, the money was diverted from other schemes. They have given the money till now. I was told that the money for November and December will be given in advance. They are trying to break the Model Code of Conduct. What does this mean? ‘Distribute as much money as possible, and then return upon getting elected.’
We are also thinking about this scheme. We will not make any mistake.
When it comes to the manifesto, for the first time in Maharashtra, Mahavikas Aghadi is going to face the elections. Before this, they had fought the Lok Sabha elections together. The result was good, in favour of the MVA.
Will this manifesto belong to three different parties or will it be under one banner, like Shiv Sena (Uddhav Thackeray), your party, and Congress?
All of us will be together. On 6th, Rahul Gandhi ji is coming to Mumbai. Pawar ji and Uddhav ji will also be there. All of us together will present our first five concerns before the people, and then the manifesto will be released everywhere in Maharashtra.
[Note: The MVA poll manifesto was released a day ago. This interview was taken before the release]
For the first time, two NCPs are going to contest the elections in Maharashtra. Who the real NCP is, we will possibly find out on November 23. In the Lok Sabha polls, you won eight out of 10 seats. Will we see the same performance here, or will there be some changes, according to you?
One thing is that, the real NCP is of Sharad Pawar. This has just been decided by the people of Maharashtra. The second thing is that, there is no need for the same question to come again and again in the Vidhan Sabha. The real NCP was Pawar sir, the founder. He is still alive and this party should remain with him.
In this country, it is wrong that Balasaheb Thackeray’s party was snatched from him, Pawar ji’s party was snatched from him, and everyone kept watching. And the judiciary also had to decide on time. Justice that comes late is injustice. So justice delayed is denied. Still, we went to the doors of the people, and the people helped us very well. Now we expect that in this Vidhan Sabha election also, despite all these freebies, our party will be well received.
I would also like to ask you about the issue of a symbol here. What problems did you face in the Lok Sabha polls? In a seat like Satara, your candidate was defeated by a few thousand votes, notably.
We have a seat in Dindori where a person who has a tuttari in his hand is our symbol. There was a mistake with labelling a trumpet a ‘tuttari’ and our candidate got 1,04,000 votes.
Similarly, in Satara, a ‘pipani’ which should not have been called a ‘tuttari’ was a symbol that got 37,000 votes.
So now, as we have requested, the State Election Commission has defined, translated and decided on the trumpet symbol.
It was thought that the candidate for the position of chief minister was going to be announced. Especially Uddhav Thackeray’s Shiv Sena said that the chief minister’s face should be decided.
On the other hand, if your party gets the highest number of seats, will you be the candidate for position of CM? We saw in the seat sharing discussions that the 85-85-85 formula was mentioned, but while your party is fighting for 85 seats, Congress has announced the highest number of candidates. Will Jayant Patil be the next CM?
It’s not about becoming the CM. The important issue is to remove the corrupt government in Maharashtra. And that’s why all the parties have come together on this issue. Those who have been extremely corrupt, BJP has also taken them along.
On the other hand, with Ajit Pawar, we can see that BJP compromises on anything. In India, this was not expected from BJP. Mr Modi also repeatedly speaks of a ‘clean’ government.
Taking all those people into the government is truly spoiling the BJP’s image.
Earlier, when Mr. Advani and Atal Bihari Vajpayee were in power, BJP was a clean party. Now, it is not like that. This is also the reason that in the whole country, BJP, which wanted to cross 400, has stopped at 240. I feel that this will also affect the Maharashtra elections.
You have raised the issue of corruption here. Earlier, within days of Prime Minister Modi mentioning the matter of MVA leaders being named in a Rs 70,000-crore scam, Ajit Pawar had joined the BJP government. A few days ago, in Tasgaon, in Maharashtra, Ajit Pawar said that his inquiry file had been signed by former party colleague RR Patil. What would you say about that?
Devendra Fadnavis called and told Ajit Pawar about this file, that is what Ajit Pawar said. The thing is that R.R. Patil is not alive today. It has been 9 years since he passed away. People of Maharashtra will not listen to rumours.
