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.

The Paradox of India Mourning a Billionaire

The reverence for Tata after his death is rooted in a yearning for an era when aspirations felt innocent, before they became entangled with the anxieties of modern consumerism.

You can’t afford to be rich and nice unless you’re Ratan Tata. In today’s digitised world, you can get away with repugnant opulence, the disavowal of work-life balance, or even mass termination. People might repost a news clipping exposing your despicability, or carp on about how you’ve looted, displaced, and made the land that remains deliberately unliveable – but no one is going to buy any less of what you sell. There is just one caveat: your death will not be met with a woebegone public. You’re no Tata.

Tata’s death necessitated the moral court of the media landscape to seal any incriminating records. After all, what has he done, the still enamoured public might ask. He loves dogs, he does charity – Tata Trusts has already clarified they couldn’t care less about the write-off that might accompany this charity – and is all-in-all a sweet old man. How can you be mad at him, especially after his death?

After The Savala Vada, a satire news account on Instagram, posted a carousel of pastiche news headlines announcing Tata’s death, it was met with a flood of comments about how their choice of timing was ‘poor’. The (faux) headlines were squibs:

Humble Billionaire Passes Away in Country Where 60% Live Under ₹260 (sic) A Day”,

“Ratan Tata Passes Due To Natural Causes Unlike His Workers”, and

“National Icon, Billionaire, Genocide Enabler Dies”.

After a few days, the “editorial board” of The Savala Vada issued another missive. A chicanery, if you will: a statement that resembles the kind that companies like Tata’s are used to typing out after a disgruntled individual admonishes them. The statement launches into a series of allegations against Tata, linking his companies to everything from exploiting tribal lands and using child labour to collaborating with oppressive regimes, concluding with an insincere apology and a quote from Douglas Adams, a writer known for his humorous science fiction.

The Savala Vada’s target was uncritical hero worship, which has the penchant to lodge individuals like Ratan Tata onto a pedestal. The frenzied reaction to even suggesting that possibility is not only symptomatic of the fact that Tata has a brilliant PR team, who have clearly cultivated an atmosphere where dissent is rare, but also that his death is perhaps the perfect time for remonstration, as the increased attention on Tata now offers an opportunity for criticism to reach a wider audience. When most newspapers bundle up sentences for an editorial on how India has lost a visionary, it failed to account for a basic principle of journalism: nothing is one-sided. The question, then, should be what this tells us about Tata, and subsequently, what the reaction to his death signifies. More pressingly, what does it tell us about this country?

In the eyes of the fawning masses, Tata embodied two supposedly contradictory forces. One was the garb of a middle-class individual – humble, unassuming, marked by a genuine desire to improve things in the country. One could run into Tata anywhere and not notice him. He was just an ordinary man, an aam aadmi who even needed to borrow money for a phone call sometimes.  His mystique was his humility, which starkly contrasted with his unimaginable wealth and separation from the rough and tumble of ordinary life. The rich are supposed to be arrogant precisely because they are so distant from us. Tata, however, was one of us, and that was cause for both perplexity and admiration.

Perhaps this is not as big a contradiction as it seems. Just running through a list of things that Tata’s vast industrial machinery manufactured – from lorries to watches, salt to internet, steel and even educational and charitable institutions – Tata’s industries slip into and fill every crack in our third-world life, injecting a dose of reliability into our creaking infrastructure. He had to be ordinary so that he could inconspicuously insinuate himself into every aspect of our lives. At the same time, his image played a function more important than just normalisation: to limit aspiration. That is why Tata remained very different from our other billionaires. How could one aspire to be like Tata when he lived in a two-bedroom flat, wore ready-made clothes, and looked just like a regular uncle one runs into on the street? If one was middle-class in India – which is already to say that one was in the top 3% – that was already your life. What could be emulated were his stolidly middle-class virtues of humility, thrift, national interest, but not his desire, which, though perhaps unexpressed, in any case, was never manifest. What the middle-class Indian wanted to emulate was this lack of desire, this seemingly magnificent disinterestedness.

