THE HINDU IMPORTANT EDITORIALS OF AUGUST · achievers ias academy +91 8880120120,...

ACHIEVERS IAS ACADEMY

WWW.ACHIEVERIASCLASSES.COM +91 8880120120, [email protected] #1360, 2ND FLOOR, 100 FEET ROAD, 9TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560069

1

THE HINDU IMPORTANT EDITORIALS OF AUGUST – 2019

01-AUGUST-2019

IN HATE CRIME FIGHT, A VOICE STILL FEEBLE Taking the cue from the U.S., the Indian Parliament needs to recognise hate killings as an act of

terror

At a time when India is reeling under hate lynching, it is sobering to remember that it took the United States

Senate 100 years to approve a bill to make lynching a federal crime. Over 200 anti-lynching bills were

introduced in the U.S. Congress since 1918, but all were voted down until the Justice for Victims of Lynching

Act of 2018 introduced by three Senators of African-American descent including Kamala Harris was approved

unanimously in the winter of 2018.

The U.S. bill describes lynching as “the ultimate expression of racism in the United States”. Senator Cory Booker

said the bill recognised lynching for what it is: “a bias-motivated act of terror”. When will Parliament here

recognise, similarly, that lynching is “a bias-motivated act of terror” and “the ultimate expression of communal

hatred in India”?

Tool of fear

Some may dispute this description, citing the relatively small numbers of such mob crimes. They miss the point

that hate lynching is designed as an act to terrorise an entire community. The number of lynch murders in the

U.S. mentioned in the bill averages around 55 annually, but despite these small numbers, these performative

acts of violence succeeded in instilling intense fear among all African-Americans for decades.

The same purpose is being served by lynching in India; again performative acts of hate violence, but now using

modern technology, video-graphing of mob lynching, widely circulating these images through social media, and

celebrating these as acts of nationalist valour. These have similarly instilled a pervasive sense of everyday

normalised fear in the hearts of every Indian from the targeted minority community. It is this which indeed

makes lynching an ultimate act of terror.

The Supreme Court of India recently asked the Union government and all the major States to explain what

action has been taken to prevent these growing incidents of lynching, including passing a special law to instil a

sense of fear for law amongst vigilantes and mobsters. Kunwar Danish Ali, a first term Bahujan Samaj Party MP

from Amroha, raised the same question in Parliament, describing mob lynching as “an assault on democracy”.

His inquiry was met with noisy disruptions, but he got no answer.

http://www.achieveriasclasses.com/

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.thehindu.com/tag/1415-1349/parliament/?utm=bodytag



2

Significant statutes

The Uttar Pradesh Law Commission (UPLC) earlier last month took the initiative, unprompted by the Uttar

Pradesh government, to recommend a draft anti-lynching law. It commends a law which closely follows in

almost every major detail the first law against lynching passed in this country, a remarkable ordinance

introduced by the Manipur government late last year, indeed the most significant statute against religious hate

crimes in the country.

A noteworthy observation in the text of the United States bill is that it records that at least 4,742 people were

lynched in the U.S. between 1882 and 1968, but 99% of all perpetrators remain unpunished. It is significant to

remember that the first anti-lynching legislation proposed as far back as in 1918 in the U.S. targeted state

officials for failing to provide equal protection under the laws to anyone victimised by a mob. Impunity

characterises lynching in India as well. Addressing this squarely, both the Manipur statute and the UPLC draft

create a new crime of dereliction of duty by police officials, holding a police officer guilty of this crime if he or

she “omits to exercise lawful authority vested in them under law, without reasonable cause, and thereby fails

to prevent lynching”. Dereliction also includes the failure to provide protection to a victim of lynching; failure

to act upon apprehended lynching; and refusing to record any information relating to the commission of

lynching. This crime carries the penalty of one to three years and a fine. The UPLC goes further to include also

a new crime of dereliction of duty by District Magistrates.

The creation of this new crime was also the key recommendation of the Prevention of Communal & Targeted

Violence (Access to Justice and Reparations) Bill, proposed by the National Advisory Council of the erstwhile

United Progressive Alliance government (full disclosure: Farah Naqvi and I were co-convenors of the working

group which drafted this proposed bill, which however was never even introduced in Parliament). We were

convinced that it is only the creation of such a crime that will compel public officials to perform their duty with

fairness, in conformity with their constitutional and legal duties, to ensure equal protection to all persons,

regardless of their faith and caste.

Some recommendations

Both the Manipur law and UPLC recommendations also lay down elaborate duties of police officials in the event

of lynching. These include taking all reasonable steps to prevent any act of lynching including its incitement

and commission; to that end making all possible efforts to identify instances of dissemination of offensive

material or any other means employed in order to incite or promote lynching of a particular person or group

of persons; and making all possible efforts to prevent the creation of a hostile environment against a person or

group of persons.



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/217-81/uttar-pradesh/?utm=bodytag

https://www.thehindu.com/tag/629-600/laws/?utm=bodytag



3

Both sensitively and expansively lay down official duties to protect victims and witnesses. They state that a

victim shall have the right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any court proceeding and shall be

entitled to be heard at any proceeding in respect of bail, discharge, release, parole, conviction or sentence of

an accused, and to file written submissions on conviction, acquittal or sentencing. They also explicitly require

the Superintendent of Police to inform the victim in writing of the progress in the investigation. The victim shall

have the right to receive a copy of any statement of the witness recorded during investigation or inquiry and a

copy of all statements and documents.

Where the UPLC goes further than the Manipur statute is in laying down the right to compensation. It places

the duty squarely on the Chief Secretary to provide compensation to victims of lynching within 30 days of the

incident. It states that while computing compensation, the State government must give due regard to bodily,

psychological and material injuries and loss of earnings, including loss of opportunity of employment and

education, expenses incurred on account of legal and medical assistance. It also lays down a floor of ₹25 lakh

in case lynching causes death.

The Congress government of Madhya Pradesh has announced its resolve to pass legal provisions against

lynching. It chooses curiously to not do this by an anti-lynching law, but instead by amendments to the Madhya

Pradesh Cow Progeny Slaughter Prevention Act 2004 (which would effectively limit its scope only to cow-

related lynching, and not lynching triggered by other charges).

Its proposed amendments do not include any provisions to punish dereliction of duty, protect victim rights or

secure compensation. All that it proposes is punishment for any act by a mob which indulges in violence in the

name of cow vigilantism from six months to three years of imprisonment and a fine. It is unclear what

deterrence such amendments would instil, since existing laws contain much greater punishments for murder

and aggravated attacks. In its present form, it appears a weak, half-hearted and poorly thought-out measure.

The Ashok Gehlot-led government in Rajasthan has also tabled an anti-lynching bill. This prescribes higher

punishments, investigation by senior police officers, and mandatory compensation but not the critical elements

of dereliction of duty or victim rights. Without these, they will make little difference on the ground.

Home Minister Amit Shah now heads a committee to propose action against lynching. The question remains:

do we expect Mr. Shah, or indeed Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to propose a law against

lynching which punishes public officials who fail in their duties, protects victims and witnesses, and ensures

comprehensive reparation, as proposed by the UPLC and provided in the Manipur statute?

“Someone is finally recognising our pain,” said the great-granddaughter of Anthony Crawford, an African

American, who was lynched in 1916. I wonder how long survivors of lynching who lost their loved ones to

merciless mob hate in India will have to wait for a government which will recognise their pain.



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/195-81/rajasthan/?utm=bodytag



4

02-AUGUST-2019

IS BANNING CRYPTOCURRENCIES THE SOLUTION? A blanket ban will push the currency into the black market and stifle innovation Recently, a government panel headed by senior bureaucrat Subhash Chandra Garg placed in the public domain

a draft bill calling for a complete ban on private cryptocurrencies in India. The panel recommended a fine of up

to ₹25 crore and a jail term of up to 10 years for anyone found to be owning or handling private

cryptocurrencies. As an alternative to private cryptocurrencies, the panel recommended the introduction of a

single cryptocurrency for the whole country that is backed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). Parag Waknis

and Anil Antony examine the soundness of the panel’s recommendations in a conversation moderated

by Prashant Perumal. Edited excerpts:

What do you think about the Garg panel’s overall guidelines? The volatility of private cryptocurrencies is one

of the reasons being given to ban them.

Parag Waknis: Volatility doesn’t sound like a good rationale to ban cryptocurrencies because if cryptocurrencies

are volatile, so are many other asset classes. We do not ban investments in any other asset class just because

it is volatile. The decision of whether to invest in an asset or not should be left to the investor. The risk return

calculation should be done by the investor, not the government.

Also, banning the consumption of a good or service doesn’t really mean that people will stop consuming it. The

market for the good or service simply goes underground and becomes hard to track. The market continues to

exist, but the government cannot track it or tax it to gain revenue. This applies to cryptocurrencies as well.

It is true that the price of cryptocurrencies, especially bitcoin, has been volatile. And that’s primarily because

of their design. Bitcoin, for example, is designed in such a way that its supply rises rapidly first, but later very

slowly, before stopping at a certain point.

You said that banning a currency would push it into the black market. That would also make it much harder

for the government to regulate it, right?

PW: Yes, exactly. In most cases, if the government feels that there is enough rationale to regulate the

consumption of a commodity or a service or investments in a crypto asset, the best way forward is to come up

with a regulatory framework that has incentives set right for the users. Maybe you can have a tax on capital

gains from investing in crypto assets, just like you have taxes on investments in other assets.

The Garg panel, while being opposed to the idea of private cryptocurrencies, still seems to be a fan of the

blockchain technology. It has called for a national cryptocurrency backed by the RBI, which would probably be

based on the blockchain.

Anil Antony: The Garg panel opposing cryptocurrencies seems like yet another case of a group of people not

really understanding a concept and hence trying to ban it. Most people equate cryptocurrencies with





5

blockchain, but there is a huge difference between them. The cryptocurrency is just one application of the

underlying blockchain technology. The blockchain technology has a lot more potential beyond

cryptocurrencies.

An issue raised against cryptocurrencies is that they aren’t really backed by an underlying commodity or a

sovereign government. But do you think it’s absolutely essential that a currency needs to be backed by a

commodity or an institution for it to be widely accepted in the market?

PW: No. The way we define money is that it is a generally accepted medium of exchange. So, it’s just trust that

basically drives the value of money. There is nothing to back it, except trust. When two strangers have no other

way of transacting with each other, when there’s no way they can verify the creditworthiness of each other,

money helps. That’s all that we basically need. We need trust for that.

Now, what does a crypto asset or a cryptocurrency offer? It is right that it is not backed by anything. But it

doesn’t really require any backing in the sense that, as long as people hold the expectation that a particular

asset will have value, it is sufficient.

So is it the value that people think the currency will possess in the future that really drives its value?

PW: Exactly. Yes. Cryptocurrencies allow people to conduct anonymous transactions. The price of bitcoin, for

example, is driven by the access to the anonymity that it offers its users. People may also want to keep their

wealth in some asset that gains in value over a period of time. So that is the worth or the “right” that people

are paying for when they’re buying cryptocurrencies.

There are also cases where fiat money has retained value even when the bank has ceased to exist. For example,

in Somalia, the central bank and all the concerned institutions had ceased to work at some point. But people

still continued to value the Somalian currency. So there was no backing at all for the currency, but people still

believed that it had value and they continued to use the currency in transactions. So the strength of a particular

asset boils down to what people think about it.

When talking about anonymity, the common objection to cryptocurrencies is that they can be used to finance

various criminal activities. So, do we require government regulations to prevent their misuse, or are there

other market mechanisms to deal with the problem?

PW: I have done some research linked to this using money search models, where there is a set of competing

monies, which could also be cryptocurrencies, and I basically show that there is a certain equilibrium where

competing suppliers of cryptocurrencies would behave in a disciplined way. Theoretically, cryptocurrency

providers could issue an unlimited amount of their money. But they’re competing against each other, so the

competition forces them to restrict their supply to a minimal amount that would help maintain the value of

their currency. Thus the discipline imposed by market competition can prevent cryptocurrency providers from





6

overissuing their currencies. We can also think about discipline in terms of reputation effects. For example, if

there is a paper currency, and it turns out that it can be used to finance, let’s say, crime, terrorism, or anything

similar, there is the reputation of the supplier at stake.

So there are some ways by which the market can discipline cryptocurrencies. But I think regulation, in terms of

having the right rewards and punishments in place, would help. Not actions like banning stuff.

AA: Just to add to this... right now, one of the most comprehensive sets of regulations surrounding this debate

on cryptocurrencies being used for various nefarious activities is being discussed across the world. It is one of

the biggest concerns everywhere. One of the most comprehensive sets of regulations for cryptocurrencies is

being brought in by the European Union. The EU is putting in a bunch of regulations to tackle money laundering,

and it is called the AMLD-5. It is a bunch of norms to make crypto transactions more secure. It has a lot of very

stringent KYC regulations and self-declaration laws which every holder of a crypto wallet or user needs to

adhere to. Crypto exchanges are all expected to maintain a database that is transparently shared between

countries. It is not foolproof, but the EU has started creating a bunch of regulations that could become stronger

over time. This could be the best way to go forward rather than putting a blanket ban on cryptocurrencies,

because the presence of cryptocurrencies is very important for the further development of the blockchain.

When you impose a blanket ban on private currencies, thus effectively nationalising the market for

cryptocurrencies, what exactly are the implications for innovation?

AA: In 2018, in the Silicon Valley alone, almost $2.9 billion worth of private venture funds have gone into

blockchain start-ups. In tech hubs across the world, we are seeing billions pumped into the blockchain

technology. In this scenario, if we decide to put a blanket ban on all cryptocurrencies, then our technology

entrepreneurs will suddenly lose the incentive to work in the sector. You simply can’t just build blockchain

applications out of thin air. Right now, currencies are the only viable practical application of the blockchain

technology even though it can be extrapolated to a lot of other sectors. So, for the sake of innovation, I think

even if the government is bringing in a state-backed currency, it will be better if the other currencies are also

allowed to operate with sufficient regulations.

Also, when we are speaking about a country like India, in terms of size, cryptocurrencies constitute a very, very

minor share of the total amount of money that is already being used to carry out various activities in the black

economy. But the potential rewards that could come out of the blockchain technology are big.

If cryptocurrencies form such a minuscule part of the black economy, why are policymakers so concerned

about cryptocurrencies being used to finance criminal activities?





7

AA: I would say nobody really expected cryptocurrencies to become such a big factor in such a short period of

time. Right now, the global market capitalisation of cryptocurrencies is almost $120 billion. And that’s just the

tip of the iceberg, it could get way bigger over time.

What impact will cryptocurrencies have on the central bank’s control over monetary policy? Is there a good

case for a national cryptocurrency issued by the central bank, as proposed by the Garg Panel?

PW: People will move to alternative assets and seek more anonymity only if they lose trust in government

institutions. So, as long as the trust is maintained, monetary policy doesn’t face any particular threat from

cryptocurrencies.

When it comes to a central bank-issued digital currency, there is a loose consensus, especially among monetary

economists from the New Monetary School, that there is no case for governments issuing cryptocurrencies

because it would create a lot of problems in the form of contradictions in existing regulations and the

government will have to deal with severe mismatches in regulations. Secondly, there are reputation effects. A

digital currency issued by the RBI that gets misused by criminals can affect trust in the existing fiat currency

protocol. I don’t think a central bank would want to take that risk.

03-AUGUST-2019

AT A CROSSROADS: ON MOTOR VEHICLES ACT India’s transport sector needs reform; changes to the Motor Vehicles Act are a start

India’s Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has remained in hibernation, unable to meet the needs of a large economy

that is witnessing rising travel demand, fast-paced motorisation, major shifts in technology and deteriorating

road safety. The amendments to the Act voted by Parliament seek to address some of these challenges, notably

in forming a National Transportation Policy and a National Road Safety Board, providing for stiffer penalties for

violation of rules, and orderly operation of new-generation mobility services that use mobile phone

applications. Union Transport Minister Nitin Gadkari has countered the charge that the changes are anti-federal

in character — the proposed amendments were reviewed by 18 State Transport Ministers, and the Bill reflects

the modifications they suggested. Also, the Rajya Sabha introduced last-minute changes, making concurrence

of, rather than consultation with States necessary when issuing fresh schemes for national, multimodal, and

inter-State transport. This new provision also includes last mile connectivity, accessibility, mobility as a whole

and rural transport. There is a dire need for reform in these areas, and State governments have tended to

ignore these aspects. During the previous NDA government, Mr. Gadkari blamed obstruction by a ‘corrupt’

Regional Transport Office system for the delay in amending the MV Act. An amendment in the Rajya Sabha





8

allows for RTOs to visit dealerships to register vehicles. This is not much of a change over the practice of dealers

taking vehicles to RTO offices. The onus is on States to show that the purchaser will not have to pay a bribe.

Going forward, the Centre must deliver on its promise that the amended Act will help reduce dependence on

personal vehicles, and present its National Transport Policy without delay. States must be incentivised to

provide clean, comfortable and affordable services for all users, including people with disabilities. It is relevant

to point out that the National Urban Transport Policy of the UPA failed to achieve this. Mr. Gadkari’s emphasis

is on structural reform and an upgrade to subsidised electric buses for low-cost air-conditioned travel. But State

Transport Corporations must adopt modern management practices. New regulation can certainly shake up the

status quo, facilitating transparent investment by any intending operator and removing vested interests,

particularly in inter-State and multi-State coach services. But some of the other amendments are less

promising. A sharp increase in fines has little chance of improving safety. Studies show that sustained, zero

tolerance enforcement of even small fines reduces violations, while stringent penalties are either not enforced

or lead to more bribery.

05-AUGUST-2019

FREEING KULBHUSHAN: ON CONSULAR ACCESS Pakistan’s delay in giving full consular access reveals a non-serious attitude to ICJ order

Two weeks after the International Court of Justice at The Hague ruled in favour of India in the case of

Kulbhushan Jadhav, Pakistan has yet to take the first step towards implementing the order: providing him

“consular access”. In its verdict on July 17, the ICJ had decided near-unanimously that by not informing India

immediately of Mr. Jadhav’s arrest in 2017, by not informing him of his rights, and not allowing the Indian High

Commission to meet with him and arrange for his legal representation, Pakistan was in violation of the Vienna

convention on consular relations. Although Pakistan’s Foreign Ministry had offered a meeting between Mr.

Jadhav and the Indian High Commission in Islamabad on Friday afternoon, the offer came with conditions,

including CCTV cameras on proceedings, and a Pakistani official being in the room during the meeting. This was

a violation of the unimpeded consular access that the ICJ had ordered, and India decided to reject the offer

until Pakistan reconsiders its conditions. India’s concerns are three-fold. First, Pakistan’s delay in granting full

consular access displays a non-serious attitude to implementing a clear-cut order from the UN’s highest judicial

body. This augurs badly for Pakistan’s application of the rest of the ICJ order that calls for a full review of Mr.

Jadhav’s trial conviction and death sentence for terrorism and espionage charges. Most importantly, the nature

of the conditions indicates Pakistan wants to monitor what Mr. Jadhav tells Indian officials closely, as much of

their original case, as presented to the public, rested on his purported confession. If he shares adverse details





9

of coercion, the court may well go beyond its current order in the case, and India may have a stronger chance

of trying to have the trial overturned.

Islamabad must stop dragging its feet and creating unnecessary hurdles in providing what is a basic human

right for Mr. Jadhav, and New Delhi needs to keep its rhetoric low, while pressing its case for access to the

former naval officer, consistently and firmly. This will not be easy, as after some relative calm, shelling at the

Line of Control has opened up with a new fury in the last few days. The allegations by Pakistan that the Indian

Army is deploying cluster-munitions on civilian areas (firmly denied by the government), and the Army’s claim

that several Pakistani regulars and terrorists were killed in an infiltration attempt by a “Border Action Team”

(BAT) have ratcheted up tensions further. The government’s ham-handed reaction to the threats, of cancelling

the Amarnath Yatra, pulling out tourists and pilgrims and raising security levels in the valley further, have only

added to the narrative. It would indeed be a tragedy if the situation overshadows the fate of Mr. Jadhav, just

when hopes had been raised by the international court verdict to help secure his freedom.

06-AUGUST-2019

SCRAPPING J&K'S SPECIAL STATUS IS THE WRONG WAY TO AN END The special status of J&K was never meant to be permanent, but it should not have been

scrapped without wider consultations Jammu and Kashmir has been a theatre of muscular Hindutva nationalism, in the early decades in script and

since 2014 in performance. Adopting a highly militarist approach to separatism, and shunning political process

entirely since 2014, the BJP has now delivered on a promise it has long made, by abrogating the special status

that Jammu and Kashmir had enjoyed in the Constitution through a combination of executive and

parliamentary measures. Additionally, the State is being downgraded and divided into two Union Territories.

The mechanism that the government used to railroad its rigid ideological position on Jammu and Kashmir

through the Rajya Sabha was both hasty and stealthy. This move will strain India’s social fabric not only in its

impact on Jammu and Kashmir but also in the portents it holds for federalism, parliamentary democracy and

diversity. The BJP-led government has undermined parliamentary authority in multiple ways since 2014, but

the passing of legislation as far-reaching as dismembering a State without prior consultations has set a new

low. The founding fathers of the Republic favoured a strong Centre, but they were also prudent in seeking the

route of persuasion and accommodation towards linguistic and religious minorities in the interest of national

integration. The centralising tendencies increased in the following decades, but Hindu nationalists always

argued for stronger unitary provisions and viewed all particular aspirations with suspicion. For them, Jammu

and Kashmir’s special constitutional status was an impediment, not an instrument, for the region’s integration

with the rest of the country.

The entire exercise of getting Article 370 of the Constitution effectively abrogated has been marked by

executive excess. The first step was to declare by a presidential decree that the ‘Governor’ — without regard

to the fact that he has no Council of Ministers now to aid and advise him — can speak for the State government



https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/jk-loses-its-special-status-divided-into-two-uts/article28827159.ece


https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/explained-presidents-order-scraps-its-predecessor-and-amends-article-370/article28826722.ece



10

and give his concurrence to any modification in the way the Constitution of India applies to Jammu and Kashmir.