Second, Devendra Fadnavis called and told Ajit Pawar about this file. He was just an MLA of the opposition then. That’s when he called Ajit Pawar and told him of the file. This means that there was effort to pressurise Ajit Pawar. This is what we feel. This is what people of Maharashtra feel.
A few days ago, you said that Devendra Fadnavis blackmailed Ajit Pawar and because of that Ajit Pawar left the party and joined BJP.
I did not use the word blackmail. I said that after that incident, Ajit Pawar began trying to go to BJP.
The originating point is that he was told about this file. All these inquiries were being done and because of that, he was repeatedly saying that he has to go there. It was not that he left because he admired the BJP.
NCP MLA Hasan Mushri was also accused of corruption. Now he has gone to BJP. Now that Ajit Pawar’s party is fighting against your party, can there be a division of votes, especially in western Maharashtra?
I don’t think people believe in Ajit Pawar. We have people’s trust and support, we are realising.
Reservations for the Maratha community and OBCs is the main issue. This was also seen in the Lok Sabha elections. How much will it affect this election? Has the government failed in giving reservation to Marathas? And if the government of Maha Vikas Aghadi comes, will Marathas get reservation?
The thing is that Eknath Shinde ji has talked to Maratha society. He has made some commitments. He has not honoured those commitments. We don’t know what the commitments are.
On the other hand, Devendra Fadnavis has been talking about the OBC community to Shinde ji. He has assured him certain things but we don’t know what the commitments are. We were expecting that before the Model Code of Conduct is in place, the government will decide and make these decisions clear in front of Maharashtra. But unfortunately, both of these communities have been disappointed by the government.
During the parliamentary elections, we had said that we will increase the percentage and accommodate everyone. This is our hope. We had given special importance to this in those elections and are still giving it importance.
The way communal violence has increased after the Mahayuti has come to power has been noticeable. In a city like Kolhapur, there has been communal violence. Nitish Rane keeps making communal remarks…
In Maharashtra, there is no lack of social leaders. Shahu, Phule and Ambedkar were there. Along with them, there were a few more people whose values are at the heart of Maharashtra.
But, in the elections, to draw votes, those who need polarisation will repeatedly try to create a situation. That is why, the MLA you took the name of, he has been roaming all over Maharashtra. He came to Islampur and created tension.
The way he speaks, minority society in the whole of Maharashtra knows that if BJP comes to power, it won’t do anything for them.
The INDIA bloc alleged that the Assam chief minister has been falsely accusing the Jharkhand government of inviting Bangladeshi infiltrators to boost the electoral prospects of the alliance.
The sentiment which emerged after the ouster of former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on August 5 and subsequent targeting of Hindus, on the allegations of being the supporters of her Awami League party, is being cashed in on by the Bharatiya Janata Party in poll-bound Jharkhand.
Although the saffron party is apparently trying to woo Adivasis, who are mostly followers of Sarnaism (12.52%) and Christianity (4.31%), yet actually it has the 67.83% Hindu votes in mind while raising the bogey of Bangladeshi infiltrators.
Usually, the alleged influx from Bangladesh is made an election issue in Assam, West Bengal, Tripura and Meghalaya, which share international borders with it. The BJP also makes infiltrators a poll issue in the Seemanchal region of north-east Bihar, though it has no common border with Bangladesh.
A narrow strip of land in West Bengal separates Bihar’s Kishanganj district from Bangladesh. On October 18, union minister Giriraj Singh launched his five-day Hindu Swabhiman Yatra in this region – considered as a pre-poll exercise for next year’s assembly election in Bihar.
Similarly, the Sahebganj district of Jharkhand is much further away from Bangladesh. Yet the BJP has suddenly been reminded about the change of demographic balance in Jharkhand.
BJP’s failure to guard borders
As Jharkhand has 14.53% Muslims who, combined with 26.21% Scheduled Tribes form about 41% of the electorate, the BJP was politically compelled to drive a wedge between these two social groups. Recent developments in Bangladesh provided the BJP an opportunity to raise the issue of Bangladeshi men allegedly marrying Adivasi women.