Death is a moment of reckoning. It is when someone dies that their existence is bombarded with the overwhelming recognition that they were important; Tata didn’t need death for that. Words like “humble”,“generous”, and “kind” chaperoned any news that spoke of him. He wasn’t thought of as a businessman, but an industrialist, and while the etymological difference is only a matter of scale, culturally, the distinction is less tenuous. Ambani is a businessman, and even though he is technically not part of the nouveau riche, he has the accoutrements of one: Antilla, a 27-storey skyscraper with a multi-level car parking facility that can accommodate around 168 cars, not to mention the grandiosity of the recent family wedding, replete with the assurance of never running out of wealth. Adani and Modi are a fraternity, so he also doesn’t get many brownie points with the liberal middle-class. Tata’s appearances alongside Modi are overlooked, as is the reason he’s able to donate so extensively to charity.

When faced with this reckoning, the middle-class Indian is stirred up. He then offers the only remaining counterpoint in his arsenal: the creation of jobs, the sustenance of an economy. Even if they might be unethical, shouldn’t we be thankful to these billionaires for that? These jobs allow us to buy things that make us who we are, insist these businesses, and the Indian middle class sings along.

Also read: Consumption Data Shows the Indian Middle-Class Is Shrinking

Post-liberalisation, the Indian consumer has become much more discerning and demanding, tricked into believing their carefully cultivated tastes are unique expressions of their personality, rather than the product of external forces. If you’ve ever stepped foot into a Zudio – a chain of fashion retail stores that is part of the Tata Group – you know how mind-bogglingly affordable those trending clothes are. The bargain basement’s ubiquity democratises fast fashion to the point of near-uniformity. At your next gathering, you’re almost guaranteed to spot a familiar face sporting the same outfit, a shared costume for our subtly dystopian present.

Luxury goods like expensive watches, diamond rings, and fancy vacations in the Seychelles or Maldives are now aspirational realities, tangible signs of a desired lifestyle that transcends mere basic necessities, rather than far-off distant dreams. This transformation of the Indian consuming class has had incredible effects on the distribution of labour in the economy, with a vast and underpaid service class labouring invisibly to maintain the comfortable first world illusion of certain pockets of society. Yet that has also led to the percolation of aspiration downwards, even if the way up has been effectively blocked by a lack of means, leaving many scrambling to acquire status symbols through precarious debt and readily available “easy payment” schemes in a world engineered to fuel such desires.

When it was released, everyone wanted the 1983 Maruti Suzuki 800, but few wanted a 2009 TATA Nano. Tata products, once symbols of aspiration, now represent the budget option, the bottom of the barrel. The Nano, a poor man’s aspiration, and the rest of Tata’s offerings cater to a romanticised past, a simpler time of cheaper goods and uncomplicated desires. The reverence for Tata after his death is rooted in this nostalgia, a yearning for an era when aspirations felt innocent, before they became entangled with the anxieties of modern consumerism. It’s a wake-up call that makes this millennial generation realise that they have been moulded into desiring subjects who unfortunately can never realise their desires. It is this tension, which one can find reflected in the various reactions to his passing away. In the end, the loyalty to Tata wins out for the Indian middle-class, over all other considerations. That shouldn’t be surprising. After all, as the idiom goes, hum sab ne Tata ka namak khaya hai.

Diya Isha is an editor. 

Huzaifa Omair Siddiqi teaches English at Ashoka University.

 

Figuring Out What God Thinks of Me – With a Little Help From the PM and the CJI

We can’t all be special because then the concept would lose all meaning. But the Chief Justice of India and the Prime Minister have done us a favour by encouraging each of us to ask: ‘What if I am?’

Perhaps because my birthday is approaching or maybe because I’ve been influenced by the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of India, I have begun to wonder what God thinks of me. I know what my friends think and, sadly, my critics don’t hide what they feel. But does God like me? Does he think I talk too much? Does he frown or wince when I interrupt? Indeed, is he pleased with the product he’s created? I rather like what he’s crafted. But does he? Or is he dismayed by the end result?