Second, on the basis of this ‘concurrence’, the latest Presidential Order scraps the previous one of 1954,

abrogating the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Third, the fact that the State is under President’s

Rule has been used to usher in a new dispensation under which Jammu and Kashmir becomes a Union

Territory with a legislature and Ladakh another such territory without a legislature. In sum, a purported

process to change the constitutional status of a sensitive border State has been achieved without any legislative

input or representative contribution from its people. The bifurcation of States in the past cannot be cited as a

binding precedent as, under Article 3 of the Constitution, the President seeks the views of the legislature of the

States concerned, even if concurrence is not mandatory. In the present scenario, J&K has been represented by

an unelected Governor appointed by the Centre, while Parliament has ventured to ratify the conversion of a

State into two Union Territories without any recommendation from the State.

If there is a legal challenge to these measures, it would centre around whether such far-reaching steps could

be achieved in the absence of a representative government by assuming that its gubernatorial administrator is

constitutionally capable of using his consent as that of the entire State. Further, there is a self-enabling aspect

to the Presidential Order. It performs a hop-step-and-jump feat. It hops over the requirement of the State

government’s consent by declaring that the Governor is the State government. It steps over the need for aid

and advice by the ministerial council by saying the Governor’s opinion is enough. And it jumps over the fact

that there is no constituent assembly now by merely reading the term as ‘legislative assembly’, and letting

Parliament perform the role of the State legislature. Thus the President’s power under Article 370 has been

used both to create an enabling provision and to exercise it immediately to modify the Order, thereby

dispensing with the role envisaged for the State Assembly. While it is true that in 1961 the Supreme Court

upheld the President’s power to ‘modify’ the constitutional provisions in applying them to J&K, it is a moot

question whether this can be invoked to make such a radical change: a functioning State has now been

downgraded and bifurcated into two Union Territories. It is inconceivable that any State legislature would ever

have recommended its own demotion in status.

True, the special status of J&K was meant to end, but only with the concurrence of its people. The Centre’s

abrupt move disenfranchised them on a matter that directly affected their life and sentiments. Moreover, that

this was done after a massive military build-up and the house arrest of senior political leaders, and the

communications shutdown reveals a cynical disregard of democratic norms. It appears that the

current government values J&K for its demonstrative impact before the rest of the country, as a place where

a strong nation and its strong leader show uncompromising political will. But that may have other unintended

consequences. Geographically and metaphorically, Jammu and Kashmir is the crown of secular India — a

Muslim majority region in a Hindu majority country. Its people and leaders had chosen secular India over Islamic

Pakistan, a fact that Islamists never reconciled with. The BJP’s adventurous route also has as backdrop an

impending U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan that will trigger an unforeseeable churn in Islamist politics in the

region. Islamists have always viewed Kashmir as a component of their global grievances. Whatever its intent in

enabling the full integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India, Monday’s decision to alter the State’s status

could have unintended and dangerous consequences.







https://www.thehindu.com/tag/1385-1349/government/?utm=bodytag



11

07-AUGUST-2019

THE NEW FACTS ON THE GROUND FOR KASHMIR India cannot claim the moral high ground any more that it has kept the State’s integrity intact

Without going into the moral and legal arguments for or against the scrapping of the special status

to Jammu and Kashmir and the decision to reorganise the State into two Union Territories (UTs), a

dispassionate analysis of the possible immediate implications of these constitutional changes is needed. Some

assertions in support of the changes may partially be true while others may run contrary to the facts.

The implicit claim that this would lead to greater counterterrorism preparedness is questionable. The strength

of any counterinsurgency grid is largely based on human intelligence coming from the ground. Here, it will be

unrealistic to expect that merely changing the administrative and political set-up of the State will lead to more

intelligence to the security apparatus; in fact, there is a high possibility of the contrary happening in the short-

term on account of the decision’s unpopularity in the Kashmir Valley. India needs to be mindful of the fact that

historically, any spike in disaffection in Jammu and Kashmir has facilitated a misadventure by Pakistan. For

instance, the maximum dilution of Article 370 took place in the 1960s, including changes concerning the

nomenclature of the ‘head of the State’. And this was followed by the infamous ‘Operation Gibraltar’ by

Pakistani President Ayub Khan in August 1965.

A self-defeating strategy

The present cycle of violence can be traced back to the rigging of the 1987 Assembly elections and, in this

connection, Home Minister Amit Shah is right in citing rigging of successive elections as the primary cause of

the mistrust of Kashmiris towards India. But in bringing the State directly under the Centre as a Union Territory,

the government may have overlooked the hard lessons learned by India’s intelligence in its nearly 30 years of

counterinsurgency operations — relying purely on militaristic tools can be self-defeating.

Further, bifurcating the State and creating a Union Territory of Ladakh mirrors what Pakistan did with Gilgit

and Baltistan regions by de facto creating a separate province in 2009. New Delhi has often objected to the

Chinese infrastructural projects in the region and also opposed Islamabad’s decision to separate it from the

rest of Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. Now, after stripping Jammu and Kashmir of its special status, India cannot

claim the moral high ground any more by pointing out unlike Pakistan, it kept the integrity of the State intact.

Ladakh as Union Territory

Though the demand for Union Territory status picked up momentum in Ladakh in the 1990s, its spread was

limited to the Leh district of Ladakh. The Shia population of Kargil has consistently opposed such a call as it

fears Buddhist domination in the new set-up. Hence, the Centre needs to assure leaders from Kargil that their

interests would be safeguarded in the new Union Territory. India would not want to create another zone of



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/137-134-81/jammu/?utm=bodytag

https://www.thehindu.com/tag/139-134-81/ladakh/?utm=bodytag



12

disaffection in a strategically important border region of the State where it has already faced Pakistani

aggression once.

The Centre also needs to take steps to prevent further polarisation within the State. The ruling political elite,

particularly from the Kashmir Valley, has remained indifferent to regional and ethnic aspirations, which are

inherently political. Factoring in the complex societal landscape of the State and its divergent aspirations, saner

proposals have been made before for five-tier devolution of powers — from State-level to regional-level to

district-level to block-level to village-level. However, in the absence of any institutional mechanism to address

regional and ethnic aspirations, polarisation has continued to increase among different regions, often taking a

communal turn. Monday’s decision might polarise the State even further along regional and religious lines.

Mr. Shah made a valid point when he said that political reservation, as enshrined in the Indian Constitution, has

been denied to Scheduled Tribes in Jammu and Kashmir even though all political parties have suitably

accommodated them in other ways. In the past, there had been several Bills in the Jammu and Kashmir

Assembly for political reservation but they were never passed. Around 11.91% of the State’s population is made

of Scheduled Tribes, the bulk of them from Gujjar and Bakarwal tribes. Extending political reservation to them

will make the State’s political structure more inclusive.

However, Mr. Shah’s claim of widespread poverty in the State, cited as one of the justifications for Monday’s

decision, is not backed by facts. Only 10.35% of the State’s population lives below the poverty line, compared

to the national average of 21.92%. It needs to be noted that though restrictions on land sale existed, successive

State governments had been, on an ad hoc basis, liberally giving land to non-state investors on 99-year leases.

Removal of impediments

Monday’s decision on paper has removed all impediments on sale of land but, in the short term, could lead to

an increase in private investment only in Jammu. A prolonged period of peace is needed in other parts of the

State to attract investment. Monday’s move has also removed another impediment — children born to women

marrying citizens from outside Jammu and Kashmir can now inherit property.

Further, descendants of Partition refugees who migrated from Sialkot, many of whom belong to Scheduled

Castes, will now be able to get employment, buy and own land and vote in the new Union Territory.

What also needs to be considered is that bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir may trigger demands for further

division of the State which, unless they are categorically rejected, could trigger a long period of instability and

turbulence. Separation of ethnically and culturally distinct Ladakh from the rest of Jammu and Kashmir is

somewhat less challenging, because of its relatively smaller population. And what about the right to return of

Kashmiri Pandits? Monday’s decision is unlikely to alter their present status as the security environment in the

Valley is currently not conducive for them to go back.



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/1353-1349/constitution/?utm=bodytag



13

On the whole, the country needs to be better informed of the implications of the changes on the ground. The

road to resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir tangle lies in bringing the policymaking closer to facts, learning

from the past and avoiding unrealistic expectations.

08-AUGUST-2019

THE FRAGILITY OF INDIA’S FEDERALISM The government’s Kashmir move exposes the contingent nature of India’s asymmetric

constitutional provisions

The abrogation of Article 370 has exposed ambiguities that have long been evident in India’s federal system.

Asymmetric agreements have been negotiated in settlement of a number of regional conflicts in India.

Kashmir’s autonomous status was the oldest and — in original conception — the most far-reaching of these

provisions. But in practice, there has been a contingency to autonomy provisions, leaving them open to revision

by popular majorities at the all-India level.

An altered trajectory

The regionalisation of India’s party system between 1989-2014 contributed to the appearance that deeper

federalism and growing regional autonomy vis-à-vis the Central government was an almost inexorable process.

However, the rise of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) to national political dominance has altered that trajectory.

By abrogating Article 370 and bifurcating Jammu and Kashmir State to create two Union Territories, the BJP

has demonstrated the possibility of using the inherent flexibility in the federal order to centralise power and

reshape the size, powers and stature of a constituent unit of the Indian Union — the only unit with a Muslim

majority population.

The constitutionality of the abrogation of Article 370 will be carefully picked over in the months and years to

come. But the government’s ability to table and pass legislation with such important consequences for the

fabric of federalism — while the elected assembly of Jammu and Kashmir is in abeyance — exposes the fragile

set of compromises on which India’s asymmetric federal system rests.

Asymmetric federalism involves the granting of differential rights to certain federal subunits, often in

recognition of their distinctive ethnic identity. In the case of Jammu and Kashmir, the negotiation of Article 370

was a transitional and contingent constitutional arrangement agreed in the midst of a continuing conflict while

the Indian Constitution was being finalised. Over time, this ‘transitional’ clause had become a semi-permanent

institutional compromise, although this was ever an uneasy compromise. Kashmir’s autonomy arrangements

had been eroded under successive governments as tensions grew between the desire of Prime Ministers from

Jawaharlal Nehru onwards to integrate the State more closely into the Indian Union and the desire of many

Kashmiris to preserve a special status for their State. Since 1954, as many as 94 of 97 entries in the Union List



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/134-81/jammu-and-kashmir/?utm=bodytag




14

and two thirds of constitutional articles have been extended to the State. This process has happened with the

approval of the Supreme Court.

Subsequent asymmetric agreements were reached with the Nagas and the Mizos, which are enshrined in

Article 371 in the Constitution. When the small State of Sikkim joined the Indian Union in the early 1970s,

Article 371F was added to the Constitution. Article 371F allowed for laws that were in place before Sikkim’s

accession to remain in place unless amended or repealed by the legislature. Article 371 also contains measures

that were intended to promote intra-State equity in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Maharashtra, Gujarat and

Karnataka.

Contesting asymmetry

Asymmetric constitutional provisions are a common feature of federalism in diverse societies. Many have

argued that India sets an international example for how asymmetric features can help dampen secessionist

conflicts by recognising multiple modes of belonging within the Union. Rather than encouraging secessionism,

proponents of asymmetric arrangements argue that it is the denial of autonomy that can provide ground for

secessionist claims to grow.

However, asymmetric arrangements are often contested by majority national communities and by other

regions without special arrangements. The annulment of Article 370 has long been a cause célèbre for Hindu

nationalism, but it was striking that it also received wide support from many regional parties in Parliament.

The rationale set out by the BJP this week drew on all the textbook critiques of asymmetric arrangements to

attract the support of many regional parties to pass the legislation in the Rajya Sabha. These include the

argument that asymmetric provisions are discriminatory, for instance, by placing prescriptions on who can own

property in particular regions, or because they privilege certain kinds of ‘special’ identities over others. A Telugu

Desam Party MP, from India’s first linguistic State Andhra Pradesh, welcomed the fact that India would now be

‘one nation with one flag and one constitution.’ Alternatively, asymmetric status is presented as contributing

to secessionist claims, hence the argument that Article 370 is the ‘root cause of terrorism’. Autonomy

arrangements are also presented as anti-egalitarian because they prevent the extension of rights in force

elsewhere in a country. This last argument underscores the significance of the simultaneous emphasis on

extending reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the new Union Territories alongside the

abrogation of Article 370. As the Home Minister, Amit Shah, said in the Lok Sabha: “Those who support Article

370 are anti-Dalit, anti-tribal, anti-women.”

A deliberate flexibility

By design, India’s federal institutions place relatively weak checks on the power of a government with a

parliamentary majority. As the political scientist, Alfred Stepan, identified, federal systems can be more or less






15

‘demos constraining’. In those at the more ‘demos constraining’ end of the spectrum, federalism serves to

undermine the consolidation of power by national majorities. For instance, the American theorist, William

Riker, saw American federalism as a counter-weight to national populism since ‘the populist ideal requires that

rulers move swiftly and surely to embody in law the popular decision on an electoral platform’. By contrast,

other federal systems, such as India’s, are more ‘demos-enabling’. This means that the design of federalism

places fewer checks on the power of national majorities. For instance, the composition of the Rajya Sabha

mirrors the composition of the Lok Sabha, rather than providing equal representation to States regardless of

size, and the Rajya Sabha has weaker powers than the Lower House. Fewer powers are constitutionally

allocated to federal subunits exclusively compared to more demos-constraining federations.

Placing this kind of flexibility in the hands of the Central government was deliberate and designed to enable

decisive Central action to protect national integrity in the aftermath of Partition. In the Constituent Assembly,

B.R. Ambedkar highlighted the difference between the ‘tight mould’ of other federal systems and the flexibility

hard-wired into India’s which would enable it to be both ‘unitary as well as federal’ according to the

requirements of time and circumstances.

This constitutional permissiveness has been used to do things that have deepened federalism in the past under

both Congress and BJP-led governments, such as the creation of new States in response to regional demands

from the linguistic reorganisation of States in the 1950s onwards. By granting the Central government the

power to create new States or alter State boundaries under Article 3, and not giving State governments a veto

over bifurcation, the Constitution enabled the Central government to accommodate linguistic and ethnic

diversities in a way that would have been much harder in a more rigid federal system. It also enabled the

Central government to adopt asymmetrical measures in the first place without facing a backlash from other

regions that might have resented the ‘special’ treatment of minority regions. Until the 2000s, most of these

changes were done based on a slow process of consensus building within the regions concerned.

The unknown

By abrogating Article 370, bifurcating Jammu and Kashmir and downgrading the status of the successor units

to Union Territories, the government has used the flexibility of the federal provisions of the Constitution to

other ends. This is not the first time that a Central government has used its powers to bifurcate a State in the

absence of local consensus. This was also seen with the creation of Telangana in 2014. As in the case of

Telangana, the creation of the Union Territory of Ladakh does respond to a long-run demand in this region with

a substantial Buddhist population. However, the decision to transform the remainder of J&K State into a Union

Territory, at the same time as annulling Article 370, is a departure with profound and as yet unknown

consequences in Kashmir, and wider implications for Indian federalism.





16

09-AUGUST-2019

CYCLE OF EXTREMES: ON DROUGHTS AND FLOODS India must address its crippling cycles of drought and flood with redoubled vigour

After a worrying pre-monsoon phase between March and May, when rainfall was scarce, the current robust

season in most parts of coastal, western and central India augurs well for the entire economy. Aided apparently

by beneficial conditions in the Indian Ocean, very heavy rainfall has been recorded, notably in Maharashtra,

Gujarat, Rajasthan, the northeastern States, Karnataka, the Konkan coast, hilly districts of Kerala and Tamil

Nadu. This pattern may extend into Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Bengal and other eastern regions. A normal Indian

Summer Monsoon is bountiful overall, but as last year’s flooding in Kerala, and the Chennai catastrophe of

2015 showed, there can be a terrible cost in terms of lives and property lost, and people displaced. Distressing

scenes of death and destruction are again being witnessed. Even in a rain-shadow region such as Coimbatore

in Tamil Nadu, the collapse of a railway parcel office after a downpour has led to avoidable deaths. What this

underscores is the need to prepare for the rainy season with harvesting measures, as advocated by the Centre’s

Jal Shakti Abhiyan, and a safety audit of structures, particularly those used by the official agencies. In drafting

their management plans, States must be aware of the scientific consensus: that future rain spells may be short,

often unpredictable and very heavy, influenced by a changing climate. They need to invest in reliable

infrastructure to mitigate the impact of flooding and avert disasters that could have global consequences in an

integrated economy.

The long-term trends for flood impact in India have been one of declining loss of lives and cattle since the

decadal high of 1971-80, but rising absolute economic losses, though not as a share of GDP. It is important,

therefore, to increase resilience through planning, especially in cities and towns which are expanding steadily.

Orderly urban development is critical for sustainability, as the mega flood disasters in Mumbai and Chennai

witnessed in this century make clear. It is worth pointing out that the response of State governments to the

imperative is tardy and even indifferent. They are hesitant to act against encroachment of lake catchments,

river courses and floodplains. The extreme distress in Chennai, for instance, has not persuaded the State

government against allowing structures such as a police station being constructed on a lake bed, after

reclassification of land. Granting such permissions is an abdication of responsibility and a violation of

National Disaster Management Authority Guidelines to prevent urban flooding. As a nation that is set to

become the most populous in less than a decade, India must address its crippling cycles of drought and flood

with redoubled vigour. Scientific hydrology, coupled with the traditional wisdom of saving water through large

innovative structures, will mitigate floods and help communities prosper.



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/655-651/disaster-management/?utm=bodytag



17

10-AUGUST-2019

INCISIVE INTERVENTIONS THAT BLUNT THE RTI’S EDGE India must address its crippling cycles of drought and flood with redoubled vigour

After a worrying pre-monsoon phase between March and May, when rainfall was scarce, the current robust

season in most parts of coastal, western and central India augurs well for the entire economy. Aided apparently

by beneficial conditions in the Indian Ocean, very heavy rainfall has been recorded, notably in Maharashtra,

Gujarat, Rajasthan, the northeastern States, Karnataka, the Konkan coast, hilly districts of Kerala and Tamil

Nadu. This pattern may extend into Chhattisgarh, Odisha, Bengal and other eastern regions. A normal Indian

Summer Monsoon is bountiful overall, but as last year’s flooding in Kerala, and the Chennai catastrophe of

2015 showed, there can be a terrible cost in terms of lives and property lost, and people displaced. Distressing

scenes of death and destruction are again being witnessed. Even in a rain-shadow region such as Coimbatore

in Tamil Nadu, the collapse of a railway parcel office after a downpour has led to avoidable deaths. What this

underscores is the need to prepare for the rainy season with harvesting measures, as advocated by the Centre’s

Jal Shakti Abhiyan, and a safety audit of structures, particularly those used by the official agencies. In drafting

their management plans, States must be aware of the scientific consensus: that future rain spells may be short,

often unpredictable and very heavy, influenced by a changing climate. They need to invest in reliable

infrastructure to mitigate the impact of flooding and avert disasters that could have global consequences in an

integrated economy.

The long-term trends for flood impact in India have been one of declining loss of lives and cattle since the

decadal high of 1971-80, but rising absolute economic losses, though not as a share of GDP. It is important,

therefore, to increase resilience through planning, especially in cities and towns which are expanding steadily.

Orderly urban development is critical for sustainability, as the mega flood disasters in Mumbai and Chennai

witnessed in this century make clear. It is worth pointing out that the response of State governments to the

imperative is tardy and even indifferent. They are hesitant to act against encroachment of lake catchments,

river courses and floodplains. The extreme distress in Chennai, for instance, has not persuaded the State

government against allowing structures such as a police station being constructed on a lake bed, after

reclassification of land. Granting such permissions is an abdication of responsibility and a violation of

National Disaster Management Authority Guidelines to prevent urban flooding. As a nation that is set to

become the most populous in less than a decade, India must address its crippling cycles of drought and flood

with redoubled vigour. Scientific hydrology, coupled with the traditional wisdom of saving water through large

innovative structures, will mitigate floods and help communities prosper.



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/655-651/disaster-management/?utm=bodytag



18

12-AUGUST-2019

THE IMPRINT OF A STATE JUGGERNAUT High productivity apart, this Budget session lacked sufficient deliberation, pointing to the

crafting of a docile Parliament.

Official spokespersons have hailed the recently concluded Budget session of Parliament as unprecedented both

in terms of its hours of work as well as its performance. The 17th Lok Sabha, which was convened on June 17,

held 37 sittings that extended over 280 hours till it was adjourned sine die on August 6. Sometimes House

sittings were extended into the late hours. The Rajya Sabha, which met on June 20, held 35 sittings till it was

adjourned sine die on August 7. The spokespersons of both Houses claimed that productivity was

approximately 137% and 103%, respectively, denoting the hours of work put in. While the Lok Sabha spent 46%

of its time in legislative business, the Rajya Sabha spent 51%, a record in recent years.

There were 40 Bills that were introduced during this session (33 in the Lok Sabha and seven in the Rajya Sabha).

While the Lok Sabha passed 35 bills, the number was 32 in the Rajya Sabha; 30 bills were passed by both Houses

of Parliament. In the Lok Sabha, 183 starred questions were orally answered while 1,066 matters of urgent

importance were taken up; 488 issues under Rule 377, that requires advance notice and approval of the

Speaker, were attended to. The Lok Sabha Speaker, Om Birla, repeatedly drew attention to the equality of the

members of the House cutting across party differences, and extending opportunities to new and young

members. Out of 265 first time members, 229, including 42 out of 46 women members, found an opportunity

to express themselves in the House.