Even if BJP’s charge of infiltration is accepted anywhere in India, the state government is not primarily responsible as the international boundary is being guarded by the Border Security Force, which is under the control of Union home ministry, headed by Amit Shah, who on November 3 kicked off his poll campaign with the promise of throwing out the infiltrators. He also promised that the BJP would implement Uniform Civil Code, but would exclude Adivasis from it.
The chief minister of Jharkhand, Hemant Soren, was quick to respond by stating that the BJP is blaming the state government for infiltration when the Narendra Modi government itself has given shelter to none else but Sheikh Hasina. He also assured that neither the UCC nor the NRC would be implemented in Jharkhand and that only the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act and Santhal Parganas Tenancy Act would be implemented to protect tribal land.
Adivasis in Assam
Himanta Biswa Sarma, the chief minister of Assam, has been assigned the task of leading the BJP’s campaign in Jharkhand. This is simply because he specialises in raking up the issue of infiltrators in his own state.
But what Sarma is not discussing is the sorry plight of lakhs of Adivasis, mostly Santhals, who were forcibly uprooted by the British imperialists from the same land now called Jharkhand to be settled in tea gardens of Assam in 19th century. More than 150 years later, they are yet to get the status of Scheduled Tribes there. Tension between Adivasis and aboriginal tribes of Assam is very palpable. Bloody Bodo-Santhal clashes are quite common – the latter had to pay dearly in most of them.
Instead, Sarma and other BJP leaders are busy raising the emotive issue of Bangladeshis engaged in the alleged “land jihad” and “love jihad.”
The Jharkhand Mukti Morcha was formed more than five decades back, among others by Shibu Soren, father of Hemant Soren. It was a movement against the dikkus (outsiders) and money lenders who had come from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Rajasthan, Gujarat etc and settled here. A sizeable number of them are from upper castes or belong to affluent trading communities. The tribals accuse them of exploiting the poor original population of the mineral-rich region.
The tussle between Adivasis and outsiders continues till now. During the last BJP rule between 2014 and 2019, the relationship worsened further. The BJP made Raghubar Das the first non-tribal chief minister of the state created in the name of Adivasis. Like Prime Minister Narendra Modi, he is a Teli. Das’s ancestors are from Madhya Pradesh.
His policy helped the corporate lobby further consolidate its position. The tribals went on a warpath against him.
The BJP was voted out in 2019 and Das lost from his own constituency. The BJP could win only two out of the 28 ST reserved seats, down from 11 in 2014.
The poor performance continued in the Lok Sabha election held five months back, when the saffron party lost all five reserved seats. This included the then union minister and former chief minister Arjun Munda from Khunti. Hemant Soren, who was then in jail, is once again playing the victim card in the Assembly election campaign. He is repeatedly asserting that he had to undergo so much trouble simply because he stood for tribals’ rights.
Apart from the 28 ST reserved seats, the state has nine Scheduled Castes seats.
It is in the remaining 44 general seats where the National Democratic Alliance is in a relatively comfortable position. It is here that communal polarisation and the issue of Bangladeshi infiltrators really work. The NDA won all nine non-tribal seats in the last parliamentary election.
This time around, the BJP is contesting in 68 seats, the All Jharkhand Students’ Union party in 10, Janata Dal (United) in two and Lok Janshakti Party in one. AJSU is considered as the party of Kudmi Mahato, an OBC having substantial population in the state.
Complaint against Sarma
Meanwhile, the INDIA bloc (JMM, Congress, Rashtriya Janata Dal and CPI ML) on November 2 complained to the Election Commission against the divisive speeches of Himanta Biswa Sarma. It alleged that the Assam chief minister has been falsely accusing the Jharkhand government of inviting Bangladeshi infiltrators to boost the electoral prospects of the alliance. The INDIA bloc has threatened that it would take up the matter in court if the Election Commission fails to take notice of the complaint.
It requires extraordinary moral blindness to pursue scholarly interests undisturbed while fellow citizens face systematic violence and discrimination.
How should one remember someone after their death? Especially someone who served a government known for its anti-Muslim policies and actions? How should one mourn the death of a person who played a key role in running a fascist regime? How should one find virtues in a person who dedicated their intellect to the service of a fascist leader and party?
It has been a tradition in India that one does not speak ill of the dead. That is why, even after the death of Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who first called himself a Swayamsevak – member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) – and popularised anti-Muslim politics in India, he was praised by politicians of all stripes.