Much like the Chief Justice, I’ve prayed for favours and God has granted them. In my teens and twenties I’d do a deal with him – what is politely referred to as a mannat. I’d offer to give up sweets or alcohol or, even, stop telling lies if, in return, he’d guarantee a first at Senior Cambridge or a college honour I desperately sought. To be safe, I’d wait for him to deliver first. When he did – and to my delight it wasn’t that infrequently – I’d meticulously keep my side of the bargain.

Was that a sign of God’s favour? I don’t know but I’d hate to hear it wasn’t. I wish I could ask the Chief Justice. I’m sure he’d know. After all, he’s been a beneficiary too.

Of one thing I’m sure, I’m definitely my parents’ child. Mummy produced me. But both of them thought of me as a gift from God. My sisters felt they made that a little too obvious! At school my teachers strived ceaselessly to eradicate the thought. I don’t think they succeeded. Now, does that mean there’s something unique about my birth? Could I be the result of a special delivery? Not a Caesarean section but something created by more ethereal hands?

This time I’d value the Prime Minister’s advice. I feel he’d have the answer. He believes he was chosen, therefore, he’d know for sure if that’s also true of me.

Meanwhile I stare deep into the mirror each morning when I brush my teeth. Sometimes I feel I can see in the reflection a sign that someone is looking back at me. Am I being delusional? Or am I seeing things others cannot? Those eyes that are observing me can’t be mine. That half smile seems to know something I don’t. What are they telling me? Are they laughing? Mocking? Or are they admiring? And applauding? Lost in these thoughts I can brush my teeth forever!

Here again, I’d value a chat with the Chief Justice and Prime Minister. They’re clearly men of another world. They must have had similar experiences. They’d know how to interpret mine.

Alas, I don’t know how to approach them. You can’t just knock on their door and ask if they’d spare a moment to tell you if you’re special. Yet if I did I’m sure they’d have the answer. As Mummy used to say, it takes a special person to recognize another

But the blame for my predicament is surely theirs. They were the first to tell the world they were special. They did so frankly, boldly and publicly. It planted in my head the idea that might also be true of me. Until they declared they were different to normal people it had never occurred to me I might be too.

In fact, have you asked yourself if this could also be true of you? Why would God only make two or three special people? What if there were more? And, if there are, how do you know you’re not one of them?

Of course, we can’t all be special because then the concept would lose all meaning. But the Chief Justice and Prime Minister have done us a favour by encouraging each of us to ask: what if I am? If they can be, why can’t you and I?

Karan Thapar is a veteran journalist and interviewer. For The Wire, he hosts the show The Interview

The Modi-Shah Game in Kashmir Is to Split Opposition Vote and Pave Way for BJP to Form Government

The only way for the NC-Congress alliance to ensure the government of Kashmir remains in Kashmiri hands is to approach every small party and candidate and assure them that, no matter who wins in the most seats in Kashmir, all of them will become a part of the next government.

Kashmir has one chance to win back the autonomy that it had enjoyed under Article 370 of the constitution. With the first phase of voting for the assembly polls over, it is apparent that its main political parties are throwing this chance away. The Bharatiya Janata Party strategists have known from the very beginning, that  they will not get a single seat in Kashmir, and that solid support for the party exists only in a part of Jammu. As a result, it does not have the faintest chance of winning an absolute majority of the Union Territory’s 90 assembly seats. Kashmiris therefore have a real chance – possibly their last – of winning back the autonomy they lost after Modi read down Article 370.

Narendra Modi and Amit Shah are fully aware of this. That is why, from the very beginning, their aim has been to break the Kashmiri vote into pieces, use the BJP’s almost guaranteed 25-seat block of seats in Jammu to emerge as the largest single party, and claim the right to form the government of Jammu and Kashmir. Once the BJP has secured that right, it will seduce, buy, or coerce a sufficient number of independents and smaller parties in Kashmir, using the Public Safety Act, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and a host of ancillary laws, to seduce or compel  a sufficient number successful individuals and small parties to  join it, till it has a majority in the J&K assembly. 