All this sounds impressive and there is much to commend for a functioning House especially after the

pandemonium witnessed during the sessions of the 15th and 16th Lok Sabha. But can we say that the first

session of the 17th Lok Sabha was representative of the concerns and demands of India’s complex, inegalitarian

and deeply diverse polity, eliciting the responses of the government for its acts of commissions and omissions,

and holding it accountable for its performance? Or, should we say, both the Houses were craftily streamrolled

to sing to the tune of the government?

Legislative measures

About half the time of both the Houses in their respective sessions was spent on legislative measures.

Parliament has to be credited for passing some bills that enjoyed a broad consensus such as the Protection of

Human Rights (Amendment) Bill, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill, the

Consumer Protection Bill, and the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Amendment Bill, although questions

have been raised on whether these bills and the way they were framed, were the most appropriate ways to

further their intent. However, many of the bills passed by the Houses were matters that led to deep division



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/1415-1349/parliament/?utm=bodytag




19

and contention within the polity, such as the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, the Aadhar

and Other Laws (Amendment) Bill, the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, the Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Amendment (UAPA) Bill, and the Codes on Wages.

Some of the bills passed by the Lok Sabha such as the Inter State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill 2019,

the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2019, the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Bill, 2019, and the DNA

Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2019 definitely called for a wider and closer discussion. Many

of the bills, such as the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Bill, which was passed by both the Houses, had bearing

on powers of the States and tended to reinforce the powers of the Centre. And indeed, the Jammu and Kashmir

Reorganisation Bill, 2019 introduced in the Rajya Sabha surreptitiously, on the penultimate day of its working,

and passed by the Lok Sabha on its last working day, changed the constitutional status of Jammu and Kashmir,

hitherto protected under Article 370. It split the State into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, and

Ladakh.

All these legislative measures, particularly, the last one, which intend to define Indian polity in crucial ways —

and will undoubtedly have enormous implications for the future of constitutional democracy in India — were

passed without routing any of the bills concerned through the Standing Committees of the Parliament, or Select

Committees. Given the paucity of time, there was little possibility of subjecting them to closer reflective

scrutiny. The government was obviously aware of this. In fact, at times it seemed the generous time that the

Speaker of the Lok Sabha gave to new members was at the expense of the rectitude of these bills. Worse still,

the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill that radically modified Article 370, had to be assented to by the

Constituent Assembly of the State, by its very provisions. Since the State Assembly remained dissolved and it

is under presidential rule, the sleight of presidential powers was employed to move it. Little consideration was

extended to reflect popular opinion, with the political leadership of the Kashmir Valley (on which the bill has

the gravest consequences) under internment, and the whole population kept incommunicado.

Institutional bearing

The legislative measures that the National Democratic Alliance-II leadership embraced, and the mode of

piloting them through the Houses have conveyed, loud and clear, a four-fold message. First, the task of

Parliament is not to discuss and debate, shape and reshape measures for public good, and ensure oversight,

but merely play second fiddle to the executive leadership. Therefore, criticism and debate over the bills was

kept to the minimum, if avoided altogether. There was no attempt to form the 24 departmentally related

standing committees before the session, or early in its day, to which bills could be referred to for scrutiny and

review or form subject committees for the purpose. The plea of some Opposition members of the Houses in

this direction was all in vain.



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/1421-1420-1349/democracy/?utm=bodytag



20

Second, formal legal equality of citizens would be on premium and all differential considerations on grounds

of disadvantage or considerations of diversity would be suspect: Therefore, Articles 370, 35A, and Sharia

provisions were sought to be modified, while commitment to human rights in general, was reinforced by

recrafting the National Human Rights Commission through The Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill.

Third, there was an enormous strengthening of the surveillance and investigative instrumentalities of the State

not merely through the UAPA, but also in bills pertaining to the economy and financial transactions. In these

measures the ‘lethal machine’ of the State was on full display against the prevalent ascription of a ‘soft’ state.

Fourth, legislative measures and amendments such as the Right to Information (Amendment) Bill, highlighted

the emergence of an institutional hierarchy, demoting key positions, involving transparency and accountability,

to executive discretion. The institutional hierarchy of authority, where the higher rungs were cushioned from

the lower ones, was vividly there to see in the way in which the name of the Prime Minister was invoked by

Ministers and member after member of the ruling dispensation as the font of wisdom, foresight and concern.

Clearly, the attempt to craft a docile Parliament had gone a long way.

Impact on democratic ethos

In the past, there was much that was lacking in the composition and functioning of Parliament. There was also

little to defend the way the Opposition had made a habit of boycotting the House and stalling its proceedings,

although at times it was the most effective way of demanding responsiveness, and even to air popular

grievances. At the same time, it should be said, Parliament was grappling with coming to terms with its own

institutional working to be the voice of democracy. If the proceedings in the recently concluded session are a

clue to its future, then Parliament has been securely chained to India’s state juggernaut.

13-AUGUST-2019

AN ABROGATION OF DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES The Kashmir move affects the robust nature of Indian democracy in addressing internal conflicts

and alienation

The recent abrogation of Article 370 ending the special status of Jammu & Kashmir (J&K) in the Indian

Constitution along with the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, bifurcating the State into two Union

Territories (J&K and Ladakh), have delivered a knock-out blow to the long-drawn-out peace process in Kashmir.

These moves also herald a paradigm shift in the fundamental premises and parameters of India’s approach

towards the Kashmir issue, with long-term implications for its political strategy of tackling such internal

conflicts. There are three cardinal principles which successive political regimes have hitherto followed in

addressing internal conflicts and seeking political reconciliation with alienated segments of the populace. These



https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/president-declares-abrogation-of-provisions-of-article-370/article28842850.ece

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/full-text-of-document-on-govts-rationale-behind-removal-of-special-status-to-jk/article28821368.ece

https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/state-of-the-union/article28968901.ece



21

in turn have bolstered the robust and resilient nature of Indian democracy. The future, however, appears much

more uncertain. Here is why.

Accommodative parameters

The first principle entails adhering to the letter and spirit of the Indian Constitution. Its far-sighted and

malleable nature has stood the test of time. Since 1947, India has faced a wide-ranging nature of political

demands ranging from secession, to the creation of a separate State for Jammu, Union Territory status for

Ladakh and others seeking affirmative discrimination for the Dogri language, Scheduled Tribe status for Gujjars

and Paharis and so on.

In response, the central leadership has tried finding ways and means within the overarching parameters of the

Indian Constitution and have rarely been disappointed. In view of the difficult circumstances under which the

Dogra Maharaja Hari Singh had acceded to India, Article 370 itself offered an excellent example as to how the

special needs and political aspirations of the people of J&K could be politically and constitutionally

accommodated by India’s Constitution makers.

Decades later, when Ladakhi Buddhists launched an agitation in 1989, demanding Union Territory status, the

Indian Constitution once again made space for political experimentation by introducing intermediate state

structures — the creation of two autonomous hill councils for Leh and Kargil.

Weakening federalism

Against this backdrop, it is for the first time in independent India’s history that the Bharatiya Janata

Party government has used constitutional provisions for opposite ends: to undermine and weaken India’s

federal character by downgrading a State and territorially dividing it into two Union Territories without the

consent of the people of J&K.

The method adopted to execute this decision is of special concern because by equating or replacing the

Constituent Assembly of J&K (which was dissolved in 1957) with the Legislative Assembly of J&K, and

Parliament appropriating the latter’s powers since the State is under President’s rule, the Central government

has acted unilaterally to reorganise the State of J&K.

This rests not only on legally shaky ground but also flies in the face of constitutional norms and propriety. If

this passes judicial scrutiny, it can then be done to any State in India, with drastic implications for its federal

character.

The second principle pertains to the maxim of ‘inclusivity’, that is, a political demand being made must be

inclusive in terms of representing the interests of all those in whose name it is made. This supported bridge

building and coalition-making among different communities certainly helped in shaping the peace process, in

turn bolstering India’s deeply diverse and plural character.



https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/explained-how-the-status-of-jammu-and-kashmir-is-being-changed/article28822866.ece





22

In J&K’s context too, it has also proven to be a critical common factor helping to explain the failures and

successes of various political demands. The Kashmiri idea of self-determination in a multi-ethnic, multi-religious

and multi-lingual society, for instance, was to call for a plebiscite as mandated by the UN resolutions of 1949

or seek an independent and sovereign State of J&K, but this was not the approach taken by other communities

such as the Dogras, Kashmiri Pandits, Gujjars, Bakkarwals, and Ladakhi Buddhists. In the 1950s, as indeed in

the 1990s, the demand by Kashmiri Muslims for a right to self-determination or azadi was politically

checkmated by these communities as their political choices were very different; time and again, an exclusively

Valley-focussed approach has doomed the prospects of the peace process.

Demographic impact

The BJP government’s move has, however, not only completely swung the pendulum but is also antithetical to

the very idea of inclusivity. By turning J&K, especially the Valley, into a virtually open air prison, with a full

clampdown and information blackout, the message is clear: that New Delhi alone will decide the political future

of the people of J&K with no room for any consultative process and no space for dissent.

The decision to divide the State is particularly fraught with the risk of deepening regional and communal fault

lines. While Ladakhi Buddhists, for instance, are now celebrating the fulfilment of their long pending demand

for Union Territory’s status, the voices of Kargilis who are still under a strict curfew are yet to be heard. They

may not support this decision because ‘a Union Territory without a legislature’ not only negates the idea of

decentralisation of power to the grassroots (the undergirding principle of the autonomous hill council) but

could well lead to a shifting of the loci of power to Leh, resulting in losing whatever gains they have assiduously

made over the years.

The celebrations by Kashmiri Pandits are anticipated because of the gross injustice and displacement they have

suffered since their forced exodus from the Valley in the early 1990s. It remains to be seen whether the

abrogation of Article 370 by itself, would facilitate their return to the Valley without the support of local

Kashmiri Muslims and rising violence.

Instead of making all communities equal stakeholders in the peace process, the BJP government’s decision may

well end up pitching one community against the other. A deepening of societal fissures and communal fault

lines do not go hand in hand with the agenda of peace-making.

The third principle refers to a promise and the practices of holding a dialogue process and sharing political

power with opponents of all hues. In Kashmir, successive Central governments have until now never shut the

door of dialogue in the face of political opponents who have ranged from the Sheikh Abdullah-led Plebiscite

Front in the 1960s to the Muslim United Front in the 1980s to the Hurriyat leadership since the 1990s. This also

holds true for militant groups.





23

While the bottomline of Congress governments has been a commitment by their opponents to abjure the path

of violence and abide by the Indian Constitution, the erstwhile Vajpayee-led National Democratic Alliance

(NDA) regime was even more generous in offering the broad framework of ‘insaniyat, jamhooriyat and

Kashmiriyat’.

Political fallout

In a significant point of departure, the present government is pursuing a hard, top-down approach. The Home

Minister has categorically ruled out any dialogue with militants and the Hurriyat, and has even castigated the

mainstream regional political leadership of the National Conference and Jammu and Kashmir Peoples

Democratic Party for being corrupt, promoting family rule and fomenting separatism and violence. This move

has nullified the very idea of a process of dialogue and runs the risk of discrediting the mainstream politicians

and obliterating the middle ground between the militants and mainstream politicians.

The Prime Minister in his recent address to the nation, expressed hope that new leadership in Kashmir would

emerge from grass-roots politics. It is important to note that in 1,407 out of 2,135 halqas or village clusters,

there was no voting at all in the panchayat elections that were held in 2018. This does not lend credence to

youth being optimistic about joining mainstream politics especially after the abrogation of Article 370, a move

which is only likely to deepen the alienation. The Modi government faces an uphill task in identifying credible

local partners in ushering in peace to the Valley, which may well end up in facing yet another impasse.

14-AUGUST-2019

THE CONTOURS OF THE KASHMIR MOVE India’s actions were enabled by the unilateralism in global politics and a decline in multilateral

arrangements

The government has defended its twin decisions to revoke operative portions of Article 370 of the Constitution

and dividing Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories as “internal policy” that warrant no international

comment. While the Prime Minister’s moves have a domestic basis, their manner, or “Modi’s vivendi” as it

were, must be studied in their broader global context.

The U.S.-Afghan factor

The immediate context is the future of Afghanistan and what the deal between the United States

and Pakistan for Afghanistan will mean for India. According to reports, an assessment by Indian intelligence

agencies that there would be an imminent settlement was what triggered the discussion within the Modi

government about a response that would ensure India was not overlooked.

The U.S.’s deal for the return of the Taliban to Afghanistan’s mainstream has three specific dangers for New

Delhi. First, the deal would most certainly derail the Afghanistan elections planned for September 28, or make




https://www.thehindu.com/tag/1349/politics/?utm=bodytag

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/fact-check-what-is-true-and-what-isnt-on-jk-article-370/article28835918.ece

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/jammu-and-kashmir-a-timeline-of-events-leading-to-imposition-of-144-crpc-and-house-arrest-of-leaders/article28819542.ece

https://www.thehindu.com/tag/371-244/pakistan/?utm=bodytag



24

their results irrelevant. India’s stakes in a democratic Afghanistan go beyond the process since every one of the

17 presidential ticket aspirants is a leader with ties to India. Second, a deal will bring the Taliban, whose leaders

owe allegiance to Islamabad and Rawalpindi, into the central power structures and institutions in Kabul. Third,

intelligence estimates indicate that after the deal, U.S. troops will not “zero out” completely but continue to

maintain between three and five military bases. In the past, America’s dependence on Pakistan for supply

routes and security guarantees led the U.S. seeking concessions from India on Kashmir. The U.S. President’s

comments in July, during a media interaction with Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan that the U.S. counts on

Pakistan to “extricate” it from Afghanistan, accompanied by an offer to mediate on Kashmir, set alarm bells

ringing in Delhi and dictated the timing of the recent moves. Facing a fast-closing window of opportunity to

consolidate its position in Jammu and Kashmir, the government chose to present the U.S. and Pakistan with

a fait accompli before a deal was concluded.

The UN’s limited impact

The government’s move in Kashmir, which had not been contemplated in all the decades since India signed the

1972 Shimla agreement — India and Pakistan committed that “neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation”

— has also been enabled by the prevailing unilateralism in international politics and the concomitant decline

in multilateral arrangements. It is clear that the UN and the UN Security Council have few real powers to stop

New Delhi.

Pakistan has itself carried out such a reorganisation in the parts of Kashmir it occupied in 1948: military control

and demographic changes in Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK), or what Pakistan calls Azad Jammu and Kashmir;

elections in which its national parties, the Pakistan Peoples Party, the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) and the

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf take part, and an ongoing process to dilute Gilgit-Baltistan’s autonomous status.

Pakistan has done all this without any UN pushback. In addition, its sustained support of terror groups inimical

to India has discredited its protests on the Kashmir issue. Given that four permanent members of the UNSC

have already accepted Kashmir’s reorganisation as an “internal matter” — and China’s dissent is mainly on the

issue of the reorganisation of Ladakh and Aksai Chin — there is little expectation that the UNSC petition by

Pakistan will make any headway. The Prime Minister can travel next month to New York quite confident that

he will not face more than a few uncomfortable moments and perhaps some protests outside the UN, if at all.

The government has already tested the UN’s will and faced no repercussions. In July 2014, the government

declared that the U.N. Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) set up in 1949, had “outlived

its utility”, and asked it to vacate its premises in Delhi. In September 2016, after the Uri attacks, the government

publicly announced it had crossed the LoC, a line monitored by the UNMOGIP, to carry out what it called

“surgical strikes” on terror camps in PoK.



https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/donald-trump-kashmir-remark-president-doesnt-make-things-up-says-aide/article28692183.ece

https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/donald-trump-kashmir-remark-president-doesnt-make-things-up-says-aide/article28692183.ece




25

While such operations have frequently been mounted by the Indian and Pakistani Armies, this was the first

such public claim and faced no pushback whatsoever from the UN. In mid-2018, the government also dismissed

the first report by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on the situation on both sides of

the border in Kashmir, accusing the High Commissioner of “individual bias”. And in February 2019, India

announced that it carried out air strikes on a terror camp in Pakistan, after which the Pakistan Air Force dropped

bombs over the LoC in Kashmir. Aside from warnings to keep the peace, the UN’s reaction was mild, and the

UNMOGIP’s role non-existent.

During this period, the ineffectiveness of the UN has been writ large over many other similar disputes. Russia’s

control of Crimea has only strengthened since 2014 despite a UN General Assembly (UNGA) resolution, UNSC

statements and a “package of measures”. When the U.S. decided, in 2017, to declare Jerusalem as Israel’s

capital, it lost a vote in the UNGA, but suffered no real action as a consequence of changing the decades-old

status quo. Neither has Israel, despite UN censure of the Gaza bombings, and settlements in the West Bank;

nor has China changed after UNSC resolutions on Tibet and UNGA petitions on Xinjiang.

Reflecting a trend

Finally, while “Modi’s vivendi” on Kashmir is aimed at his domestic base, it mirrors the prevailing trend of

populism worldwide, much like the demonetisation decision in 2016 did: recapturing the national narrative,

startling opponents with an unexpected move, and thrilling voters with forceful action. In his treatise “What is

Populism?”, Princeton professor Jan-Werner Müller recounts how populist regimes frequently frame their

actions as representing the will of the “real people”, a group they exclusively represent. By extension and

example, those who dissent are deemed to be not “Real Poles” (prawdziwi Polacy) in Poland or “Real

Hungarians” in Hungary. In the same vein was the retort by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to his

opponents: “We are the people. Who are you?”

In populist moves worldwide, such actions are “authorised by the people”, and therefore no blame accrues to

the government if anything goes wrong. By contrast, says Müller, democratic accountability would actually

mean that the burden is on the government to justify just how it uses its political judgment to ensure desired

outcomes.

The Kashmir line

In the Kashmir case, the government’s actions, which have included the pouring in of troops, a clampdown on

communications and the arrest of local leaders, have all been justified through the expressions of euphoria the

decisions have elicited among its supporters nationwide. The populist assessment is that any negative

consequences — violence in Kashmir, resistance in Jammu and Ladakh to the freeing up of property rights, for

example, or the larger impact of worsening India-Pakistan ties on the Kartarpur corridor, Kulbhushan Jadhav’s





26

fate, and trade and transport arrangements — will not hurt the government as they were authorised by “the

will of the people”.

The prevailing narrative is that the government’s Kashmir decisions have finally allowed ‘Realpolitik’ to prevail

over the woolly-headed idealism of the past that has not benefited the nation in all these years. Furthermore,

an influx of investments and non-Kashmiri residents into the Valley will “normalise” it and usher in an age of

prosperity. While the term Realpolitik is used today in a positive sense, it is important to remember the context

in which its earliest proponent, Athenian general Thucydides introduced it, In the ‘History of the Peloponnesian

War’; here he states: “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong

do what they can, the weak suffer what they must.”

15-AUGUST-2019

ASSAM’S HUMANITARIAN CONUNDRUM Neither Delhi nor Dispur has been working on a proper plan for those who will soon be declared

stateless

With the final date for publication of the National Register of Citizens drawing near, the dividing lines are

becoming sharper. While the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been expressing doubts about an “error-free”

(read Bangladeshi free) NRC, the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU) and minority organisations such as the All

Assam Minority Students’ Union, the Assam State Jamiat Ulama and the All India United Democratic Front have

welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision to observe the August 31 deadline.

The two sides

The stand by the leading minority organisations points to their viewing the NRC as an instrument to remove

the “Bangladeshi tag” from lakhs of Bengali Muslims. For the AASU and other ethnic organisations, the final

register will be a closure of sorts to a long struggle against foreign influx and demographic change. Therefore,

given their support extended to the NRC process, apprehensions of wide-scale social unrest on the final day

could be incorrect.

However, what is worrying in the long run is that neither political parties and student organisations nor civil

society groups seem seriously engaged with the major humanitarian crisis that is about to unfold as large

numbers of people would be declared foreign nationals by the Foreigners Tribunals (FTs) following their

exclusion from the NRC.

Although there have been vague assurances from the Central and State governments that the question of

immediate detention and scrapping of rights does not arise with avenues of appeal being open to them, it is

disturbing that neither Delhi nor Dispur has been working on any well-thought out humanitarian plan for those



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/100-81/assam/?utm=bodytag



27

who will soon be declared as a stateless people. This becomes grave especially when there is awareness of

there being errors in an exercise of such a scale.

Status before tribunals

On the contrary, statements from some BJP leaders that the country would be finally rid of the “termites” and

that every single illegal infiltrator would be thrown out have only added to the overall panic and confusion. The

resolution of the cases of these undocumented stateless people passing through the FTs, then the High Court

and finally the Supreme Court would, naturally, take years, even if the final number of those left out runs into

a few lakhs after all claims and objections are met.

Assam has 100 FTs, of which 70 may be said to be functional. The State has pledged to create 200 more FTs by

September, but there is uncertainty over their being functional soon after. The Central government has

approved 400 out of the 1,000 FTs the State government has asked for. The State government is not in a

position to further increase the number of FTs because of infrastructural and administrative issues. Thus the

process of deciding on the citizenship status of those left out of the NRC would be cumbersome, long, and

involve suffering.

Finally, there would be lakhs of poor people without the means to seek judicial redress. For them, the decision

of the FTs would be final and they would be sent to detention centres. Then, there are those who have already

been declared ex-parte as foreigners but tagged as “untraced foreigners”. Clearly, the government has no

mechanism in place to keep track of them; a State government affidavit in the Supreme Court cites a figure of

some 70,000 people. Assam’s Parliamentary Affairs Minister recently said that FTs had identified as many as

1,17,164 persons till March 31. There is also the issue of ‘Doubtful’ or ‘D’ voters (some 1.2 lakh people) who

would be left out of the NRC till the courts resolve their cases.