Lal Krishna Advani is physically alive but politically dead. There are people among us who seek virtues in the person who played the most notorious role in making anti-Muslim politics a part of ‘Hinduism’ in India and who led the Babri Masjid demolition campaign. While thousands of Muslims were killed as a result of his campaign, we are asked to remember him as a leader who was fond of cinema and loved good food.
We all remember the tributes paid to Sushma Swaraj from all political circles upon her death. Her threat of shaving her head and sleeping on the bare floor at the possibility of Sonia Gandhi becoming Prime Minister was forgotten at the time of her death. She had declared that if Sonia Gandhi became Prime Minister, she would forever live the life of a Hindu widow. Somehow, we consider those whose politics is based on hatred towards ‘foreigners’ to be praiseworthy.
Is this tolerance towards hatred our national character?
This reflection is prompted by the public reaction to the death of Bibek Debroy, chairman of the Economic Advisory Council to the Narendra Modi government. While it was natural for Prime Minister Modi to pay tribute to his government’s chief economic advisor, Congress Party leader Jairam Ramesh remembered him for his versatility and sense of humour.
Ramesh praised Debroy’s ability to explain complex economic issues lucidly, noting his prowess as a writer. Pratap Bhanu Mehta recalled the spiritual side of his personality, highlighting his translations of the Mahabharata and the Puranas, his Sanskrit scholarship, and his commentary on the Gita. Mehta wrote that while Debroy’s political affiliations were enigmatic, he had the art of keeping himself above the fray.
Yogendra Yadav, after reading these tributes, wrote, “I criticized Bibek Debroy publicly and very harshly once. But human beings are more than one statement or decision. Reading his last column and today’s obituary filled me with respect and regret – I wish I had known him.” He praised Jairam’s “model tribute to an opponent,” noting the grace in remembering someone who had crossed the political divide.
But can aligning with majoritarian, Islamophobic politics be dismissed as merely a political difference? A legitimate political choice? What does it mean to keep oneself above the fray? How can one remain untouched by the communalism of the government they serve as a policymaker? Through silence? Can this be called intellectual restraint?
Debroy became chairman of the Economic Advisory Council in 2017, though he had served the government in various capacities before that. As the architect of government economic policies, how did he justify demonetisation, GST, and other measures that devastated ordinary Indians? Should the Chief Economic Advisor not be held accountable for these policies? Or did his counsel not matter, even as he retained his position?
For someone who studied the Mahabharata and Puranas – texts that grapple with questions of dharma and adharma – how did he reconcile his role in a government promoting division and hatred? What kind of soul remains above the struggle between right and wrong?
What is the greatest moral challenge in India today? Is it so difficult to identify, even after deep engagement with the Mahabharata?
While Debroy shouldn’t be condemned simply for government service, his role as a policymaker and public intellectual demands different standards of judgment. His death represents the loss of considerable intellectual capacity, but what defines an intellectual’s true worth? Did he fulfill the fundamental duty of speaking truth to power?
An intellectual must identify and address the crucial questions of their time. In today’s India, these questions center on the systematic oppression of minorities, economic exploitation of the masses, and erosion of civil rights.
A majoritarian autocracy rules behind democratic facades. One’s response to these issues determines their intellectual and moral standing. Scholarly achievements in translating ancient texts, while impressive, do not absolve one of contemporary moral responsibilities.
The Centre for Policy Research gave Debroy a job and also opportunity to use the space and resources to do his work on the Mahabharata. When such an open institution was being strangled to death, what did Debroy do to save it for future Debroys to do their work?
Did he use his position to save it or not? Or did he not deem it fit to do anything to save that small institution because CPR’s death had become necessary for a government which was engaged in the noble task of establishing a Hindu nation? CPR could be sacrificed for that great cause! At least we do not have any evidence of his intervention in this regard.
Debroy’s final act was resigning as Chancellor of Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics after the Bombay High Court stayed his dismissal of Vice Chancellor Ajit Ranade. His parting shot –recommending the institute lose its deemed university status – was seen by many as vindictive rather than principled.