If the BJP succeeds, it will have five full years to destroy Kashmiriyat – that unique, syncretic blend of Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism, that Sheikh Abdullah and the Maharaja had been determined to protect when they refused to accede to Pakistan but asked for the safeguards (eventually provided by Article 370 of the constitution) prior to signing the Instrument of Accession to India in 1947. 

When, realising their folly, Kashmiris begin to rebel against their subjugation once more, Delhi’s crushing response will reignite armed militancy in the valley and bring various ‘Lashkars’ sponsored by Pakistan back into J&K. Kashmir will then sink back once more into the hell in which it had existed from 1990 till former prime minister, the late Atal Bihari Vajpayee went to Srinagar in 2003, and held out a hand of reconciliation towards Pakistan, from that city.

The Kashmiri intelligentsia is fully aware of this, but has been made powerless to prevent it by the illiterate and irresponsible behaviour of Kashmir’s main parties, the Congress, and the National Conference. It should have been apparent to them from the moment the Supreme Court mandated a return to full statehood for Kashmir that if they wanted to protect J&K’s autonomy, they would have to fight the elections as a single coalition, with a single common platform – the release of all Kashmiris held without trial in jails all over India, and restoration of Kashmir’s cultural autonomy, i.e Kashmiriyat.

Also read: The NC and the Congress’s Hubris Has Put Them – and All of Kashmir – in a Risky Place

This required the NC and Congress to join hands with the People’s Democratic Party. Mehbooba Mufti, leader of the PDP, understood this from the very beginning but the Congress and the NC did not, and still have not understood the need for doing so. Indeed, the NC has continued to make her a major target of attack in Kashmir. 

As for the Congress, Rahul Gandhi’s preference for being in the United States to lecture the Indian diaspora for 10 crucial days from the September 7-16 – after paying a single visit to a single constituency to campaign for a single candidate in Kashmir – and his refusal to go back there while the BJP ensures, step by step, the fragmentation of the Kashmiri vote, speaks volumes for his political naiveté and lack of awareness of the role he needs to play. 

Neither of the Abdullahs has spoken out against the reign of terror that the BJP unleashed on Kashmir valley for four long months before it read down Article 370. Neither of them has protested against the prolonged imprisonment of every Kashmiri who has dared to speak out against the actions of the Delhi-imposed administration, during the president’s rule that followed.

Neither protested against the specious meaning that the Supreme Court attached to the word ‘temporary’ to vindicate the reading down of Article 370, when it had to have been was obvious to the judges that this referred only to the fact that it applied only to a part of the princely state of Kashmir that had acceded to India, and that the rest had still to be liberated from Pakistan’s illegal occupation.

It should have been apparent to them that the BJP, knowing that it could not win a single seat in Kashmir, would do its level best to split the Kashmiri vote into as many fragments as possible. It had already split the Peoples’ Conference by tempting, or coercing, assassinated leader Abdul Ghani Lone’s son Sajjad into joining them. It had also done this with businessman and former friend of Mufti Sayeed, Altaf Bukhari, by forcing him to choose between defection and jail.

Also read: Ahead of Polls, a Timeline of How Media Freedom Has Disappeared from Jammu and Kashmir

The pathetic performance of both Omar and Sajjad in the Baramulla Lok Sabha constituency – their combined vote did not even come close to that of Engineer Rashid – seems to have convinced the BJP’s strategists that releasing other Kashmiri radical leaders and allowing them to stand for election would split the Kashmiri vote into many more irreconcilable pieces, and severely dent the NC-Congress combine’s share of the vote.

The BJP coined this strategy only after witnessing the doubling of the number of votes cast in Baramulla, in comparison to 2014,  and the fact that virtually all of the increase went to Engineer Rashid. But even there, it hedged its bets by releasing Rashid only after the first round of nominations had been completed. By the time he came out of jail, Rashid was able to nominate only 12 candidates to fight the assembly elections, against the 18 assembly segments of the Baramulla Lok Sabha constituency where he had gained the largest number of votes.

This was a product of careful calculation. For if Rashid’s Awami Ittehad Party won all the 12, seats neither the Congress, nor the NC would  be able form a government without its support. But, recognising that incarceration has endowed political activists with the halo of martyrdom, the BJP’s strategists have decided to release more political dissidents from jail, in ones and twos from other  parties and religious affiliations to scatter the Kashmiri votes more widely and  prevent them from going to the Congress-NC alliance.