Legal issues

In addition to this is the yet unresolved issue of the children of those deemed non-citizens. Recently, there was

a government notification on the basis of a Supreme Court order (based on Sections 3(1)(b) and (c) of the

Citizenship Act of 1955) that births up to December 3, 2004 would be eligible for citizenship if either one parent

was an Indian citizen. However, in the case of those born after December 3, 2004, the Supreme Court, on

Tuesday, while categorically ruling out reopening or re-verification of the NRC, held that children born after

December 3, 2004 would not be eligible for inclusion in the NRC if either parent is a DV (Doubtful Voter), DF

(Declared Foreigner) or PFT (persons with cases pending at the FTs). This would virtually leave out those born

within the last 15 years to those parents, either one of whose citizenship is in doubt.

Legal issues apart, it is absolutely critical that the government, in due consultation with political parties and

civil society groups, draws up a viable plan to deal with those who would be declared stateless. The State





28

government has limited its exercise to the setting up of more detention centres to house all those declared as

foreigners by the FTs. The plight of detainees — some are to be released on certain conditions — has been

made worse as they are not covered by the jail manuals which are supposed to ensure the minimum standard

of dignified living. A full-fledged detention centre with a capacity to hold 3,000 detainees is under construction

at Matia in Goalpara at a cost of approximately ₹45 crore; the State government has already sent a proposal

to the Central government to build 10 more such centres.

What would be the infrastructural costs involved in holding these prisoners with basic dignity in place? How

long would these detentions last especially when the question of deportation to the country of origin does not

arise? What would the fate of these people be after they are released on completion of the specified period?

Apart from losing their voting rights, would they also be shorn of their rights to land and property? And will

they be denied access to government welfare measures such as health and education both for themselves and

their children? How would the state deal with those declared stateless but who already hold some cultivable

land? There have been suggestions to declare those declared stateless not to be allowed to acquire landed

property.

Potential crisis

The idea of holding lakhs of people in detention centres is bound to be a self-defeating and disastrous one

which would go against all fundamental humanitarian principles and international covenants involved in the

treatment of migrants, even if they happen to be illegal ones. The State cannot absolve itself of its responsibility

by declaring someone a foreigner, placing him or her in a detention camp for a certain period to begin with

and, after that, just allow him or her to continue to live on with some restrictions and without most of the

rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

There is a lot of speculation that after all the claims and objections are finally met, the final number of the

excluded might touch 15 lakh people, which would include the four lakh out of the initial 40 lakh people

excluded who did not file any claims. In addition to this figure would be the one lakh people left out in a recent

revision as well as ‘D’ voters. However, this is just an estimate. It is obvious that the State of Assam would be

faced with a humanitarian challenge of massive proportions, one for which it seems least prepared.

16-AUGUST-2019

IS THE REMOVAL OF SPECIAL STATUS FOR J&K JUSTIFIED? Article 370 marked a recognition of J&K’s history and the circumstances surrounding its

accession

On August 5, the Centre decided to end the special status given to Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) under Article 370.

In addition, J&K also lost its statehood and was re-organised into two Union Territories. How do these moves






29

change India’s relationship with J&K? More importantly, what do they mean for federalism, parliamentary

democracy and diversity? In a conversation moderated by Varghese K. George, former J&K interlocutor Radha

Kumar (RK) and journalist Sukumar Muralidharan (SM) look at the changed scenario. Edited excerpts:

The BJP has always argued that Article 370 led to separatism. However, the founding fathers of India had a

different idea, believing instead that such provisions were essential to build unity among a diverse

population. How do you see it?

RK: A look at the history of Kashmir reveals that the conflict always intensified in response to dilution of Article

370. Empirical evidence also shows that [it is] the periodic erosion of Article 370 that gave strength to separatist

elements.

SM: I would agree. It is necessary to understand that J&K is unique among Indian States; it is an amalgam of

three cultural regions and finding the proper power balance has been a tricky affair. Since the beginning, there

was a conflict between Jammu, which insisted on closer integration, and Kashmir, which believed that

autonomy would safeguard the integrity of the State. Article 370 was a compromise between these two

demands.

Unfortunately, this difference in political perception has become communalised. The BJP sees the political

dividend to be harvested from the rest of India by cracking down on what it has successfully portrayed to be

the ‘special status’ of Kashmir which is but a recognition of the historical realities and circumstances

surrounding Kashmir’s accession to India.

We could then argue that for both camps — those who believe India is a secular, pluralist country and the

other who see it as a Hindu nation — Kashmir holds a demonstrative value. Would that be the right

characterisation?

RK: I’m afraid so. J&K has been instrumentalised by the rest of India. I’d add a proviso: in a ‘quasi-federation’

of States like India, it is inevitable that what happens in one State will impact what happens in other States and

resonate at the national level too. People in J&K, and particularly in the Valley, are aware of this but do not

know how to engage with the political views of the whole of India. Early political leaders like Sheikh Abdullah,

G.M. Sadiq, D.P. Dhar and others knew how to engage with Indian political leaders but it was an unfortunate

time for democracy in J&K. This is a key element we often forget to consider: in India, the most successful

States are those where democracy has grown unimpeded, whereas States where democracy has been

interjected are in trouble, tense or volatile. Kashmir is a prime example of it.

Would you then agree that the question of autonomy has been central to the debate on Kashmir? The binary

always used in this debate is autonomy vs. integration. Can we argue that relative autonomy in the earlier

decades helped development in Kashmir?





30

SM: In the early years after Independence, J&K recorded some of the best land reforms in India. Landlordism

and large feudal estates that flourished were dismantled and land was redistributed. A new Kashmiri middle

class was created which was significant in underwriting early phases of stability. [But] subsequently, when they

sought a voice, democracy was throttled. The reason is that the operative principle in J&K was not

accountability to the people, but to New Delhi. J&K was not allowed to function like any other State in the

Union.

The political geography of southern India reflects numerous changes since Independence. The linguistic re-

organisation of States gave stability to the region. [However] due to constraints owing to the complex history

of J&K, it was not reorganised. Thus, a chronic state of instability was created over the [sharing] of power

between the three regions, further compounded by New Delhi’s interference.

After the 1971 War, India was confident of having diminished Pakistan’s status as the homeland of the

subcontinent’s Muslims. Indira Gandhi was able to conclude a pact with Sheikh Abdullah. Bringing him back to

the mainstream of politics might have shown a promise of integration of J&K. [But] in 1980s, when Abdullah’s

son and successor Farooq Abdullah started functioning in national politics as an Opposition leader, he invited

the wrath of Mrs. Gandhi, who dismissed him from office and started to meddle in the politics of the State. J&K

has had a history of its democratic processes being impeded.

Radha, what is your view on the difference in terms by which various regions were folded into the Union of

India? Is asymmetric federalism good for the regions involved and the idea of India?

RK: First, on the issue of development, I’d like to add that integration is not a matter of pen on paper, but of

hearts and minds, processes and sense of belonging. Development depends on stability, peace and efficient

and corruption-free governance. However, J&K has had short periods of stability interspersed with long periods

of instability and violence. The first thing should be to work towards a peace process that will establish stability

on the ground. That has nothing to do with autonomy.

Corruption, as we know, is a product of black economy in an unstable region. That is anyway a problem across

the country. Transparency International would help us realise that J&K might not be the most corrupt. In fact,

my State, Tamil Nadu, is probably the second or third-most corrupt and it does not have an ‘integration’

problem. So, development and integration have little to do with each other.

The government sought legitimacy by claiming that the majority of Parliament voted in its favour. In essence,

that majority comes from five or six States. So, a majority of a handful of States has become the national

majority and can be used as a tool to change the character, nature or composition of any State.

SM: This is not majority but majoritarianism, wherein a brute majority imposes its will on a reluctant minority.

The Constitution and Supreme Court have said that Article 370 cannot be revoked without consent from the





31

Constituent Assembly, in the absence of which the J&K Legislative Assembly fulfils that role. President’s rule is,

by definition, a transitory phase. He cannot assume the will of the people and allow Parliament to ratify a Bill

following a highly questionable legislative procedure. Further, the celebration in [many parts of] the country

while Kashmir is under lockdown goes to show how deeply alienated J&K is from the rest of India. The spectacle

of last week has been a sorry commentary on our democratic morals and sense of loyalty to constitutional

principles.

Radha, technically this move was democratic in that an elected government did it. Do you, however, fear

that this kind of move may be repeated elsewhere in the country?

RK: Before I go to the future, I want to underline that this [move] was completely undemocratic. The Governor

and the President represent the Union in a State, not the will of the people of the State which rests in its

Legislative Assembly and elected government. Parliament represents, on the other hand, the will of the entire

country. Within Parliament, there are only a handful of representatives of J&K. Amongst them, the bulk was

not present or displayed their opposition and only one spoke.

Clearly, this parliamentary decision did not include the will of the people of J&K. In such far-reaching

parliamentary changes, Parliament cannot substitute the will of the people unless there are compelling reasons

(like an armed resistance). Besides, it is not clear how changing the status to a Union Territory would help

maintain security since, under Article 370, it is anyway a Central subject.

Due democratic process in the State was pre-empted and it was put under lockdown and its political leadership

was arrested. No reason has been given for their arrest, no charges have been pressed and they have not been

produced before a magistrate court. The worst is that this may be used as a precedent in other parts of the

country.

Can judicial review make the move ineffectual?

RK: I can only hope that a judicial review finds grave fault.

The Prime Minister, Home Minister and a lot of supporters say cultural autonomy and political aspirations

are a small price to pay for development.

SM: Since [the days of] Jawaharlal Nehru, there [has been] an aspiration that cultural particularities would be

subsumed by modernisation but it has not worked that way. Instead, there is now a re-assertion of these

particularities.

The irony is that while claiming to solidify citizenship rights of Dalits and refugees from Pakistan in Kashmir,

and enforcing uniform rights on all residents by taking away special rights of indigenous residents, the

government is stripping people of their citizenship rights in Assam and, in Nagaland, has permitted granting





32

separate rights to the State’s indigenous people. Playing two different games is creating a mosaic of great

inconsistency.

[T]he real tragedy is that the people of J&K are being victimised by our lack of ability to arrive at a principled

and democratic solution.

Radha, do you think that the BJP’s view on cultural particularities has any continuity with the Nehruvian

view on utopia?

RK: In a single word, no. In the last five years, the BJP and RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh] have attacked

Nehru with increasing virulence. They attack his secular principles and misrepresent his political moves. They

pin [Article] 370 on him when we know perfectly well that it was a joint decision between Sardar Patel,

Gopalaswami Ayyangar, Sheikh Abdullah and Nehru, not to mention other members of the Cabinet. With

respect to development, some of the most developed countries have seen conflict. Countries like Ireland chose

to give up development, knowing possibly that they will be [stuck in] a spiral where all institutions are

disrupted. China has pushed development over culture and succeeded, but it is not a democracy.

17-AUGUST-2019

PADDY, TUBE WELLS AND DEPLETING GROUNDWATER: WHY PUNJAB’S WATER

RESOURCES ARE UNDER STRAIN Rice cultivation in Punjab, which thrived in the past due to the easy availability of water

resources and free supply of electricity to farmers, is under considerable strain now. Vikas

Vasudeva examines how overexploitation has made groundwater not only scarce but also

increasingly alkaline.

Gurmeet Singh, 60, a tall land-owning farmer in Bhattiwal Khurd village, which is located in Punjab’s Sangrur

district, has yet again planted the water-guzzling paddy crop this summer (kharif) as he is sceptical of any other

crop fetching him a remunerative price.

Standing on the edge of the Ghaggar branch canal, which flows barely a few metres away from his field,

Gurmeet reveals that hardly anyone in the village irrigates his/her field with canal water. That is because motor-

operated tube wells, with their powerful submersible pumps, have become an easy and preferred choice for

most of the households to extract groundwater, he says.

Punjab’s policy of providing free electricity to farmers, in place since 1997, along with the Central government’s

favourable attitude towards paddy cultivation, are the key factors that have motivated farmers like Gurmeet

to persist with paddy, despite the grave groundwater crisis faced by the State.



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/1070-1067-993/groundwater/?utm=bodytag



33

“Most of us here in the village have tube wells installed, be it on our farm or inside our houses. We use

groundwater for irrigation, drinking and other domestic purposes. In 1977, we got our first tube well drilled at

a depth of 35 ft-40 ft. Water at that time was easily available at 15 ft-20 ft. Since then, we have drilled as many

as four tube wells as the water levels have been consistently falling. I got the latest one installed two years ago

at around 300 ft. It cost me around ₹1,00,000,” he says, his head dropping in despair as he mentions the high

cost of his latest tube well.

The green revolution impact

Gurmeet’s father Magar Singh, 90, intervenes to point out that farmers like him shifted to cultivation of rice

and wheat during the hara inquilab (green revolution); till then, he says, crops like pulses, maize, vegetables

and cotton were mainly grown in the village.

“Paddy (rice) requires far more water than other crops and as farmers started cultivating paddy, the need for

tube wells arose. The extraction of groundwater only increased as farmers shifted from the use of monoblock

pumps in the 1980s to other types like submersible pumps,” he says.

Ideally, groundwater should be available at a depth of 50 ft to 60 ft, but in Punjab, its level has significantly

dropped to 150ft to 200 ft in most places. Many attribute this drastic fall to an indiscriminate extraction of

groundwater in the last two decades.

Further, deepening of tube wells, and purchase of the powerful motors to carry out the deepening, is costing

farmers ₹1,100 crore per year, according to government data. The State, which gives free power to farmers, is

also facing an increased financial burden due to the rising use of electricity. This year, the total power subsidy

to the farm sector is estimated at ₹9,674 crore.

To counter this, the Punjab State Farmers’ Policy, drafted by the State’s Farmers and Farm Workers’

Commission in June last year, suggested rationalising of power subsidy and asked the government to restrict

the subsidy to the non-income tax payee farmers. It also recommended that cultivation of paddy on common

lands be disallowed. Common (shamlat) village lands, whose utilisation is regulated under Punjab Village

Common Lands (Regulation) Act 1961, have been increasingly used for paddy cultivation over the years. Experts

feel that a restriction on such usage can help arrest groundwater depletion. The government, however, is yet

to take a final call on these policy proposals.

The Punjab government is well aware of the fast depleting groundwater reserves. Last month, Chief Minister

Captain Amarinder Singh directed the State Planning Board to chalk out a comprehensive crop diversification

model. The Board was also directed to undertake a detailed review of the various schemes of

the agriculture department to bring in much-needed reforms in the sector.



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/189-81/punjab/?utm=bodytag

https://www.thehindu.com/tag/685-684/agriculture/?utm=bodytag



34

The Chief Minister, who has been stressing the need to prioritise the cultivation of crops that consume less

water like maize, cotton and sugar cane, asked the Board to come up with a strategy to persuade the farmers

to shift to these crops.

However, while the State government has been advocating crop diversification to save groundwater, farmers

don’t seem to be keen on shifting to other crops unless they are given an assured market and a guaranteed

price for their produce. “I am aware that paddy consumes more water than other crops but what is the

alternative? Government agencies purchase rice and wheat (during rabi season) at the minimum support price

(MSP), which assures me of a remunerative return. But in the case of other crops, there’s hardly any such

assurance. The government should purchase all major crops at MSP as is done in case of rice and wheat; until

then, it's difficult to shift,” says Randhir Singh, 51, who grows paddy at his three-acre farm in Bhattiwal Khurd

village.

This sentiment is echoed in other parts of the State as well. In Fatehpur village, located in the Chief Minister’s

pocket borough of Patiala, Karamjeet Singh says that after suffering financial loss owing to a price crash in the

market, he stopped the cultivation of potato a few years ago. “Three years ago, I planted a potato crop in my

field but prices in the market crashed badly. The potato was fetching as low as ₹2 per kilo in the market. I

couldn’t even recover the cost of my crop and suffered a loss of around ₹3,00,000. Since then, I have stopped

its cultivation and have been sowing rice and wheat, for which I am assured of getting a remunerative price as

government agencies will purchase my produce at the MSP,” he says, as he takes a seat along with his fellow

farmers at the public shed in the village.

‘Wrong to blame farmers’

As the farmers beat the heat and humidity of an August afternoon under a fan mounted on the shed’s ceiling,

Ajaib Singh, 62, points out that it is wrong to blame farmers for groundwater depletion. “There are industries

and factories that are extracting a huge amount of groundwater — legally and illegally. Not only this, the

unsystematic disposal of waste from these industries is contaminating the water, making it increasingly

alkaline,” he says.

For Dilbag Singh, 43, usage of water from the Kherimala branch (canal), which flows barely three km from the

village, is an affordable and doable way to reduce dependence on groundwater. “The government needs to

upgrade and work on maintenance of canal irrigation system. It needs to ensure the supply of water at tail-

ends [the last part of the water outlet]. If an underground pipeline system can be laid, it will help us optimise

water use. Also, it will check the theft of canal water,” he says.

“Farmers like me are using tube wells because it’s an easy way of extracting water with powerful submersible

pumps these days, but if the government develops a mechanism and lays a pipeline till my farm, why would I





35

need to invest in a tube well? I remember we used to get water in canal outlets and also from wells for irrigation

during the 1980s, but now almost every house in the village has a tube well,” says Kesar Singh, 52, who has

sown rice in his five-acre farm.

Another rice-growing farmer, Nirmal Singh, who is a farmer leader as well, points out that the government

needs to focus on establishing an assured market mechanism. “What farmers want is a market — where the

purchase of their products is guaranteed and they get an assured remunerative price,” he says.

Punjab’s economy is highly dependent on agriculture. The sector. however, is experiencing slower growth as

the State’s cropping intensity and irrigation potential have been fully exploited and the growth in productivity

has also reached a saturation point.

The intensive groundwater extraction in the last five decades through installation of shallow tube wells is

reflected in tube well numbers — which have increased by almost 200% in 35 years, from six lakh in the 1980s

to 14.76 lakh in 2017-18. Also, the area under rice cultivation has increased from 11.83 lakh hectares in 1980

to 28.86 lakh hectares in 2017-18. On an average, there are 34 tube wells per sq. km of net sown area in Punjab

(2015-16).

According to the Draft Dynamic Ground Water Estimation Report-2017, 109 blocks out of the 138 blocks taken

for its study were “over-exploited”, two blocks were “critical” and five blocks were “semi-critical” while 20

blocks are in “safe” category. The water table was declining in nearly 80% of the area of the State.

The report also said that while the annual replenishable groundwater resource in Punjab was about 17.5 million

acre-ft (MAF), the annual draft (extraction) was 29 MAF, implying that the extraction rate outstripped

availability by quite a few notches.

“If this trend continues, it will adversely affect the agricultural economy of the State and it is apprehended that

irrigated area may decrease by up to 15% in the year 2025. Further, in the coming 20 years, supply from about

60% of top aquifers may be jeopardised. There will be an increase in the cost of raising crops, placing an

increased financial burden on farmers and the government. A shortage in water supply could also act as a

deterrent when it comes to investment in industries requiring water. Around 30 million residents of the Punjab

region may face a collapse in agricultural output,” says S.K. Saluja, Superintending Engineer, Directorate of

Ground Water Management.

Salinity in water

The report also raised concerns about the deteriorating quality of groundwater due to pollution caused by

urbanisation, industrialisation and an increased use of fertilisers and pesticides. It said that while nearly 50%-

60% of groundwater was “fresh and fit”, 20%-30% was “moderately saline and of marginal quality”. Further,

about 15%-25% of the groundwater was “saline, alkaline and not fit for irrigation”.





36

Water in south and southwestern districts — like Sangrur, Muktsar, Bathinda and Mansa — came under the

last category, containing “varying concentration of soluble salts” and its use for irrigation will adversely affect

agricultural production, said the report.

An increased awareness about the need for safe drinking water has caused many households in Bhattiwal Khurd

village to install RO (reverse osmosis) water purification systems. “I felt the need for RO system at my home

after my family members started falling ill due to water-borne diseases at regular intervals. We have been

consuming groundwater directly from tube wells for a long time,” says Randhir Singh.

Untreated industrial effluents

P.S. Rangi, a noted agriculture economist and a former adviser to Punjab State Farmers Commission, says that

water quality is being impacted by untreated or inadequately treated industrial effluents and sewage that flows

into rivulets and rivers in Punjab.

“Also, traditional water bodies such as ponds and wells in the villages are under threat. In most of the places,

ponds have been filled and encroached upon while in other places, they have become a dumping ground for

sewage. The problem is further compounded by the mixing of storm water and sewage in various municipal

towns. The pollution and contamination of water resources due to industrial waste, sewage and excessive use

of chemical pesticides in agriculture is a major cause of concern that needs immediate attention,” says Rangi.

Given the grim situation, Punjab’s Department of Water Supply and Sanitation is planning to implement 10

surface water projects at a cost of ₹1,021 crore. These projects intend to provide potable piped water supply

to 1,021 “quality-affected” villages, making them less reliant on groundwater and more on canal water.

A total of 130 such villages — including 85 uranium-affected villages in Moga and 45 iron-affected ones in

Roopnagar — have so far been shifted from groundwater to canal water.

Lakhwinder Singh, professor of economics at Punjabi University, Patiala, who has been mapping rural Punjab

for decades, asserts that agriculture in the State thrived in the past due to easy availability of both groundwater

and surface water but, over the past few years, the availability has reached a saturation point.

Increase in indebtedness

“Successive State governments invested on drainage systems that saved crops from damage in the case of

heavy and untimely rains. Over the years, due to an incentivising of groundwater irrigation by the government

and an irrational increase in the number of electric tube wells, water tables have receded. Experts have been

time and again cautioning the State on the long-term consequences of excessive exploitation of groundwater.

Now, farmers are forced to borrow from informal and formal sources to install tube wells, causing indebtedness

and farmer suicides,” says Lakhwinder, adding that that faulty public policy and irrational cropping system

should be blamed for the scenario.





37

“Governments never visualised a scenario where agriculture would block the natural groundwater recharging

process and create conditions for falling water tables,” he says.