While death often silences critics and inspires generous remembrance, the response of society’s most marginalised reveals the true measure of a public figure’s legacy. In today’s India, will Muslims – the most oppressed segment – mourn Debroy’s passing? How will they remember someone who remained absorbed in spiritual questions while serving a government that promoted their persecution? and would non Muslims ask Muslims not be so petty as not to see his brighter side?
It requires an extraordinary moral blindness to pursue scholarly interests undisturbed while fellow citizens face systematic violence and discrimination, especially when one serves the very government promoting such policies. Intellectual achievements, however impressive, cannot compensate for moral abdication in times of crisis.
We can hug the constitution as much as we want, the powers-that-be have already and with gusto changed it without actually changing it.
Just to recapitulate some famous constitutional sayings:
that, among its other attributes, the Indian state/republic is a ‘secular’ one;
that all citizens, regardless of caste, creed, class, race, gender, language or region have the fundamental right to ‘profess, practice, and propagate’ their religious faith;
that the state shall not ‘discriminate against or favour any particular religion’;
that appeal to religious identity/sentiments during electioneering is ultra vires.
Thus, as of now, everything remains dejure secular in India.
Only that over the last decade, and fiercely now, Bharat has changed all that.
Look where you will, and agents of the executive think nothing of observing the injunctions noted above in widespread de facto breach without raising the least public or institutional eyebrow.
The pragmatic fourth estate desists wisely from making an issue.What corporate may put the constitution above unimpeded profit making?
Day in and day out, bold and blatant communal fulminations blare from electronic channels as barely any aspect of institutional and collective social life is spared from being incorporated into a majoritarian makeover of the realm.
Every syllable of political discourse is calculated to remind us of the allegedly fatal divide between Hindus and Muslims.
Paradoxically, the stronger our executive gets, and by its own boastful claims, the more sectarian fears it busily propagates; you would think that Hindus were never as much in danger of all sorts from a 14% Muslim minority as they are under our staunch saffron rule.
The latest slogan is that were Hindus to come to be divided, a Bangladesh-like calamity would descend upon them.
Be it noted that, barring some episodes of minority harassment by sectarian vigilante groups after the change of regime there, no credible evidence of any persecution of Hindus in that neighbouring country has come to the fore. To its credit, the new regime remains as committed to the protection of the Hindu and other minorities as was the Hasina regime.
More recently, as our current season of election campaigns proceeds, the honourable Narendra Modi has in person voiced the fear that a ‘vote jihad’ has been unleashed by the godless opposition against the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party.
One must of course marvel at the ingenuity with which, ceaselessly, the right-wing generates an unrelenting and an unmistakable dog-whistle discourse.
Not for a second does the ruling rightwing ask itself why it is that if Muslims voted zestfully for the BJP during the Vajpayee regime (1999-2004), they have been unwilling to do so during the Modi regime’s second tenure especially.
The official project is to convey to hoipolloi that in not voting for the Modi-led BJP, Muslims have proved themselves to be anti-national threats both to Sanatan Dharma and the ordained theocracy it seeks to install for the good of Bharat.
If the much touted slogan used to be ‘sab ka saath, sab ka vikas, sab ka vishwas (that the Modi government means to carry all citizens with it, labour for every Indian’s progress, seek every citizens’ trust),’ a noted satrap in West Bengal was to holler forthrightly that it is time the BJP stood only for those who stand for it – ‘jis ka saath, uss ka vikas.’
These unlovely considerations lead but to one unlovely conclusion: we can hug the constitution as much as we want, the powers-that-be have already and with gusto changed it without actually changing it.
And with no demur from any quarter that matters barring an irritatingly persistent Rahul Gandhi.
This is truly a historic achievement.
Day by uncontested day, the liberal contract that had once informed the freedom movement and the creation of our constitution stands mortally eroded.
It would be foolhardy to prognosticate that the occurrence is a passing one.
Even if a truly secular dispensation were to come to power in 2029, it is much to be doubted that the transformation our state and vast sections of the polity have been subjected to would be wholly reversible.
Given what depredations are continuously wrought on our school education, college syllabi, and institutional recruitments, the generation to come may find itself as much a stranger to our history prior to the Modi era as cheese is to chalk.