The only way for the Congress-NC alliance to ensure that the government of Kashmir remains in Kashmiri hands is to approach every small party and candidate and assure them, that no matter who wins in the most seats in Kashmir, all of them will become a part of the next government of the state.

This will not be as hard as it looks, for far more difficult reconciliations have taken place in other countries. The most striking was the Lebanese peace agreement signed in Doha in 2008. On that occasion, the Christian leader, Michel Aoun, parted company with his more die-hard co-religionists and the American-backed Lebanese Sunnis, and agreed to Hezbollah’s demand to make it a part of the Lebanese cabinet, in proportion to its vote. 

A similar, pre-election agreement between the three major parties, Rashid’s Awami Ittehad Party and the Jamaat-i-Islami would enable a stable government to be formed in Jammu and Kashmir once the results are in.

Prem Shankar Jha is a veteran journalist.

The Bengal Govt Claims Healthcare Has Been Hurt as Doctors Protest. This Rings Hollow

How can the mere absence of such trainee doctors create such havoc in the government healthcare system?

There has long been a trend of attributing catchy quotes to Mark Twain and this is just one of them: “There are three kinds of lies – lies, damned lies and statistics.”

Apparently Mark Twain himself attributed this one to the British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli.

No matter who said this first, the quote perfectly suits the arguments put forward by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on behalf of the Bengal government, during the recent court proceedings at the Supreme Court. In addition to being misleading, his statistics were wrong too.

What Sibal argued there, in essence, was that the cease-work by junior doctors in Bengal has created havoc in the state healthcare services. But how is that feasible? Out of hundreds of government healthcare centres – from health centres to rural hospitals and state general hospitals – only a few, approximately 26, are medical colleges and junior doctors (namely, interns, house-staff, post-graduate trainees, and senior residents) are posted in only those few medical colleges. In such institutions, junior doctors’ jobs, as trainees, is to assist the senior physicians in treating patients. So, how can the mere absence of such trainee doctors create such havoc in the government healthcare system?

Secondly, according to Sibal who represented the Bengal government, just because of this ongoing cease-work, six lakhs of poor patients were left unattended and untreated, approximately six and half lakhs of pathological tests were not done, more than 15,000 invasive cardiological procedures were postponed and so on. Where do these statistics come from?

Interestingly, the Bengal government said that more than 20 patients (23 or 24) died just because of this cease-work. Well, every death is unfortunate, but how did the government and Sibal confirm the reason behind these deaths?

As far as I know, the Bengal government did not submit any affidavit stating a list of names of the persons who died along with their causes of death. So we cannot check the veracity of this statement. A list of such names – provided , allegedly, by Swasthya Bhawan or the health department – were published in a newspaper which is closely linked with the ruling party. That list is startling. In that list of deaths caused by junior doctors, 40% of the patients had been in hospitals where junior doctors are not posted at all – let alone them ceasing work in protest. One death is marked as ‘died in an ambulance’. Is the implication therefore this, that junior doctors when working are meant to treat patients as their ambulance is in transit?

Now, a much simpler question arises. What were the Swasthya Bhavan authorities doing after having become aware of these deaths? As far as I know, Swasthya Bhavan authorities were in close connection with local authorities of all medical college hospitals during this period of cease-work. The hospitals had been confident that in spite of some problems due to shortage of manpower, services were largely running flawlessly. If that is true, and if so many persons died in spite of such assurances, then why did the Swasthya Bhavan authorities not issue show-cause notices to those medical college authorities – since such deaths reflect lack of service, even negligence? Were they simply counting the number of deaths so that they could submit an impressive number to the Supreme Court?

There was, however, one death that we all know of. That of the raped trainee doctor, while she was on duty at a government medical college. These lies and statistics are perhaps intended to hide this death.

The people of Bengal know the truth – and most of them are on the road demanding justice.

Bishan Basu is an oncologist in the West Bengal Health Services. Views are personal.