He proposes that the drainage system be used for artificial recharge of groundwater. “There is also a dire need

to change the cropping pattern, especially in major parts of Malwa, which need to take up cotton cultivation

again,” he says, adding that “water recharging system, if put in place, can solve weather-related problems and

economic incentives can be used to change farmers’ mindsets, making them shift to multi-cropping system”.

He feels that a “major policy shift with long term vision can solve both the agrarian crisis and the problem of

water depletion.”

Realising the magnitude of agrarian crises, the draft policy framed by Punjab’s Farmers and Farm Workers’

Commission points out that a decade of business as usual has left farmers in an unenviable position.

The policy strikes a cautious note in telling that the State is struggling to meet the aspirations of its farmers and

the time has come to take a critical look at the deteriorating resources, the changing economic environment

and the emerging market scenarios.

19-AUGUST-2019

A LOSE-LOSE SCENARIO The Centre’s actions and plans for Jammu and Kashmir suffer from inherent infirmities.

External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar tweeted on August 2 that he had conveyed “in clear terms” to U.S.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that “any discussion on Kashmir, if at all warranted, will only be with Pakistan

and only bilaterally.” Kashmir has been bilaterally enshrined as a legitimate topic of discussion between India

and Pakistan and to that extent it is certainly warranted. There is nothing iffy about it. Pakistan has worked in

many ways to obtain a better grip on Kashmir, including by getting nuclear bombs. Now that India has given

Pakistan a fait accompli, will Pakistan roll over and play dead? And how does New Delhi hope to pull it off?

The road ahead

There is a haphazard shape to the beast, sensing its hour coming around, that slouches its way towards Kashmir

to be born. The rough contours: The government will later rather than sooner have to pull additional troops

out to give the situation in Jammu and Kashmir a gloss of normalcy. There is no saying how many troops are

out there in Jammu and Kashmir. It could be surmised that there are about 80,000 deployed in the northern

part of Kashmir, along the Line of Control. This is not counting those in counter-insurgency operations in the

southern parts of the erstwhile State. This is not counting local police, the BSF and the CRPF. Obviously the

additional troops numbering some 40,000 have been brought in to manage the new situation. There could be

more.





38

The trick is how, with little or no bloodshed, this massive deployment, unparalleled in any democracy, will

squelch what waits to emerge out of the Pandora’s Box without a lose-lose scenario dominating the national

consciousness. It is a tough call.

Moves are afoot to hold an election, probably in March or April. The new political leadership, carefully

nurtured, will no doubt be from among the throw-ups in the panchayat elections. It is a good time to wager if

former Chief Ministers Omar Abdullah, Farooq Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti can ever contest another

election. It is a foregone conclusion that these leaders of regional mainstream political parties, which the

government says is a discredited lot, will have to be suitably dis-incentivised from contesting the polls, and this

means having them under some form of detention for the foreseeable future. From the new perspective, they

have identified themselves too much with separatist impulses. Certainly, third-rung or fourth-rung leaders from

these parties may already have been identified and may be being primed to give solidity to the new deal that

awaits the Kashmiris. Together they are the new quislings of Kashmir’s perennial uprising.

In order to present that green shoots of industry and economy are going to grow out of Kashmir’s hitherto

separatist soil, the CII has already planned a summit in October, and big money is being readied to throw at the

region, as has been done before. Chairman and Managing Director of Reliance, Mukesh Ambani, who has

signed on to the government’s vision, soon promises to unveil plans for Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The

government may not risk a repeat of bringing heavy industries to Kashmir now but it will certainly press ahead

with the smaller initiatives pertaining to local handicrafts and the like. It will try to set an example by proving

that removal of Article 35A, which has prevented people from the rest of the country from buying property in

Jammu and Kashmir, will have a real impact. Just like the elections, this will be a managed outcome. It is a

challenge: Even though people from Jammu could always have bought land in Kashmir, they never dared. In

May 2008, land was allocated to the Amarnath shrine to set up temporary shelters for the pilgrims leading to

sustained and massive protests and a reversal of the government stance months later.

Yet this could be an extremely optimistic picture. Having removed the separatists of various hues from the

equation on the ground and supplanted them with Delhi-controlled ventriloquism, the Centre cannot hold. It

will be laying itself directly open to blame on a variety of counts. With the police, paramilitary and

administrative machinery totally under New Delhi’s control, the Centre cannot possibly have either the same

level of engagement or the same level of deniability of the mess that mishandling of the situation could create,

not least the human rights abuses accusations that are bound to pile up once the troops cede the ground to

grimmer realities that have lurked for seven decades. At the end of it, diplomat Paul Bremer, whom the

Americans sent to Baghdad to clean up after Saddam Hussein, could begin to look like Florence Nightingale.





39

Meanwhile, Pakistan is hardly likely to launch a charm offensive. Prime Minister Imran Khan has already

predicted the possibility of lone-wolf disruptions of the dreaded Pulwama type. The spiral upward that could

follow will end more messily than we have hitherto known. So far, Muslims in the rest of the country have not

been drawn into the Kashmir quagmire. There have been some instances but not enough to cause serious

alarm. Seeds are perhaps being sown for that to change now. Kashmir’s theatre of war is readying to spill

outwards. As pressures pile up, communalisation could result. Jammu, after all, is one-third Muslim. Will the

presumed positives of abrogation of Article 370 and an old development card that has been repeatedly and

tiredly played with less than encouraging results far outweigh the inherent infirmities of the move?

Statecraft then and now

The question finally arises: could statecraft have been handled differently? Painstaking back-channel work had

narrowed the outstanding differences between India and Pakistan during the time of Prime Ministers Atal

Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh, and the congruence on critical issues had survived changes in Pakistan

involving President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and the Mumbai attacks. There had

been agreement on, among other things, a freeze on the Line of Control as the border in exchange of end to

violence and terrorism, leading to thinning of troops on either side and blossoming of local bilateral trade as

critical steps towards normalisation. The presumption was that once the momentum was there the rest would

follow. It could have been taken forward. Time alone will tell if that was the less risky, more gentle, more

inclusive way forward, or this, which right now appears to be a comedy of terrors.

20-AUGUST-2019

THE FAR RIGHT’S DISRUPTION OF GLOBALISATION Donald Trump’s emulators have tapped into globalisation’s long-standing discontents

By launching a trade war against China, the United States government that had pressured many a country to

liberalise trade and globalise seems to have turned against its own agenda. In a series of aggressive moves, the

U.S. — the one-time votary of freer trade — has put in place and widened the coverage of a protectionist shield

aimed at stimulating domestic production and reducing the country’s trade deficit. While these moves initiated

by the Donald Trump administration were on occasion targeted at multiple countries and involved rewriting

the North American Free Trade Agreement with Canada and Mexico, the focus of the trade and technology war

has been China.

Steps against China

China-specific tariff aggression began with a 25% tariff on imports worth $50 billion, out of the total of $540

billion imported by the U.S. from China in July 2018. Soon, an additional $200 billion worth of imports from

China were subjected to tariffs of 10%, and those levies were also raised to 25% in May this year. Most recently





40

on August 1, the balance of around $300 billion worth of imports from China were subjected to a phased 10%

levy, with a clear threat that these levies too can be raised to 25%. China’s responses to U.S. actions, which

came at every step of the trade war, have in turn led to the $120 billion of goods it imports from the U.S. being

subject to a 25% duty. The U.S. has also imposed sanctions on and shut off business relations with individual

Chinese firms, such as Huawei, on grounds varying from national security to alleged theft of intellectual

property from U.S. firms. This prevents the firms targeted from either selling in U.S. markets and that of its

allies or buying goods, services and technology from U.S. firms or those of its allies.

Parallel to all this, based on the allegation that the Chinese authorities have deliberately allowed the yuan to

depreciate vis-à-vis the dollar to support its exporters, the U.S. Treasury has designated China as a currency

manipulator. What additional action that would lead to is yet unclear. What is clear, however, is that given the

importance of China as a global manufacturing hub, these measures have disrupted global value chains and

production networks that are the hallmark of globalisation. Deglobalisation may yet be a distant prospect, but

the fact that the world’s leading superpower is willing to disrupt globalisation provides both an example and

the justification to other governments that find the need to move in that direction.

The U.S. argument

The U.S. justifies its actions against China by citing that country’s significance as a source of inadequately

reciprocated imports into the U.S. Imports from China account for more than a fifth of aggregate U.S. imports.

With exports to China being nowhere as large, the U.S. runs an annual trade deficit with that country of around

$420 billion, which ‘imbalance’ is attributed to Chinese policy.

There are, however, two important facts that this argument sidesteps. First, the gains to the U.S. from its

economic relationship with China are inadequately captured by the trade figures. A major gain for U.S.

companies, even if not for the U.S. per se, is the local sales by subsidiaries of American multinationals located

in China. Official statistics from the U.S. indicate that U.S. multinational affiliates based in China notched up

local sales of $222 billion in 2015, which do not figure in trade calculations. Second, these subsidiaries are

responsible for a chunk of China’s exports to the U.S. According to one estimate, more than half of Chinese

exports to the U.S. originate in foreign invested enterprises which are either U.S. multinational arms or firms

with parents in other advanced economies. That is, the U.S. trade deficit with China is the result of the off-

shoring associated with globalisation, rather than to Chinese policy favouring its own firms.

Reading Trump

Not surprisingly, it troubles the neoliberal policy establishment that the fallout of this kind of trade aggression

can set back globalisation across the world. Members of the G20 other than the U.S. have strenuously and

unsuccessfully tried to get the latter to sign on to another call for strengthening free trade. The International





41

Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation and a host of international institutions have warned of the

dangers of the new protectionism. Implicit in their reasoning is that the tariff aggression is an error being made

by a maverick or misguided administration. But that does not take into account the fact that Mr. Trump had

been railing against trade agreements that hurt the U.S. even in the course of his election campaign and

withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement days after he took office. It also ignores the fact that

a section hurt by the Trump tariffs — U.S. farmers for whom China was a $6 billion market in 2018 with it

absorbing 60% of U.S. soyabean exports — still support him. A survey by the Purdue Center for Commercial

Agriculture found that 78% of farmers held that the Trump tariffs will in time benefit them and a Pulse survey

by Farm Journal found that Mr. Trump had a 79% approval rating among farmers.

The faith in Mr. Trump and rejection of economic liberalism are telling. These farmers along with U.S. industrial

workers have for long felt they had been left behind in the neoliberal years when elites in developed and

developing countries alike captured all the benefits of growth and inequality increased hugely. With the

increase in income and wealth at the top of the pyramid accruing largely through transactions in the financial

sector, productive activity that could have delivered benefits to others has been lagging.

The idea that the benefits of whatever growth occurred under the neoliberal regime would trickle down to the

poor and lower middle classes was shown to be what it was: patently false. Seen in that context, Mr. Trump is

no maverick, despite his wild twitter and vocal outbursts. He tapped into a genuine grievance and railed against

elements of a regime he too was a beneficiary of. That brought him to power once. It may well return him to

power again. When in power he needs to adopt at least some policies that go against the grain of free market

philosophy and the globalisation that flows from it.

In Europe

That this is not confined to the U.S. comes through from the rise of what is dismissed as “right wing populism”

in Europe, which is not just sceptical of free trade even within the European Union but is coming out against

the fiscal conservatism promoted by financial interests that leaves the continent mired in a trajectory of low

growth and high unemployment and individual countries reeling under austerity. Combining this with anti-

immigrant rhetoric delivers a toxic mix that is helping them gain popularity and even a seat in some

governments. On the other hand, sections of the centre left that had bought into the neoliberal paradigm are

being shown the door. The pleasure derived by the advocates of neoliberalism from the significant decline of

the left in the decades since the collapse of the Soviet Union (which deprives the progressive critique of

neoliberalism of a strong political base) has proved short-lived.

Needless to say, the far right is hardly committed to the anti-globalisation strain implicit in its rhetoric. It is as

wedded to the hegemony of capital and the markets as are the neoliberal dogmatists. Their ideological



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/1180-1171/employment/?utm=bodytag



42

pragmatism is opportunistic and fickle. Yet for the moment, their actions, especially that of Mr. Trump, have

disrupted globalisation.

21-AUGUST-2019

CHOPPY WATERS LIE AHEAD Anger in Kashmir and adverse global opinion are but expected; policymakers must learn from

similar world events

In a series of swift moves, New Delhi has effectively altered the character of Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh,

setting certain new terms for engagement. Between August 5 and 7, Parliament passed several resolutions;

emasculating the special status of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K); making Article 35A a dead letter; abolishing J&K

as a State of the Indian Union and replacing it with two separate Union Territories — the Union Territory of

J&K and the Union Territory of Ladakh. These provisions were endorsed by both Houses of Parliament with

huge majorities.

The dramatic turn of events, and the swiftness with which they were carried out, stunned the nation. Preceding

this, Kashmir had come under a blanket of secrecy. The Amarnath yatra as well as other yatras and similar

activities were prematurely called off. All non-J&K personnel were asked to leave the State. Communications

with the outside world, including the Internet, were disrupted. An unprecedented number of paramilitary

personnel were inducted into the Kashmir Valley and still remain. All combined, it gave the impression of a

total lockdown of a kind and on a scale not previously attempted.

A decline and fall

The change in status of J&K from a princely State (under the tutelage of the British from 1846 to 1947) to a

Union Territory now with few legislative powers, mirrors the State’s decline and fall. No special circumstances

were mentioned for removing the special status accorded to J&K, enshrined in Article 370 of the Constitution.

Article 35A was a casualty of this step. The decision was merely presented as a “fait accompli”. Not explained

again was the need to take the step under such a cloak of secrecy. The Prime Minister has since characterised

the decision as ‘historic’ and as providing a new beginning for J&K and Ladakh. Further steps have been initiated

to complete J&K’s integration with India so as to transform Kashmir from a ‘civilisational backyard’ to a modern

State.

It would be an error of judgment, however, to believe that “all is well” in J&K. The nation does confront a

situation which could have many, and unintended, consequences. Many ‘-isms’ have, no doubt, collapsed

during the past half century and more. Today, communism is a pale shadow of what it was in the 20th Century.

Humanism is under threat. Liberal ideas face attacks from all sides. Nationalism is the dominant imperative,

and comes in many shades and sizes. India had been slow to adopt nationalism as a creed but is now tilting






43

towards majoritarian nationalism. Whether it would dilute India’s “diversity”, which had always been regarded

as the country’s greatest virtue remains to be seen.

Federal imperative

The immediate concern in many quarters, even though it is not being publicly articulated at this time, is

whether other “Guarantees” enshrined in the Constitution would wilt under the juggernaut of “majoritarian

nationalism”, with the ruling dispensation having an overwhelming majority in Parliament. Whatever might be

the demerits of constitutional guarantees such as Article 370 (which aimed to protect J&K’s autonomous

status), it cannot be ignored that it was intended to accommodate not only Kashmir’s diversity but also to meet

prevailing circumstances at the time of accession. Over time, it helped India put at rest speculation, as far as

the world was concerned, about the status of J&K within the Indian Union.

It is imperative to recognise that preservation of the asymmetric character of India’s federal structure

necessitates effecting several compromises. It also needs to be recognised that the manner in which India had

dealt with such asymmetry in the past is what has made India and the Indian Constitution the envy of the rest

of world. Every Article in the Indian Constitution has an appropriate role in sustaining India’s diverse and

asymmetric federalism.

The least of our concerns in the coming days, however, may not be the “dumbing-down” of Article 370 and

Article 35A. Equally inconsequential may be the sledge-hammer tactics employed to swat remnants of

Kashmir’s autonomy. There are far weightier issues that India may have to contend with.

For the present, criticism may be muted regarding the manner in which the changeover in Kashmir was

effected. Within Kashmir itself, reeling under a veil of secrecy, it is difficult to gauge the depth of anger and the

extent of animosity towards New Delhi. When the current measures are relaxed, a recrudescence of violence

in the State can be expected.

Global reactions and lessons

International opinion is unlikely — whatever gloss we may apply — to accept at face value our reasons as to

why the steps taken in Kashmir were necessary. Already, voices critical of India’s actions are beginning to be

heard. China made its views clear to India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar on August 12, implicitly

rejecting his argument that a bifurcation of J&K and the voiding of Article 370 were India’s internal matters.

China also did not heed Mr. Jaishankar’s caution that “the future of India-China relationship will depend on

mutual sensitivity”.

Most nations across the world may adopt a similar line, with a few even pontificating that when push comes

to shove, India is no different from most other Second and Third World countries, which make and break rules





44

of their own choosing. India could, hence, once again find itself isolated, having to defend its actions in Kashmir

in the international fora.

At a time like this, policymakers in India would do well to heed the lessons of history and take suitable

prophylactic measures. Without drawing any parallel, one situation that immediately comes to mind is the

crisis that ravaged Bosnia in the 1990s, following the break-up of Yugoslavia and the collapse of the post-1945

Communist order. Before the break-up, Muslims, Serbs and Croats lived reasonably amicably in mixed

communities. As the war intensified, clashes between different communities increased. Support for, including

a supply of arms to, different communities, were forthcoming from nations supporting each group. Pakistan,

for instance, was one of the countries that at the time defied the existing United Nations ban on a supply of

arms, and airlifted missiles to Bosnian Muslims. What followed was one of the worst carnages in history. We

must ensure that nothing of this kind happens here.

Regional concerns

We must also realise that the geo-political situation in our region at this juncture is not entirely in our favour.

The power play in Afghanistan, together with the fact that India has been excluded from the talks to deal with

Afghanistan’s problems, and that Pakistan and China are playing key roles, has put India on notice. Pakistan is

already using its leverage in Afghanistan to regain greater acceptance internationally, specially with the U.S.

The nexus between China and Pakistan has, if anything, become stronger.

We can, hence, anticipate a joint effort by Pakistan and China to muddy the waters as far as Kashmir is

concerned. Pakistan will almost certainly intensify terror attacks and whip-up local sentiments inside Kashmir.

China, which is already concerned about a “rising nationalist India”, is likely to adopt more insidious tactics,

aimed at weakening India’s influence across the region. Buoyed by the fact that it possesses one of the most

powerful militaries in the world and with growing acceptance of the Belt and Road Initiative, China can be

expected to raise the ante on both the border and in the Indian Ocean region.

Given the complex nature of the international situation, India also needs to be on its guard on how the situation

in Kashmir might encourage radicalist Islam to exploit the situation. Across both Europe and Asia, widespread

concerns exist that radicalised Islamist ideas and concepts thrive in conflict situations. Experts warn of the

inherent dangers in such situations, and their recipe is that apart from utmost vigilance devising more inclusive

and diversified policies is important to achieve positive results. Policy makers in India would do well to heed

these concerns.

One final word. The removal of Article 35A should not result in demographic “aggression” in Kashmir, with

outsiders seeking to “çolonise” Kashmir. This could be highly counter-productive. It could also induce fears



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/245-244/afghanistan/?utm=bodytag



45

across the entire Northeast, even though Article 371 still holds sway there. In short, authorities must avoid any

kind of ‘colourable exercise of power’ in many other areas as well, including on the language issue.

22-AUGUST-2019

STATE-BREAKING IS NOT NATION MAKING In the J&K demotion, every code, principle and constitutional sanction protecting federalism has

been violated

In India most linguistic and ethnic groups aspire for a State of their own. Militants have taken up arms against

the government and against other groups to achieve this particular objective. It is, therefore, astonishing that

the abrogation of Article 370 guaranteed by the Constitution, and the downgrading of the State of Jammu and

Kashmir (J&K), are being hailed and celebrated. It is surprising that the Telangana Government which secured

its State through popular mobilisation, voted for a Bill that dismembered J&K. It is shocking that the Chief

Minister of Delhi, Arvind Kejriwal, who battles for statehood, also voted in favour of the Bill, as did the regional

party in Odisha, the Biju Janata Dal.

Regional parties should be wary of a Central government that tampers with their State. The Government has

now the power to demote any State for whatever reason. An unfortunate precedent has been set. Every code,

every principle, every constitutional sanction protecting federalism has been violated by the Central

government that relentlessly implements a myopic agenda. In the process no one asks, why not Article 370

that grants regional autonomy? For regional autonomy is indispensable for India’s plural and complex society.

Issue of co-existence

This lesson was hammered into political consciousness by events that followed the collapse of the Berlin Wall

in 1989. Countries melted away and a number of new States emerged out of the debris of old ones often

through processes of civil war, ethnic cleansing and genocide. As the world saw a rush of State-breaking and

State-making, a new lease of life was infused into dormant separatist movements. Some examples were the

Nagas and the Bodos in India, the Chechens in Russia, separatist movements in Azerbaijan (Nagorno-Karabakh)

and Moldova (Trans-Dniester), Baluchistan in Pakistan, West Papua in Indonesia, the Oromos and the Somalis

in the Ethiopia-Somali region, the Kurds in Turkey, Sudan, the Tamils in Sri Lanka, South Ossetia and Abkhazia

in Georgia, and the rise of protest politics in the Kashmir Valley. Regional elites in Canada, the United Kingdom

and Europe, such as Quebec, Scotland, Catalonia, the Basque country and Corsica continue to demand

independence, off and on. The spate of ethnic cleansing and genocide has prompted scholars to raise the

question: how can we ensure that people who speak different languages, worship different gods, and follow

different belief systems coexist in a plural society?



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/1954-1953-1933/genocide/?utm=bodytag



46

Kernel of identity

On balance, scholars agreed that federalism is the best answer to the question of co-existence. Federalism has

since long been offered as an antidote to the centralisation of power, which results in a democratic deficit in

large and multicultural societies. Decentralisation and regional autonomy ensure responsive governance, fiscal

prudence and efficiency as well as popular participation. But in the 1990s, scholars realised that individuals do

not only seek economic benefits. Individuals need to have an identity; they need community whether that of

language, or religion, or memory, or shared traditions.

Certainly, some people identify strongly with their community, others identify weakly, and still others move on

and adopt the meaning systems of another community. But most of the time, most of us, are intimately

attached to the community of birth. For it is from here that we learn the first alphabet of a language that

teaches us how to live with people who are like us, and people who are not like us. The alphabet of this language

simply allows us to make sense of ourselves, our worlds, and of our relationships with others. If community is

so crucial to the fact of being human, individuals should be assured secure access to their community.