So, we can continue to hold our constitution sacred like other sacred books, and disregard its pronouncements as we disregard our best scriptural teachings as well.
Majoritarianism is an admission of weakness which needs an ‘other’ to assert itself and feel superior to gain confidence.
The nation is not at peace. News of violence and protests have become routine. The result is diversion of the nation’s energies from tackling urgent long term national and international challenges that are piling up with implications for national well-being.
Internal strife reduces the capacity to tackle the challenges. Globally, challenges of environment and climate change, geo-political tensions and wars and rapid technological changes need to be addressed. Nationally, there is communal and caste strife, growing inequality and unemployment, persisting poverty, challenges to federalism, etc.
Lessons from colonisation
Hind Swaraj, written by Mahatma Gandhi in 1908, has lessons to offer in this regard. It not only presented a plan for India’s independence but a blueprint for the nation’s future. Why did the nation get colonised?
It answers, ‘The English have not taken India; we have given it to them”. Further, “…we encouraged them. When our Princes fought among themselves they sought assistance of Company Bahadur.” It adds, “We further strengthen their hold by quarrelling amongst ourselves.” On the divide between Hindus and Muslims, it says, “These thoughts are put into our minds by selfish and false religious teachers.”
Gandhi pointed out that the English practiced “divide and rule” and succeeded because the princes and the people were disunited. So, Indians themselves have to accept blame for their colonisation. This has relevance in the present situation of growing internal strife because of the use of the divide and rule policy by the present day rulers. But to what end?
The English colonised India to enrich themselves. They undermined the Indian economy so as to capture markets for their industry. Their rule resulted in India’s deindustrialisation and the deterioration in the socio-economic conditions. When they departed, there was wide spread illiteracy, poor health infrastructure, low life expectancy, etc.
Divide and rule was used to thwart Indians from rising against their unjust and pauperising rule. It is the national movement that united large sections of Indians.
Clearly, the lesson was that outside powers take advantage of a divided nation to gain at its expense. Further, the divisions are used to divert people’s attention from the real issues. These lessons from colonisation need to be taken note of by the current rulers.
Divide and rule results in growing instability
Divide and rule in a formally democratic system, results in growing social, political and economic instability. Conflict among the groups grows, making it difficult to arrive at a consensus on national policies. Those in power, corner the gains for their groups. So, capturing power becomes an end in itself and that leads to growing conflict and partisanship.
Since independence, India has followed “trickle down” policies so as to quickly achieve western modernity. This was the ruling elite’s self-serving policy which was accepted by the rest in good faith. But, with little trickle down over time, the people at the margins have lost faith in the developmental policies of the rulers.
Today, every caste and community group wants to capture power to benefit their people. This accentuates the national divide with people voting for their own community leaders while distrusting national leadership. People have lost faith in any long term promises of national development and demand immediate tangible gains.
So, political parties are competing with each other in offering immediate lucrative benefits. As the long-term perspective gets diluted, instabilities get aggravated and problems grow.
This is an ideal situation for vested interests to capture power via financing of political parties and their leaders. Democracy is becoming more and more formalistic with voting not leading to representation of people’s interest. Huge sums of money are used to contest elections and stay in power.
The money spent is largely illegal and provided by businesses and the corrupt who expect a quid pro quo. So, on attaining power, the ruling dispensations serve the interest of those financing them and their politics, no matter what the electoral rhetoric. This is cronyism and it has grown in scale.
The net result is that the economic gains are cornered by the vested interests leaving little for the marginalised – this is a variant of colonisation which Gandhi referred to.
Majoritarianism is an admission of weakness
Currently, divide and rule is being used to promote a divide between the majority and the minorities. Is the goal to energise the former to overcome its inferiority complex and regain its confidence that it lost during colonisation? Will it strengthen the nation in spite of the growing conflict between the communities? Will it raise India’s standing in the world?
Actually, majoritarianism is an admission of weakness which needs an ‘other’ to assert itself and feel superior to gain confidence. Unfortunately, conflict adds to the nation’s problems and weakens it, rather than strengthening it. This is what Gandhi enunciated. Majoritarianism depends on assertion and not reason. It sees any critique as an attack on itself and counter attacks that aggravates the conflict leading to greater instability.