Neither the state nor society should harm my community. By harming my community through perverse imaging

and acts of violence, you harm me, you harm a citizen of India. Human beings without community are lesser

human beings, homeless, wanderers searching for belonging on a road that has no signboards. That is why the

loss of community breeds trauma; it leads to struggle, it can even result in civil war. Across the world we see

two kinds of struggle, the struggle for material resources, and the struggle for identity. The latter has led to

some of the most bitter conflicts in human history.

The one institution that threatens community is the nation state. This is considered one of the major mistakes

of history. Nations do not emerge as fully-fashioned entities; they are created by states through flattening out

of diverse languages, religions, cultures, through conscription, through education, and through coercion.

Attempts by States in the post-colonial world to forge nations out of diverse populations have resulted in

tremendous harm. In Sri Lanka, the official estimate was that under 7,000 people were killed, and 72,000

civilians were displaced from their homes by the Sri Lankan Army, as well as by the secessionist group, the

Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, in the last phase of the civil war, between January 2009 and May 2009 alone.

But this ran counter to data by experts at the United Nations which estimated that as many as 40,000 civilians,

if not more, lost their lives.

Thousands of innocent people died as a result of suicide bombings, grenade explosions, attacks on government

buildings and installations, indiscriminate murders, assassinations, arson and crossfire. In 1971, when East

Pakistan declared itself independent of Pakistan, an estimated 3 million people died in the war between the

new state of Bangladesh and the parent country. About 8 to 10 million were rendered homeless. In another



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/1942-1933/civil-war/?utm=bodytag

https://www.thehindu.com/tag/398-244/sri-lanka/?utm=bodytag



47

historical context, A.E. Housman had written: “They say my verse is sad: no wonder, Its narrow measure spans,

Tears of eternity and sorrow, Not mine, but man’s.” These lines may well provide the epigraph of the nation

state.

Regional autonomy

The homogenising impulse of the nation state generates resistance. These are political wars; they cannot be

resolved by military means. The only way to stem, to ward off disorder and the innumerable tragedies mayhem

spawns is to strengthen federalism. A decentralised political system enables participation. It also protects

minority identities. This was the precise logic that governed the linguistic reorganisation of States in India in

the 1950s. This was the precise logic that gave to J&K, along with other constituent States of the Indian federal

system, regional autonomy.

Mature democracies do not steamroller diversity or oppress minorities. They understand that diverse cultures

expand and enrich our grasp of the complexities, and the dilemmas of the human condition. A monochromatic

society is, by definition, soulless and bare. Stripped of the excitement of learning new languages, acquaintance

with new values, familiarity with new cuisines, literature, music, art, sculpture, and ways of conceiving the

world, life becomes dull. Life in a plural society promises adventure.

The best way to protect diversity is through the grant of regional autonomy. If we abolish diversity we land up

with a sense of longing, loss, and ultimately resentment. Kashmir’s greatest contemporary poet, Agha Shahid

Ali, who died at 52, powerfully captures this sense of loss and longing in his poem, ‘A Wrong Turn’: “In my

dream I am always in a massacred town, its name/erased from maps/no road signs to it/Only a wrong turn

brings me here....” Imagine what happens to a people when they lose Statehood. They become refugees in

their own land, the land of their ancestors, the land of their memories, the land of their traditions. We have

rootless individuals on our hands. They can go in any direction.

23-AUGUST-2019

SHOULD INDIA TINKER WITH ITS ‘NO FIRST USE’ POLICY? There is no reason for India to change its policy, which is retaliation and not initiation

Last week, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh said that the future of India’s ‘No First Use’ (NFU) policy on nuclear

weapons depended on “circumstances”. Mr. Singh’s statement has raised apprehensions on the likely revision

of India’s NFU policy and nuclear doctrine. In a conversation moderated by Dinakar Peri, Rajesh Rajagopalan

and Manpreet Sethi address these concerns.

Rajesh Rajagopalan is Professor, Jawaharlal Nehru University. Manpreet Sethi is a Distinguished Fellow,

Centre for Air Power Studies





48

What does the Defence Minister’s statement mean, and does it indicate a likely change in India’s NFU policy

and nuclear doctrine?

Rajesh Rajagopalan: I am not sure if it is really a revision of India’s NFU policy because all he said was that in

future the policy might change. That has always been the case. The doctrine is only valid for as long as the

government says it is valid. It would be foolish to suggest that doctrines cannot change or that they will hold

for all times and under all circumstances. All he was suggesting was that we cannot guarantee that the doctrine

will hold for all times.

This is possibly a signal to Pakistan that it should not take India’s restraint for granted for all times to come, but

I think even that would possibly be an exaggerated reading of the statement. I think Rajnath Singh’s statement

is somewhat different from former Union Minister Manohar Parrikar’s statement. He had said at a book launch

that he doesn’t understand why we have to wait until we hit back. That was a lot more problematic even though

it was clarified subsequently that his statement was his personal view rather than the government’s policy. I

don’t see Mr. Singh’s statement as signifying a change in the doctrine. And obviously if we did change the NFU

policy, that would not be particularly useful.

This is not the first time a Minister or senior functionary has made such a statement. There have been

periodic debates on a revision of India’s stand, especially on the NFU policy, in strategic circles. Revision of

the NFU policy was also in the BJP’s manifesto in 2014, though it wasn’t there in its 2019 manifesto. Is all this

indicative of a change at some point?

Manpreet Sethi: I quite agree with how Professor Rajagopalan has interpreted Mr. Singh’s statement. I think it

is a very normal statement. Policy adjustments get made as situations change. I don’t see anything in the

statement that is indicative of any desire for change as of now. As regards the BJP manifesto that you

mentioned, Prime Minister Narendra Modi made it clear that there was not going to be any revision. Individual

voices, most of whom are retired officials who occupied positions of power, have brought up this issue of

revision of NFU, but they did not mention any revision of NFU when they were in those positions. Late last year,

on the occasion of the announcement of the first deterrence patrol of India’s ballistic missile nuclear submarine

INS Arihant, the Prime Minister once again reiterated that the basic tenet of India’s nuclear doctrine will be

NFU. As far as I can see, there is no change in the doctrine on the cards. But having said that, there are always

the ‘Nuclearazzi’, who are out with their microscopes to look at everything that has been said and who read

more into statements. I think that’s what is happening in the case of India’s NFU. I do believe it’s a good policy

and there’s no reason for the country to change it.

In the last few years, India’s conventional posture has undergone a major shift. This was evident in the 2016

surgical strikes and this year’s Balakot airstrike. It also disproved the old belief that under a nuclear overhang,





49

the room for conventional manoeuvre is closed. In that context, isn’t stability in the nuclear realm better for

India so that there is room in the conventional domain?

RR: Absolutely. I mean obviously we want stability in the nuclear front, but I don’t think that stability was under

threat. Pakistan repeatedly raises this bogey of nuclear escalation every time it engages in some action in terms

of sending terrorists across. But that is a way of constraining India’s response, as a way of preventing India from

responding militarily to those kinds of attacks. The idea is that if you raise the issue, if you bring in nuclear

escalation as a threat, it will constrain India’s response. It is always a false expectation, a false argument,

because there is no direct link between conventional escalation and nuclear escalation.

In Kargil, for example, when we started using air power to dislodge Pakistan air forces from mountain heights,

initially Pakistan complained about escalation. It said this could lead to nuclear escalation. But pretty soon it

was clear that there was no such thing. Similarly, during the 2016 surgical strikes, Pakistan again complained

about the possibility of escalation. But in each of these cases we have not seen any escalation. There are several

layers in between, and those layers are where Pakistan has benefited because it can’t really escalate to

something like Balakot or to surgical strikes.

So, yes, we want nuclear stability and that nuclear stability exists. It is just an exaggeration by Pakistan that

nuclear stability is always under threat and anything we do will put it under immense strain.

Of late, we have repeatedly shown that we can take action without it escalating anywhere close to the nuclear

level.

Talking about the escalation matrix, the strategic ambiguity can lead to a response from Pakistan and then

in turn from China, India’s two nuclear adversaries. Pakistan has been trying to put its nuclear weapons at

sea. The U.S. has walked out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces treaty. How will these developments

impact the region?

MS: First of all, I don’t think any ambiguity has been brought into India’s doctrine as of now. I think India is very

clear on its NFU policy.

On the likely Pakistan reaction, Pakistan is working on what it calls the full spectrum deterrence capability. So,

in terms of the arsenal build-up, I don’t think there is going to be any major change except that it will likely

show urgency or justification for the large stockpile build-up that it is anyway engaged in. More likely, removal

of NFU will put India in a problematic situation because for a credible ‘first use’ you have to build different

kinds of capabilities which will mean going on a different trajectory. So, it is most likely that India will get pulled

into an arms race if it was to remove the NFU.

In terms of China’s reaction, I don’t see any material changes happening in response to India’s capability build-

up. In any case, it has a lead on nuclear and delivery systems. It will definitely use the opportunity to denigrate





50

India’s status as a responsible nuclear power. So, India’s claim to be a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group

or for a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council will come under strain as a result of that.

Frankly, as far as the response of the rest of the world is concerned, we are already in a situation where arms

control is crumbling: the U.S.’s nuclear posture review is talking about limited nuclear war once again. The rest

of the world will not care much about this change, except at the rhetoric level where there will be criticism of

what is going on. So, my concern is not so much the rest of the world’s response to change in NFU, but what it

will be for India itself in terms of investment in financial and technological capabilities to make a first use

credible. After all, it’s not just a question of dropping the ‘No’ from NFU, it is a matter of making the first use

credible and that is not an easy proposition. There is no chance that India has of carrying out in the first strike

a disarming or decapitating strike for the kinds of adversaries that we have and therefore we will be sucking

ourselves into an arms race if we were to go for a first use doctrine.

Pakistan has been trying to diversify its nuclear arsenal for many years now and has been trying to bridge

the gap between conventional and nuclear. I am referring to attempts to put nuclear warheads on

conventional submarines following India’s nuclear triad taking shape. Does this blur the line between

conventional and nuclear and create new risks?

RR: Yes, there is a problem when you use dual-use delivery vehicles and weapons systems. This is the problem

we have faced in the past. Say Pakistan is holding its nuclear weapons in some airbase. We may be constrained

from attacking that airbase because we wouldn’t want Pakistan to mistake a conventional attack on an airbase

as an attack on its nuclear weapons. So, whenever you have dual-use weapons, there is a problem. There is a

problem when both may misunderstand a particular platform, base or a submarine as containing nuclear

weapons. One may be constrained from attacking that because we don’t want to give the impression that we

are going after their nuclear weapons. On the other hand, it is an even bigger problem when Pakistan uses

these dual-use systems. If a conventional missile or a short-range missile is launched at us, we wouldn’t know

whether it is a conventional missile or a nuclear missile and therefore it is possible that one may mistake it as

an incoming nuclear attack. Even our own armoury has both nuclear and conventional warheads, which is

generally bad practice.

In 2013, after Pakistan introduced tactical nuclear weapons or battlefield nuclear weapons, India clarified

that it will not distinguish between strategic and tactical nuclear warheads and the doctrine of massive

retaliation will apply. Following the recent blurring of lines with dual-use technologies, does the nuclear

doctrine as it is still hold?

RR: I don’t think that makes a difference. I think whatever the Indian position, any attack would be considered

a nuclear attack even if it is a tactical nuclear weapon that is used against Indian forces or Indian territory. It





51

will be considered a full-scale nuclear attack. I think that the response to a tactical nuclear weapons attack,

especially on Indian forces inside Pakistani territory, will make it difficult for India to justify a full-scale massive

retaliation that the Indian doctrine suggests. But the Indian doctrine is also sufficiently flexible. Massive

retaliation is one of the options it has in case of a nuclear attack. India can decide to use, for instance, another

smaller nuclear warhead in retaliation or a limited nuclear strike. So, it doesn’t mean the doctrine itself has to

change in response to that. All the doctrine says as of now is, we will not be the first to attack and we will only

retaliate. Our posture and doctrine are essentially retaliation only. We will not initiate.

24-AUGUST-2019

AS MALABAR FACES DEADLY LANDSLIDES, DEBATE SHIFTS TO ECOLOGICALLY

SENSITIVE AREAS AND HUMAN INTERVENTION As Malabar faces up to rain-related tragedies, the debate shifts to whether ecologically sensitive

areas should be free of human intervention. S. Anandan reports on the plight of the displaced in

the hills of north Kerala.

Suneesh V., 29, walks gingerly to the tarpaulin-covered front yard of his tiny house as if the earth would give

way if he stepped on it a little firmly. He doesn’t seem to trust the soil beneath his feet any longer. He lives on

Muthappankunnu hill, covered with young rubber trees, in Kavalappara, which is part of the Bhoodanam colony

in Pothukallu panchayat in Kerala’s Malappuram district. This is where landless tribals secured land after the

Bhoodan movement more than six decades ago. On the night of August 8, the hill suddenly moved, shaking his

faith in it.

The rains had been relentless since August 4, but they turned particularly raucous from August 7, flooding the

lowlands of Nilambur taluk in the Chaliyar river basin. Almost all of Pothukallu’s low-lying areas were

submerged, forcing people to seek shelter elsewhere.

Water rose at an alarming pace in the thodu (streamlet) at the foot of Muthappankunnu hill as well. Several

hill people, including Suneesh, a construction worker, were without work for a few days. On August 8 evening,

a clutch of youth in the neighbourhood decided to walk down the road that split the hill in the middle to gauge

the situation.

“Word had spread that the Thudimutti bridge, a kilometre downstream on the thodu, was flooded. We went

wearing raincoats. The stream was fierce. Last year, when it rained heavily, there was fear of landslides, so the

hill people were evacuated to relief camps. But nothing happened. So, we were not particularly alarmed this

time around,” recalls Suneesh.





52

It was already dark when the young men returned. “There was a power outage. My neighbour Priyadarsh, 32,

and I stood in front of my house and chatted for a bit,” says Suneesh. “He then decided to go check on his

mother and grandmother. Just as he stepped into his homestead, there was a wild rumble from above. It was

as though a thousand roller shutters had been slammed down. Fear made me motionless for a while. Moments

later, I ran into my house to see my pregnant wife and mother in shock. We did not know what to do,” he says,

his voice trembling.

Half an hour later, the survivors on the tiny island of green who had been spared by the landslide gathered on

what remained of the road. “We realised we would not be able to cross the swollen thodu. The hill had

collapsed and we spent the night in dread in the small courtyard of my parents’ house,” says Suneesh.

As rescue workers struggle to retrieve the bodies of Priyadarsh, his mother Ragini and grandmother Devayani

from the debris, Suneesh sits on his haunches nearby, unable to move.

“He is terrified,” says Pratheesh Prasad, 35, Priyadarsh’s brother, who lives in a rented house in Uppada, a

neighbouring village. “They all came over to my place for 15 days this time last year. They were thinking of

coming again. It’s not my loss alone. Several people have lost their close relatives.”

When the hills collapsed

This month Kerala was battered by an erratic monsoon for the second year in a row. The worst tragedies have

unfolded in the hills of Malabar this time: in Kavalappara in Malappuram and Puthumala in Wayanad, separated

by just six kilometers across the hills.

There were 125 rain-related deaths in Kerala between August 8 and 21, according to the State Disaster

Management Authority. About 65 landslides were reported, mostly in the Malabar region. Following a massive

landslide in Kavalappara, 59 people went missing. Till August 21, 48 bodies were recovered. At Puthumala, 12

bodies were recovered and the search continues for the five who are still missing. Across the State, 1,800

houses were destroyed by the floods and 14,500 were partially damaged.

“The landslide in Puthumala was three hours before the one in Kavalappara. The Chaliyar was flooded. The

waters swept over the Panankayam bridge near Bhoodanam. As debris containing uprooted trees, masses of

concrete and mud got stuck at the bridge, streams nearby, including the Kavalappara thodu, breached the

banks. But since the area was marooned and it was still pouring, no one came to know about the Puthumala

slide till afternoon the next day. It was then that everyone also came to know about the Kavalappara slide,”

says Sivan, 56, a resident of Vellilamadu in Bhoodanam.

Between the Puthumala and the Kavalappara landslides, at around 5.30 pm on August 8, another landslide

destroyed the market, community facilities, some 22 houses, a mosque at Pathar, and another ward in the

Pothukallu panchayat, a stone’s throw away from Bhoodanam. “Seeing that the water of the Ezhavathodu



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/150-81/kerala/?utm=bodytag



53

stream was of a different colour, people had already moved to safer places when the landslide occurred. There

was no loss of life, but we lost everything else,” cries Rojimon I.G., 32. “There were eight landslides in the upper

reaches, in Valamkolli and Thenpara. Maybe they were triggered by the two granite quarries in the vicinity,”

he says, pointing to the sea of debris where his house stood.

“No, it was because of the rain,” argues Barthila Baby, panchayat member from Pathar. “The operation of a

quarry nearby had been stopped some time ago.” A village official remembers issuing a stop memo to those

illegally mining in Murukanjiram, near Pathar, a few years ago.

Barring a laterite quarry on a hill opposite Muthappankunnu hill, there is no granite quarry close by, says Rajesh

Dominic, 38, a farmer who survived the landslide. “However, it is a man-made disaster,” he says. “Over a year

ago, a planter had come here with heavy earth movers to dig huge rain pits for his rubber saplings. Use of heavy

machines at that height, close to the crest of the hill, should have been avoided. The waterlogged pits must

have triggered the landslide,” he says.

Muthappankunnu hill had a canopy of cashew groves till a few years ago. These were replaced by rubber. “As

farmers, we make sure that we conserve the land. I grow areca nut and banana and make it a point to grow

grass to strengthen the soil,” says Rajesh, who had to carry out an eleventh hour evacuation of his ageing

parents, pregnant wife and children.

The Pothukallu gram panchayat has now submitted a proposal to the government to rehabilitate all the 270

families from the Kavalappara area, says Valsala Aravindan, Bhoodanam ward member and panchayat vice

president. “We have also decided not to allow farming in the hill,” she says.

At Puthumala, once a scenic village on the slopes of plantation estates, Asghar, 32, waits as excavators look for

the missing. He says he was among those who protested the operation of a granite quarry close to the area.





54

“Blasting at the Pachakkad quarry used to be a pain. Rock pieces would hit our houses once in a while. After a

lot of struggle, we managed to get it closed,” says Asghar, whose father Aboobacker, 62, a Saudi returnee, is

still missing. An early landslide near the abandoned quarry had nearly sunk his two-storey house abutting the

road on the lower side of the hill. “Since it was raining heavily, my father went in a car with our neighbour

Avaran (68) to take a look. Both are missing,” says Asghar.

Given the torrential rain and crevices in some of the hills above — at Chooralmala, Mundakai and Attamala —

Puthumala residents, many of whom are tea and cardamom plantation workers, or their kin, had already been

moved to relief camps. “The situation looked ominous from August 7. Some 53 houses, a mosque, a temple, a

post office, the houses of plantation workers called paadi lines, a canteen and a children’s play area were later

devoured by the landslide. The debris stretched over a 10-km area,” says the president of Meppadi panchayat,

K.K. Sahad.

At the relief camp in the Government Higher Secondary School in Meppadi, survivors are traumatised.

Nausheena, 27, an advocate, shudders at the memory of her failed attempt to save her sister-in-law, 32-year-

old Hajira. “We were alert as water in the rivulet in front of our house was rising. But when the debris hit us all

suddenly, there was a mad scramble to get to higher ground. I saw a 7-year-old boy in the neighbourhood

clutching onto the sinking pillar of our house and crying for help. I was able to pull him up. My sister-in-law was

short and although I stretched out my hand to her, the debris consumed her,” she says. With no place to go,

her mother, brother and his two children are moving to a rented house at Kalpetta.

The Meppadi panchayat is seeking patronage to buy some 10 acres of lowland to rehabilitate at least 100

families from Puthumala.

The role of quarries

Kerala was on the path to recovery and rebuilding after the flood in August last year. The flood had also

rekindled the debate on whether the State would have been better off had it embraced the Western Ghats

Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) report of August 2011. Notably, the panel, which was chaired by ecologist

Madhav Gadgil, had incorporated the Nilambur-Meppadi hills in the topmost category of Ecologically Sensitive

Zones (ESZ-1).

Initial discussions revolved around the role of quarries in rattling the fragile environs of these hills. Based on

GIS mapping data, two scientists of the Kerala Forest Research Institute found in 2017 that the State had 5,924

quarries, both active and abandoned ones. “We found that there are 1,486 granite quarries in ESZ-1, 169 in

ESZ-2 and 1,667 quarries in ESZ-3 identified by WGEEP,” says the report prepared by T.V. Sajeev and Alex C.J.,

adding that it was impossible to ascertain whether or not a quarry was functional.





55

The WGEEP report had recommended a ban on quarrying in ESZs 1 and 2 and also said that existing ones should

be phased out in five years. While the Kerala Forest Research Institute report mapped the presence of 12

quarries in a five-km radius of Kavalappara, the tahsildar of Nilambur, Subhash Chandra Bose, says the entire

taluk has just three active granite quarries. “It is not the last stone extracted from a quarry that causes a

landslide,” says Sajeev.

According to Ali Moideen, chairman of the Quarry Crusher Coordination Committee, with environmental

clearances being made mandatory for all quarries, the number of granite quarries in operation in Kerala has

come down from nearly 6,000 in 2010 to 728 now. Malappuram accounts for over 100 of them, he says. But

no one is disputing the fact that unlicensed, unregulated quarries are also in operation.

A State-wide ban clamped on quarrying in the wake of the landslides has now been lifted, except in

Malappuram where the district administration has chosen to continue the ban. In view of the frightening

regularity of natural hazards now, the State Directorate of Environment and Climate Change has initiated

consultations with other departments and stakeholders to outlaw quarrying in ecologically sensitive regions

based on the landslide susceptibility zones mapped by the National Centre for Earth Science Studies in 2010.

The map is being updated now. “The new regulations will also encompass measures to restore abandoned

quarries and add teeth to the law against unauthorised quarrying,” says Usha Titus, Principal Secretary,

Environment.

Simultaneously, a landslide susceptibility map being readied by the Geological Survey of India has already

covered over 13,000 km of the 18,000 km mountain region in Kerala. “It is likely to be ready by the middle of

next year. Meanwhile, we are visiting the landslide sites for conducting studies. A similar inventory study was

undertaken across 2,000 landslide sites soon after last year’s floods,” says Sachin R., superintending geologist.

As many as 5,000 landslides were recorded in the State in 2018.

The need of the hour

A Post-Disaster Needs Assessment conducted by the United Nations Development Programme in the wake of

the 2018 floods and the draft Rebuild Kerala road map have made it clear that current land use pattern, changes

in land cover, blocking of natural drains by way of constructions and poor agricultural practices including

monocropping have all exacerbated the risk of landslides. Extreme rain events caused by climate change and

inadequate early warning measures have made matters worse. “Since it involves too many players, a

multisectoral approach is being envisaged to formulate a comprehensive land use policy,” says a top official

involved in the rebuilding process.

“For regions like Kerala in the Western Ghats, multiple factors add up to the impact we saw during the

monsoons of 2018 and 2019. These are compound events attributable to increased human intervention,” says





56

Roxy Mathew Koll, scientist at the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology. “Rising ocean temperatures are

resulting in large fluctuations in the monsoon winds, so it occasionally ends up in surges of moisture from the

Arabian Sea being dumped over peninsular India. The rise in extreme rainfall events over India from 1950 to

2018 is about threefold. It is a new norm,” he explains.

Meteorological data indicate that Malappuram received 512% and 248% excess rainfall on August 7 and 8,

respectively. In Wayanad, the rain was beyond normal by 312% and 867%, respectively, on the same days.

“Most regions with a slope of more than 20 degrees are prone to landslides. Eight per cent of Kerala is classified

as a critical zone for mass movements. Further, since the 19th century, over 50% of land with tropical forests

and grasslands has been converted to monoculture plantations and agricultural fields. This has made the terrain

much more vulnerable to landslides,” Roxy says. He calls for an improvement in weather forecast models and

early warning systems.

V. Nandakumar, group head, Crustal Processes, at the National Centre for Earth Science Studies and who visited

the landslide sites, says clay liquefaction was visible at Kavalappara. Water kept pounding the rain pits dug for

the rubber trees and entered the cracks in the ground. This caused lithomargic clay, which acts as an adhesive

between the soil, which is just a few metres deep, and the hard rock underneath, to be wrenched out. It came

crashing down as the hill is at a 60% incline, he says.

At Puthumala, unscientific constructions that interrupted natural drains played a role in multiplying the

magnitude of minor slides that generally occur in forest areas, says Nandakumar. The need of the hour is

scientific management of land use in a people-oriented manner, given the demography of the State, he says.

Rajesh Dominic, the aggrieved farmer at Kavalappara, says that this scientific management should also evolve

in consultation with the local population.

26-AUGUST-2019

UNDER THE COVER OF PRESIDENT’S RULE Unless some limitations are read into the Centre’s role under Article 356, the designated powers

of States are in peril.

The lynchpin of the government’s legal measures to declare Article 370 inoperative and reorganise Jammu and

Kashmir (J&K) into two Union Territories is the Constitution (Application to Jammu and Kashmir) Order of

August 5, 2019. However, the task was not accomplished by that Order alone. The Centre and Parliament also

used the fact that the State was under President’s Rule to act on behalf of the State government and the State

Assembly. This means that another principal source of the government’s power was the President’s

proclamation issued on December 18, 2018, imposing Central rule.



https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/indian-constitution-to-apply-in-jammu-and-kashmir-president-order/article28821507.ece



57

Much has been written about the constitutionality or otherwise of the two principal moves of the Centre:

hollowing out Article 370 using the two-pronged mechanism referred to above, and downgrading the State

into two Union Territories. One clear way to question and challenge the legality of the measures is to find out

whether there are any limitations on the Centre or Parliament using the prevalence of President’s Rule to do

anything that is not realistically possible to be done if there were a popularly elected legislature in a State.

Proviso suspension

While assuming to himself the functions of the State government and Assembly under Article 356 of the

Constitution, the President also suspends portions of the Constitution. One such suspended part is the proviso

to Article 3 (this Article empowers Parliament to create or divide States and alter their boundaries). The proviso

says the President must refer any proposal to alter a State’s name or boundaries to the State legislature for its

views. It is an acknowledged fact that under the constitutional scheme, Parliament has overriding powers over

the States in this matter. However, in respect of J&K, there is an additional proviso, one found only in the

State’s own Constitution. This says J&K’s legislature has to give its consent to any altering of its boundaries or

size or name. Significantly, the Presidential proclamation suspends the second proviso too.

Consider the following: (a) the issuance, “with the State government’s concurrence”, of the Order of 2019, by

which the Order of 1954 was superseded and the reference to ‘Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir’

was to be read as the ‘Legislative Assembly’ (b) the passage of a statutory resolution in Parliament

recommending the declaration of Article 370 as inoperative (c) the adoption of a resolution accepting

the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019 and, finally, (d) the issuance of a notification by the President

on August 6 midnight, declaring Article 370 inoperative. All these were made legally and constitutionally

possible only because the State was under President’s Rule and the President’s Proclamation under Article 356

provided for it. The legal fiction is that whatever Parliament or the President does in respect of J&K, it is the

State Assembly or the State government that is actually doing it. How far should this legal fiction be allowed to

prevail? Are there any legal limitations on this substitution of the State’s powers and functions with the Centre’s

own, even if one concedes the wide amplitude of executive power under Article 356?

Extent of judicial intervention

A presidential proclamation under Article 356 is subject to judicial review, going by the verdict of the nine-

judge Bench of the Supreme Court in S.R. Bommai vs. Union of India (1994). However, the scope for judicial

intervention is limited to the adequacy and relevance of the material on the basis of which the President comes

to the subjective satisfaction that the governance of a State cannot be carried on in accordance with the

Constitution. At the same time, the court read another limitation into the same Article. It said the initial exercise







58

of the power is limited to taking over the executive and legislative functions without dissolving the Assembly.

Once Parliament approves the proclamation, the Assembly may be dissolved.

India’s quasi-federal Constitution is admittedly weighted in favour of the Centre, but the courts have always

emphasised that, in their limited domain, States remain ‘supreme’. They are not “mere appendages of the

Centre”. Notwithstanding the Centre taking over all the State government’s functions under Article 356, there

are certain functions that the States alone can do. If these functions are allowed to be performed by the Centre

in lieu of the State government or Assembly in the garb of President’s Rule, the concept of States being supreme

in their own domain is completely destroyed.

In the realm of law and policy, the Centre may issue orders or enact laws that fundamentally alter the State’s

policies and programmes. This appears to be permissible under the Constitutional scheme of Article 356, which

says the President may assume to himself all or any of the functions of the State government; and Parliament

may perform the functions of the State legislature, but the President shall not assume any power vested in the

respective High Courts. This schema poses a real danger to the will of the people of a State, as decisions that a

popular regime would never make may become possible under President’s rule.

What could happen

Some of the possibilities of the kind of anti-federal damage that may be done while a State is under Central

rule can be listed: (a) suits instituted by the State against other States or the Centre under Article 131 may be

withdrawn or claims against it conceded (b) the power of a State Assembly to ratify Constitution amendments

may be exercised by Parliament, and (c) the Assembly may be denied the opportunity to give its views on a

proposal to alter the boundaries of the State. In the case of J&K, the consent of its legislature was mandatory,

but the State Assembly’s consent was given by Parliament itself. The resolution adopted in Parliament stated

that since the State legislature’s powers are vested in Parliament, “This House resolves to express the view to

accept the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019.”

To this list of State responsibilities that ought not to be discharged by the Centre while a State is under

President’s Rule, one may add two more aspects in respect of J&K. One is the power of the J&K government to

concur with proposals to modify the way in which provisions of the Constitution apply to the State; and two,

the recommendation of the State ‘Constituent Assembly’ to the President to declare Article 370 inoperative.

These two measures have been adopted by the Centre in the name of the Governor and by reading the term

‘Constituent Assembly’ as ‘Legislative Assembly’, and using the factum of the State being under President’s

Rule to make Parliament itself perform the duty of recommending the step.

It may be argued that Article 356 empowers the Centre to assume and perform these two functions. However,

these are clearly powers exercisable by elected regimes, and not by the Centre discharging its emergency






59

powers. The implicit limitation on the Centre performing nothing more than routine governance functions on

behalf of the State will have to be traced to the overall scheme of Article 356 itself. First, the power is invoked

only with the objective of restoring constitutional governance in the State, and not to exercise absolute powers

to change policies, laws and programmes of the State in the limited period during which a State is under

President’s rule. Parliament may pass the State Budget, or essential legislation so that existing programmes

and statutory measures survive, but Article 356 does not give a blanket power to the President or Parliament

to alter any matter in which the political leaders and the electorate of the State have a legitimate stake. Unless

these implied limitations on the way the President or Parliament performs the functions of a State under

Central rule, no State law or policy is safe.

Another example may drive home the point. Let us suppose the Centre finds that it does not have the requisite

number of State Assembly resolutions ratifying a Constitution amendment it has managed to pass with a two-

thirds majority in both Houses of Parliament. Can a few State governments be dismissed, and Parliament used

to adopt resolutions ratifying the amendments on behalf of those States?

This may happen in other ways too. A State law may be amended by Parliament during President’s Rule, and

thereafter, the subject it falls under may be shifted to the Union or Concurrent List through a Constitution

amendment; and the latter may be ratified on behalf of several State governments by placing them under

President’s Rule for a limited period. This route may be used to abrogate any State law, and thereafter future

elected regimes in the State may be prevented from restoring its old law, by stripping it of its legislative

competence.

Therefore, anyone challenging the constitutionality of the President’s Constitutional Order, or the resolutions

adopted by Parliament preparatory to the declaration of Article 370 as inoperative, will also have to seek a

verdict that imposes judicial limitations on the extent to which Article 356 can be used to subvert the will of

the States.

27-AUGUST-2019

TIME TO STRIKE THE GAVEL The judiciary needs to dispel the perception that its standing as the guardian of constitutional

rights is faltering

The biggest blow to the people of India was delivered by the Supreme Court of India on April 28, 1976. five-

member Constitution Bench (the Chief Justice of India, A.N. Ray, and Justices H.R. Khanna, M. Hameedullah

Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud and P.N. Bhagwati) delivered its judgment in the Additional District Magistrate, ... vs.

S.S. Shukla Etc. Etc. The scars it inflicted on the Constitution, constitutional morality and constitutionalism are

deep.





60

Emergency formulation

This was the judgment that allowed the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during Emergency.

Some of the points made were: “In period of public danger of apprehension, the protective law which gives

every man security and confidence in times of tranquillity has to give way to interest of the State.” (CJI A.N.

Ray); Enforceability, as an attribute of a legal right, and the power of the judicial organs of the State to enforce

the right, are exclusively for the State, as the legal instrument of Society, to confer or take away in the legally

authorised manner.” (Justice Beg); “Personal liberty is but one of the Fundamental Rights... therefore the

suspension of the right to enforce the right conferred by Article 21 means and implies the suspension of the

right to file a habeas corpus petition or to take any other proceeding to enforce the right to personal liberty

conferred by Article 21.” (Justice Y.V. Chandrachud); “The Constitution... if it says that even if a person is

detained otherwise than in accordance with the law, he shall not be entitled to enforce his right of personal

liberty, whilst a Presidential order under Article 359, clause (1) specifying Article 21 is in force I have to give

effect to it.” (Justice Bhagwati).

This was an anti-constitutional and anti-people decision. But in the true spirit of Rabindranath Tagore’s words,

Justice Khanna held: “If they answer not to your call, walk alone.

“But Article 21 cannot be considered to be the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty. The right

to life and personal liberty is the most precious right of human beings in civilised societies....”

Justice Khanna said, “The cases before us raise questions of utmost importance and gravity, questions which

impinge not only upon the scope of the different constitutional provisions, but have impact also upon the basic,

values affecting life, liberty and the rule of law... What is at stake is the rule of law. If it could be the boast of a

great English judge that the air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe, cannot we also say that this sacred

land shall not suffer an eclipse of the rule of law and that the Constitution and Indian laws do not permit life

and liberty to be at the mercy of absolute power of the executive, a power against which there can be no

redress in courts of law? Even if it chooses to act contrary to law or in an arbitrary and capricious manner... The

question is whether the laws speaking through the authority of the courts shall be absolutely silenced and

rendered mute because of such threat.”

Rights in Kashmir

That was during the Emergency. Today, there is no Emergency, yet the constitutional and basic rights of scores

have been suspended in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). Worse, the Supreme Court has virtually taken away their

constitutional remedy to enforce those rights. Regrettably, the court has treated habeas corpus petitions in a







61

most casual manner by justifying negation of the rule of law. Two episodes — though not directly connected

— have left us searching for answers as to functioning of the court.

While adjourning for two weeks, a writ petition challenging the imposition of restrictions in Jammu and

Kashmir, following the abrogation of Article 370, a bench of the top court, on August 12, 2019, merely accepted

the pleas of the Attorney General on behalf of Centre to the effect that, “we have to ensure that law and order

situation in Jammu and Kashmir is maintained and that it will take a few days to return to normalcy.” It further

observed, “the situation is such that nobody knows what exactly is happening there. Some time should be given

for bringing normalcy”.

In other words, the top court — the custodian of the right to life and liberty — handed over its duty to the

Central government. Subsequently, on August 16, another court bench hearing writ petitions on lifting the

communication ban said, “let us give it a bit of time” and adjourned these matters to an unspecified date.

During the hearing, the Central government urged that “things will settle down in next few days” and that

“these are security related issues that are best left to the government and armed forces”.

The court’s handling of these cases is a harsh reminder of the ADM Jabalpur case. More than a million people

have been locked down in one of the biggest clampdowns by the Indian armed forces; and all under the cover

of Section 144 of Cr.P.C. Article 21 is about life and liberty, and all that the Supreme Court has done is to defer

these crucial matters without taking the government to task. In the first instance, the state failed “to ensure

normalcy” from the day it abrogated Article 370; it has now tried to buy more time from the top court to do

so. The “situation is such that nobody knows what exactly is happening there”, but that is precisely why it is

the duty to court to ascertain true facts. It cannot shy away from doing justice in the name of “security” and

“law and order”.

It is not suggested here that the security of the nation can be compromised; nor can one argue that law and

order ought not to controlled. But preservation of both is the duty of the state. If it intends to do so by taking

away fundamental and basic human rights then one can infer that the state has failed in its duty.

An individual’s rights

Equally, the court’s approach to protecting the rights of individuals is disturbing as seen in the case of the

former Union Minister P. Chidambaram. On August 14, 2017, the Supreme Court entertained an SLP filed by

the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the same day, included in the supplementary list as the last item

before the Court of the CJI. The order of the Madras High Court appealed against was stayed. On February 22,

2018, the Supreme Court entertained the CBI’s interlocutory application on being mentioned and listed it for

the next day. In both these cases, the respondent was Karti P. Chidambaram. Contrary to these actions, on

August 21, 2019, it shied away from entertaining a petition by Mr. P. Chidambaram on super technical grounds.



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/Supreme_Court/?utm=bodytag

https://www.thehindu.com/tag/1399-1349/human-rights/?utm=bodytag



62

On August 16, a court bench entertained a petition filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, on the same

date and stayed the order of the Madras High Court. The reluctance to even list the matter on the same day is

disappointing.

It is not suggested for a moment that Mr. Chidambaram should not face the inquiry. But in a case where the

retiring Judge of the High Court delivers the judgment after several months and in the afternoon (3 p.m.),

virtually making it impossible for the petitioner to get relief from Supreme Court and which simultaneously fails

to extend the interim protection which was operating for this period, is a case where the top court should have

intervened. In its actions, the top court that made the right to anticipatory bail sacrosanct (Gurbaksh Singh

Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab, 1980) has now made it infructuous. Does the judiciary have to be reminded of

the fundamental principle, actus curiae neminem gravabit (no person should be prejudiced by an act of Court)?

The judiciary needs to dispel the perception that it is no longer the pillar created to protect constitutional and

legal rights. In any failure, its stature and status as the “bulwark of the rule of law and the democracy” will

be compromised.

28-AUGUST-2019

TIME TO STRIKE THE GAVEL The judiciary needs to dispel the perception that its standing as the guardian of constitutional

rights is faltering

The biggest blow to the people of India was delivered by the Supreme Court of India on April 28, 1976. five-

member Constitution Bench (the Chief Justice of India, A.N. Ray, and Justices H.R. Khanna, M. Hameedullah

Beg, Y.V. Chandrachud and P.N. Bhagwati) delivered its judgment in the Additional District Magistrate, ... vs.

S.S. Shukla Etc. Etc. The scars it inflicted on the Constitution, constitutional morality and constitutionalism are

deep.

Emergency formulation

This was the judgment that allowed the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during Emergency.

Some of the points made were: “In period of public danger of apprehension, the protective law which gives

every man security and confidence in times of tranquillity has to give way to interest of the State.” (CJI A.N.

Ray); Enforceability, as an attribute of a legal right, and the power of the judicial organs of the State to enforce

the right, are exclusively for the State, as the legal instrument of Society, to confer or take away in the legally

authorised manner.” (Justice Beg); “Personal liberty is but one of the Fundamental Rights... therefore the

suspension of the right to enforce the right conferred by Article 21 means and implies the suspension of the

right to file a habeas corpus petition or to take any other proceeding to enforce the right to personal liberty

conferred by Article 21.” (Justice Y.V. Chandrachud); “The Constitution... if it says that even if a person is






63

detained otherwise than in accordance with the law, he shall not be entitled to enforce his right of personal

liberty, whilst a Presidential order under Article 359, clause (1) specifying Article 21 is in force I have to give

effect to it.” (Justice Bhagwati).

This was an anti-constitutional and anti-people decision. But in the true spirit of Rabindranath Tagore’s words,

Justice Khanna held: “If they answer not to your call, walk alone.

“But Article 21 cannot be considered to be the sole repository of the right to life and personal liberty. The right

to life and personal liberty is the most precious right of human beings in civilised societies....”

Justice Khanna said, “The cases before us raise questions of utmost importance and gravity, questions which

impinge not only upon the scope of the different constitutional provisions, but have impact also upon the basic,

values affecting life, liberty and the rule of law... What is at stake is the rule of law. If it could be the boast of a

great English judge that the air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe, cannot we also say that this sacred

land shall not suffer an eclipse of the rule of law and that the Constitution and Indian laws do not permit life

and liberty to be at the mercy of absolute power of the executive, a power against which there can be no

redress in courts of law? Even if it chooses to act contrary to law or in an arbitrary and capricious manner... The

question is whether the laws speaking through the authority of the courts shall be absolutely silenced and

rendered mute because of such threat.”

Rights in Kashmir

That was during the Emergency. Today, there is no Emergency, yet the constitutional and basic rights of scores

have been suspended in Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). Worse, the Supreme Court has virtually taken away their

constitutional remedy to enforce those rights. Regrettably, the court has treated habeas corpus petitions in a

most casual manner by justifying negation of the rule of law. Two episodes — though not directly connected

— have left us searching for answers as to functioning of the court.

While adjourning for two weeks, a writ petition challenging the imposition of restrictions in Jammu and

Kashmir, following the abrogation of Article 370, a bench of the top court, on August 12, 2019, merely accepted

the pleas of the Attorney General on behalf of Centre to the effect that, “we have to ensure that law and order

situation in Jammu and Kashmir is maintained and that it will take a few days to return to normalcy.” It further

observed, “the situation is such that nobody knows what exactly is happening there. Some time should be given

for bringing normalcy”.

In other words, the top court — the custodian of the right to life and liberty — handed over its duty to the

Central government. Subsequently, on August 16, another court bench hearing writ petitions on lifting the

communication ban said, “let us give it a bit of time” and adjourned these matters to an unspecified date.






64

During the hearing, the Central government urged that “things will settle down in next few days” and that

“these are security related issues that are best left to the government and armed forces”.

The court’s handling of these cases is a harsh reminder of the ADM Jabalpur case. More than a million people

have been locked down in one of the biggest clampdowns by the Indian armed forces; and all under the cover

of Section 144 of Cr.P.C. Article 21 is about life and liberty, and all that the Supreme Court has done is to defer

these crucial matters without taking the government to task. In the first instance, the state failed “to ensure

normalcy” from the day it abrogated Article 370; it has now tried to buy more time from the top court to do

so. The “situation is such that nobody knows what exactly is happening there”, but that is precisely why it is

the duty to court to ascertain true facts. It cannot shy away from doing justice in the name of “security” and

“law and order”.

It is not suggested here that the security of the nation can be compromised; nor can one argue that law and

order ought not to controlled. But preservation of both is the duty of the state. If it intends to do so by taking

away fundamental and basic human rights then one can infer that the state has failed in its duty.

An individual’s rights

Equally, the court’s approach to protecting the rights of individuals is disturbing as seen in the case of the

former Union Minister P. Chidambaram. On August 14, 2017, the Supreme Court entertained an SLP filed by

the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on the same day, included in the supplementary list as the last item

before the Court of the CJI. The order of the Madras High Court appealed against was stayed. On February 22,

2018, the Supreme Court entertained the CBI’s interlocutory application on being mentioned and listed it for

the next day. In both these cases, the respondent was Karti P. Chidambaram. Contrary to these actions, on

August 21, 2019, it shied away from entertaining a petition by Mr. P. Chidambaram on super technical grounds.