Narrowing of perspective results in policy induced crisis
The impact of rising instabilities and cronyism weakens the investment climate for private investment which is 75% of the total investment. The government has raised capital expenditure substantially hoping that would crowd in private investment. But, that has not transpired and the shortfall in private investment persists with adverse impact on growth and social welfare.
The narrowing of perspective has also led to policy induced crisis due to demonetisation, structurally faulty GST, sudden lockdown and pro big-business policies. These decisions have damaged the unorganised sectors which employ 94% of the workers. The capital intensive organised sector which generates few jobs has grown at the expense of the labour intensive unorganised sector, thereby curtailing employment generation. The result is growing unemployment, persistence of poverty and rising inequality.
To divert attention of the people from this highly iniquitous development strategy, divide and rule is used by accentuating divisive social and political issues. The sub-conscious fears of the public are aroused. This is far easier than filling the societal cracks that would enable harmonious existence.
Adverse impact on knowledge generation
Growing conflict in society results in rising social waste. People get diverted from productive endeavours. This impacts the critical task of generation of socially relevant knowledge – something the institutions of higher learning are to fulfill.
But, they have been also drawn into the arena of conflict which has setback to higher education and research and development. This has weakened technology development which is crucial to face the challenge of globalisation.
India’s dependence is visible in the import of not only strategic defence items but also in trade. India is the largest importer of armament. It depends on Russia for legacy defence equipment and on the western powers for advanced armament it has obtained in the last 20 years. This dependence prevents it from taking an independent line in the evolving geo-political alignments.
In trade, it has a whopping $85 billion deficit with China, an enemy. Many of its factories are dependent for their functioning on Chinese engineers.
The drawing of Indian institutions of higher learning into the arena of conflict and politics has led to the appointment of poor quality ideologically correct faculty. Further, the autonomy of these institutions has been curtailed so as to prevent them from critiquing the ruling party’s ideas and its strategy of divide and rule. Both these impact generation of new knowledge which crucially depends on critiquing existing ideas.
The result is a lowering of standards in Indian institutions of higher learning. The response to this decline has not been to set things right but invite foreign institutions to establish campuses in India. Assuming that they raise the standards of some institutions, they will bring their own context and not generate knowledge relevant to India.
This will also put paid to the present regime’s pet idea of ‘decolonising’ the Indian mind. Further, the foreign institutions will undermine the existing moribund Indian institutions. Finally, the new institutions will also need autonomy to generate new knowledge – something the present ruling establishment is not willing to grant and was trying to circumvent.
Increase in wasteful expenditure
Growing strife in India requires increased expenditures on law and order. At present India already has a much larger police force than the number of personnel during colonial rule. The courts are packed with cases which take years to resolve. Given these difficulties, people often resort to instant justice through illegal means. This undermines faith in justice, leads to corruption and in a vicious cycle, results in rising alienation. The result is a decline in faith in the leadership and that degrades their capacity to implement policies.
Foreign powers take advantage of these weaknesses and foment trouble to weaken the nation. This calls for increased expenditures on law and order machinery and on defence of the country. The rising social waste diverts resources from development and inadequate allocation for education, health, research and development, etc.
Social waste, together with weak policy implementation makes it appear as if the nation’s problems are due to shortage of resources and foreign resources are needed. Prior to 1991, India depended on foreign aid and after that it is seeking capital flows from global markets. In the markets, there is competition for capital, so, concessions have to be offered.
This further reduces resource availability in the country and makes the nation more dependent on capital from big business and MNCs. Countries and markets are governed by the institutions of global governance, such as the World Bank and the IMF. They represent the interests of MNC capital and to further its interest, they impose cross-conditionalities. This amounts to truncation of sovereignty since policies get determined more by foreign interests than the needs of the Indian public.
Gandhi’s idea can be reformulated in the current neo-colonial phase as “foreigners have not captured policy making; we have ceded control to them.” This is a result of our rulers weakening the nation by practicing “divide and rule” through accentuation of the divides.
Arun Kumar is retired professor of economics, JNU.