On August 16, a court bench entertained a petition filed by the Serious Fraud Investigation Office, on the same

date and stayed the order of the Madras High Court. The reluctance to even list the matter on the same day is

disappointing.

It is not suggested for a moment that Mr. Chidambaram should not face the inquiry. But in a case where the

retiring Judge of the High Court delivers the judgment after several months and in the afternoon (3 p.m.),

virtually making it impossible for the petitioner to get relief from Supreme Court and which simultaneously fails

to extend the interim protection which was operating for this period, is a case where the top court should have

intervened. In its actions, the top court that made the right to anticipatory bail sacrosanct (Gurbaksh Singh

Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab, 1980) has now made it infructuous. Does the judiciary have to be reminded of

the fundamental principle, actus curiae neminem gravabit (no person should be prejudiced by an act of Court)?



https://www.thehindu.com/tag/Supreme_Court/?utm=bodytag

https://www.thehindu.com/tag/1399-1349/human-rights/?utm=bodytag



65

The judiciary needs to dispel the perception that it is no longer the pillar created to protect constitutional and

legal rights. In any failure, its stature and status as the “bulwark of the rule of law and the democracy” will be

compromised.

29-AUGUST-2019

HARDLY THE BRICK AND MORTAR OF A REVIVAL The transfer of the RBI’s surplus is only a stopgap measure which will not address the key

problem of a lack of demand

There is no longer any room for doubt on the parlous state of the Indian economy. The automobile industry,

seen as a bellwether of activity in the post-liberalisation years, is in crisis, as automakers, parts manufacturers

and dealers have laid off about 350,000 workers since April this year, with more job cuts likely. While this could

still reflect falling demand only from higher income groups, recently, Parle Products, once the world’s largest

selling biscuit brands, announced that it may have to lay off up to 10,000 workers (around a tenth of its

workforce). The company blamed falling sales due to the Goods and Services Tax (GST) that led to higher prices

of the cheapest small packets of biscuits at a time of extreme price sensitivity because of reduced livelihood,

especially among rural consumers.

Home budgets under strain

Sales in the fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sector as a whole grew at only 10% in the April-June quarter

of this year, less than nominal GDP growth. The slowdown in sales is across food and non-food items, with the

biggest reductions in salty snacks and biscuits, spices, soaps and packaged tea. These represent the more

discretionary element of consumer spending even among the poor — the items more likely to be cut down

when household budgets are under strain.

Economists with the government who finally recognised that there is a problem have blamed the current

situation on the “financial stress” inherited from the United Progressive Alliance government more than five

years ago, which is apparently preventing investment because “no one trusts anyone else”. But this isolates

only one factor in the current slowdown: the undoubted mess in the credit system, reflecting both the overhang

of bad debts of banks (worse today than in 2014) and the erosion of non-banks after the collapse of the

aggressive lender, Infrastructure Leasing & Financial Services Limited.

This is a factor, but this explanation completely misses the demand side of the story. It is clear beyond doubt

now that the slowdown in mass consumption, combined with falling and then subdued rates of investment

over several years, have led to what is undeniably a crisis of inadequate effective demand in the economy.

This scenario has been unfolding for a while because of a medium-term trajectory in which the fruits of growth

went disproportionately to a small elite of big capital and rich individuals without translating into broader





66

economic improvement. The increasing inequality associated with jobless growth meant that mass

consumption demand did not rise as expected with rapid GDP growth.

Impact of demonetisation

The hugely damaging impact of demonetisation in November 2016 was further accentuated by the poor

implementation of the GST barely seven months later. These badly managed policy measures served as body

blows to informal economic activity, causing major declines in employment and output. At first, they did not

affect formal enterprises so much as they gained at the cost of informal ones. But the resulting loss in

livelihoods and wage incomes eventually had an effect on demand for formal sector output, which has

worsened over time because there have been no counterbalancing moves by the government. Total

employment actually declined by more than 15 million workers between 2011-12 and 2017-18, even as

unemployment rates reached their highest levels in nearly half a century.

This operated in addition to a medium-term trend of wage suppression, something that was even celebrated

by the late former Finance Minister Arun Jaitley as a means of combating inflation. Rural wages have been

stagnant or declining in the recent period. Meanwhile, the continuing crisis of cultivation has obviously affected

the purchasing power of the farming community. Urban wage incomes are also apparently not keeping pace

with inflation, even as informal activity and “start-ups” in urban areas have faltered.

The government could have countered this adverse impact of declining employment and consumption

demand, which in turn reduced the profit expectations of producers in formal enterprises, by providing a fiscal

stimulus. It did not do so. Instead, it kept assuming or hoping that using optical measures — manipulating “Ease

of Doing Business” indicators and offering further incentives to foreign capital to attract more inflows, however

volatile — would somehow attract investment into the economy that would counteract all the negative

impulses.

Private investors simply kept demanding more fiscal and regulatory concessions even as they continued to sit

on investment plans as they waited for overall demand improvement. More recent complaints of the private

corporate sector have been about oppressive tax collection methods of a government desperate to meet its

revenue targets. But these along with the greater difficulties of accessing loans from both banks and non-banks

are irritants that would have been tolerated in a buoyant economy. They have become serious issues now

because of the wider stagnation.

Supply-side approach

In this context, the Finance Minister’s recent announcements of measures to boost the flagging economy are

not a case of “too little too late”; rather, they completely miss the point. They do nothing to address the issue

of inadequate demand generation or the underlying tendencies of wage suppression and low employment





67

growth. Instead, they once again reveal a supply-side approach to the problem, which is unlikely to yield much

benefit.

Even these measures are mostly cosmetic or affect only a small segment of the economy, not enough to cause

any real change in economic direction. The capital infusion of ₹70,000 crore into public sector banks had

already been announced in the Budget; frontloading this inadequate amount is not going to rev up an economy

if those whom banks are willing to lend to are hesitant to invest. Giving into demands of foreign portfolio

investors with regard to taxation likewise does nothing to increase domestic demand; it simply provides some

solace to the stock market. The middle classes repaying home loans may see a minor benefit if banks actually

do pass on lower interest rates, but this too will not provide a major boost to the economy. The decision of the

government to buy more cars to shore up the automobile industry is bizarre in the extreme, because it

undermines the medium-term strategy of shifting to electric vehicles as soon as possible.

What could the Finance Minister have done instead? If the immediate problem is lack of demand, the

immediate response should be to increase it — ideally in ways that provide the desired basis for future

economic growth.

Rural focus

Rural distress is real and deeper and greater than the much-hyped distress of angel investors and high net

worth individuals; so a massive increase in rural public expenditure, including in the Mahatma Gandhi National

Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme to provide public works as well as in social spending would provide

immediate relief. The multiplier effects of such spending would generate more employment, incomes,

consumption and, therefore, investment over time — as well as more tax revenues for the government. There

is also both scope and need for increases in “green” public investment for a sustainable future.

But to seize this crisis as an opportunity for progressive change would require more visionary economic policy

making, something that this government has been sadly lacking in.

So does the massive transfer of the Reserve Bank of India’s surplus amounting to ₹1.76 lakh crore suggests that

this is the government’s game plan? Unfortunately, because of the mess in public finances, all that this is likely

to do is fill the massive gap left by inadequate tax collection, thereby letting the Finance Minister off in the

current fiscal year from another embarrassing situation of budgetary discrepancies. The proposed Budget was

not particularly expansionary and did not provide for more spending in the areas required. So this stopgap

measure may provide more fiscal space than before, without really addressing the basic problem.





68

30-AUGUST-2019

WHAT IS THE RIGHT WAY OF REGULATING SOCIAL MEDIA? Policy discussions involving the public, and not tech solutions alone, would help fight fake news.

The Supreme Court recently stressed the need to find a balance between the right to online privacy and the right

of the state to detect people who use the web to spread panic and commit crimes. Are current regulations and

the nature of Internet platforms tuned to find this balance? In a conversation moderated by Srinivasan

Ramani, Arun Mohan Sukumar, Head of Cyber Security and Internet Governance Initiative at the Observer

Research Foundation, and Raman Chima, Asia Policy Director and Senior International Counsel at 'Access Now',

take stock of the issues involved and offer some suggestions. Excerpts:

Arun, in the last few years there has been an explosion in the use of messaging apps such as WhatsApp.

Concomitantly, there has been an increase in fake news and rumour-mongering leading to lynchings. Are the

steps taken by WhatsApp to combat this enough or should it do more?

Arun Mohan Sukumar: When you ask us what are the steps, we should also ask whether these are the steps

that we should take in the first place. I think many would agree that some of these problems have nothing to

do with the platforms themselves and cannot be resolved by technological solutions.

Fake news is not something that has been catalysed in the digital age alone; it has been a long-standing

problem. We have had very little success in trying to persuade people not to believe certain stuff. And I’m not

entirely sure whether the solution to this problem necessarily lies in technology.

WhatsApp, to its credit, tried to limit forwards to five people and the norm has been tested. It has been piloted

in other parts of the world as well. WhatsApp is looking at India not just as a booming market but also as a

place where it can pilot some of these solutions and test them out in other emerging markets as well.

If you take uncomfortable situations developing in another part of the world, Facebook and Twitter were fairly

quick to acknowledge the disinformation operations that were backed by the Chinese government in Hong

Kong. This came out in a simultaneous way, documenting instances where state-sponsored elements were

perpetrating fake news and sophisticated disinformation campaigns against protesters in Hong Kong. That

happened because, one, the extent of the commercial engagement of both these platforms in China is fairly

limited. Two, there is an element of geopolitics in this which we can’t ignore. The fact is that both of these are

American platforms. The orchestrated disclosure, I believe, could have had the blessings of the American

government. That is the extent to which these platforms are prepared to take cognisance of fake news. In other

economies, it’s quite selective.





69

While WhatsApp has been trying to resist this idea of message traceability, it is also trying to maintain the

integrity of the platform. Many regulators in India believe that technological fixes are solutions even if they

weaken end-to-end encryption. I’m not sure that is the right way to go.

Raman, while technology per se is not the problem, virality of texts makes fake news spread very fast. Would

you agree with some of the solutions that have been propounded — for example, Professor V. Kamakoti’s

idea of tracing origin of WhatsApp messages?

Raman Chima: Firstly, on virality, communication virality has been there right from the invention of the

Gutenberg printing press. Mass circulation has always resulted in tension between people in power with others.

When it comes to messaging services, when they were implemented in India and in other emerging economies,

they were not just used for the purpose of messaging. They were, for many people, information discovery

platforms. They do not often relate or refer to the World Wide Web. The kind of information consumed in

messages are images and videos that may not be actually hosted on the web. The problem, therefore, is that

messaging platforms haven’t been able to do a good job in ensuring that people have access to good, accurate

information. For example, if you sign up to a messaging service, say WhatsApp, are you informed in your local

language about how you could report in your own language disinformation content and messages that are

malicious or abusive? Sadly, the reality is that there is not even a splash screen in the local language to know

what you can or cannot say, during the process of signing up.

Also, fact-checking websites, fake news busters and government sources don’t get the support they need to

distribute their content to local users in interior areas. Therefore, the messaging services companies could do

more in fighting disinformation. I agree with Arun that they cannot be held liable and that they shouldn’t

implement technological solutions as a panacea. You mentioned suggestions by Professor Kamakoti of IIT

Madras to the Madras High Court. First of all, there is the argument that the Madras High Court should not be

going into an area which is a legislative issue. Even if that is set aside, his proposals have been critiqued by

other computer scientists. Professor Manoj Prabhakaran of IIT Bombay, for example, has argued against such

models of imparting traceability.

Both of you seem to agree that the solution doesn’t lie in technology, and neither is there any need to add

any extra layer of liability for social media platforms and websites. So, the Shreya Singhal judgment in 2015

was along these lines, right? Some provisions on intermediary liability on publishing were actually read

down. But last year, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology notified new draft rules for

intermediaries and called for public comments. What levels of liability would you set for social media

platforms?





70

AMS: There has been a raft of litigious activity and, concurrently, fairly explosive growth in regulatory

guidelines as well. These guidelines from the government have been trying to enhance the agency of the

government over technology companies. For instance, there is a debate among government industries today

about data localisation, something that will affect the working of most of these big technology companies. The

fundamental tension at work is that most of the technology companies, which are into the bread-and-butter

business of communication, are based abroad. The consumer base is clear with a WhatsApp or Facebook or

Twitter. WhatsApp has effectively made encrypted communication a mass market phenomenon here, which is

great for correspondence generally. But on the other hand, the government has very little agency to make

these companies do what they want to in terms of adhering to certain intermediary guidelines. Of course, the

reason why these guidelines were lampooned was because the government imposed a high degree of liability,

and takedown requirements in many cases were selectively followed. The fact is that if you were to take a step

back and look, the government has very limited agency over these companies at the moment. On the one hand,

there is a great deal of adoption by a wide user base, which is only increasing as Internet connectivity grows in

India. And WhatsApp did not even have an office in India till very lately!

And the same thing goes for Internet shutdowns. Now, nobody would say that Internet shutdowns are a

desirable phenomenon. But if you speak to local law enforcement agencies and district magistrates, they tell

you that they have very limited avenues by which they can prevent the proliferation of malicious content on

the Internet through social media platforms at a time of crisis, whether that crisis is a natural calamity or

whether it is man made. So, they have resorted to these in a ham-handed fashion. Of course, you can’t justify

these measures. But the fact is that at the local level or at the federal level, there seems to be very little agency

that government officials have to do what they should do.

RC: On intermediary liability, it has already been identified by our judiciary that the issue of making platforms

liable for the content posted by users impacts free speech. And the basic premise there is, you can put pressure

on tech platforms to over censor or even perhaps harm the privacy of users by making them liable for all the

content they have posted on platforms.

When Parliament legislated provisions, there were some ambiguities over what the executive branch could

regulate via rules. Rules were criticised when they were released in 2012 and, ultimately, as you mentioned,

they were read down in the Shreya Singhal judgment. The court basically said that if you are asking for content

takedowns, that can be done only via a court order or through a legal process. The government’s proposed

amendments to the rules, for example, that web platforms should deploy self-censoring/auto-filtering of

content by users could definitely fly against the face of the court’s judgment.





71

More importantly, on some issues such as identifying the origin of messages through breaking encryption, the

government seems to be using rule-making as a way to fix and patch these. Whereas it would be better off to

have substantial legislative policy discussions held in a public manner over such knotty issues. Also, as Arun

says, there is a lack of agency for the government to receive information from the platforms as there is no clear

privacy law in place.

Government agencies lack sufficient agency and often use a ham-handed approach to enforce takedowns or

shutdowns. In some cases, a total communication shutdown, as we see in Kashmir today, invoking ‘national

interest’. What kind of mechanisms would you suggest instead of this approach?

AMS: We did this capacity-building workshop a couple of years ago, with law enforcement agencies from across

States. Some States clearly did better, because they had, for lack of a better reason, good cops. They were

interested in pursuing this sort of “finesse” measures and not merely rely on takedowns. Telangana, for

instance, has a cadre of officers who dedicate themselves to preventing the propagation of fake news through

channels like WhatsApp. Some of these steps require serious investment and I am not sure if all States have

the capacity.

So perhaps the Prime Minister’s/the Centre’s sending a message down to folks at the district level may well

produce some results. But the fact is that they resort to these ham-handed measures because they do not have

any other tools.

But I also agree that India is one of the countries which often tops the number of takedown requests, but it’s

not the only country or the only government that is interested in data from users. Facebook’s reports that

indicate the number of requests that the government has made for a takedown show that India’s [requests for

a takedown] are up there with the U.S. government or any other Western European government.

31-AUGUST-2019

HOPE AND HURT IN LADAKH UNION TERRITORY OF LADAKH: CELEBRATIONS IN LEH,

CONCERNS IN KARGIL

The Central government’s decision to convert Ladakh into a Union Territory set off celebrations

in Leh, but raised concerns in Kargil. Damini Nath reports on the expectations and the

apprehensions

It is a pleasant Tuesday afternoon in Leh. It has been two weeks since the Central government announced that

Jammu and Kashmir’s special status stands scrapped and the State would be split into two Union Territories:

Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh. Decorations hang overhead in the Leh market as visitors mill around and

shopkeepers sell handicrafts, shawls, rugs, carpets and stone jewellery. There is happiness in the air.



https://www.thehindu.com/specials/jammu-kashmir-from-a-state-with-autonomy-to-two-union-territories/article28883455.ece

https://www.thehindu.com/specials/jammu-kashmir-from-a-state-with-autonomy-to-two-union-territories/article28883455.ece



72

Just about 200 km away is Kargil’s market. Most shops selling clothes, dry fruits and household goods are open.

Visitors walk around here too, but no one is rejoicing. Small groups of armed paramilitary personnel stand in

the bylanes and crossings; some sit on the steps of shops. They all keep a keen watch on the surroundings.

There are barricades erected by the police throughout the market. Policemen in plainclothes, who identify

themselves as ‘CID’ men, walk up and down the streets. They ensure that groups of people disperse, although

no restrictions on movement have been officially imposed in Kargil.

Most shops reopened in Kargil only the previous day, on August 20, after a strike protesting the government’s

announcement on August 5 was called off. This was one of the many strikes that were called by local religious

and political groups under the banner of the Joint Action Committee to protest the decision. The strikes all

lasted for a few days, with shops closing and opening intermittently.

The two markets seem like they are located at two ends of the country. But they belong to the same region,

Ladakh, which was a part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir and will be a Union Territory without a Legislative

Assembly from October 31. Both Leh and Kargil are governed by their own Autonomous Hill Development

Councils, each having 30 members.

Soon after the government’s announcement, images and videos beamed on televisions and phones of the rest

of India, of citizens celebrating in Leh, where a demand for a separate Union Territory of Ladakh has existed for

years. There were barely any images from Kargil town. The two towns are largely divided in their response but

what unites them is anxiety about the future of the Himalayan region.

Happiness at last

In Leh’s Thiksey village, retired State government employee Nawang Chota sits outside his home, chatting with

a friend. “I am 72 years old. I think the demand for a Union Territory has been there for longer than that,” he

says. He smiles broadly: “Now, there is one nation, one Constitution, and we are finally free of Kashmir.”





73

Many in Leh believe that the dominance of the Kashmir Valley-based political parties in State politics has

resulted in discrimination against Ladakh. They say that Leh always received less funds than required and has

not seen development in years.

“The politicians in Jammu and Kashmir ignored us. It doesn’t matter if we don’t have an Assembly. We have

the Hill Council. The government should now strengthen it further,” says Chota. “I struggled financially to

ensure that my daughter completed her PhD. She completed it in 2016. But she still can’t find a job. I hope the

government does something about the job scenario,” he adds.

Across the highway from Thiksey is Matho village, famously known for the Matho monastery, which is perched

atop a mountain. Matho is home to the Ladakh BJP MP Jamyang Tsering Namgyal, who gained prominence

after his speech in Parliament on Article 370.

Tsering Angchok, a farmer in Matho, says the whole village is very happy. He echoes Chota’s views and

concerns: “Kashmir would take 90% of the funds and leave us with just 10%. Now that won’t happen,” he says.

“But the quality of education here is just not as good as it is in the rest of the country. I don’t know how our

people will compete with the rest of the country,” he observes.

Down the road, Chhering Norbu sits outside a kirana shop. He s an ex-Serviceman. He worked in the State

government after retirement. Retired from that job as well, he hopes that his pension will come on time now.

While the people are jubilant, political leaders in Leh are waiting for the government’s next move.

Dorje Angchuk, district unit president of Leh, says the BJP will “go to every village” to make people aware of

what really has changed for Ladakh. “Some people are trying to compare us with other Union Territories. We

have a Hill Council and the members will now work more like MLAs. Unlike the Delhi government, our Council

has control over land. But we are still looking for more protection through the Sixth Schedule,” he says.

On August 17, Mr. Namgyal wrote to the Union Tribal Affairs Minister, Arjun Munda, asking him to make a

representation to Home Minister Amit Shah for declaring Ladakh a tribal area under the Sixth Schedule of the

Constitution. The Consitution makes special provisions for the administration of tribal-dominated areas in

Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram. Mr. Angchuk is confident the Central government will fulfil Ladakh’s

dream.

Nawang Rigzin Jora, Leh’s Congress MLA and former Jammu and Kashmir Cabinet Minister, has fought for Union

Territory status for Ladakh for decades. But he says the demand was always for a Union Territory with a

legislature, an elected representative body. His constituency is among the four Ladakh seats in the Jammu and

Kashmir Assembly that will no longer exist.





74

“We are looking at something like Article 371 that gives constitutional guarantees to the northeastern States.

If the Hill Councils are brought under that, many of our concerns would be taken care of. The BJP’s sincerity

will be tested on whether it provides this constitutional guarantee,” he says.

Unkept promises of development

But standing in Kargil’s market as police vehicles race past with sirens blaring, Zarina, a private school teacher,

expresses her anger. She says the Central government’s decision is akin to “snatching food from our mouths”.

“On what basis did the government give us Union Territory status? Union Territories are usually small areas,

but Ladakh is a vast region,” she says.

Leh district, sitting at over 11,500 feet above sea level, has a population of 1.33 lakh. It is among the largest

districts in the country in terms of area (45,110 sq km).

“Just like the British, the BJP is trying to divide and rule,” says Zarina. “They did this just to break the Muslim

majority of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. They can talk about development, but no development is going

to happen. The common people want their rights back.”

The crowd that gathers around her nods in agreement.

Ghulam Raza, a Kargil-based businessman, steps forward. “Modi came here in 2014. He told us that he would

bring the ‘Gujarat model’ to Kargil. We are still waiting for that to happen,” he says.

For Raza and many others in Kargil, memories of the 1999 war fought between India and Pakistan in the

mountains of the district remain fresh. “We in Kargil sacrificed everything and supported the Army. Our people

carried provisions for the forces in the mountains, sometimes wearing their uniforms. Our people lost lives and

homes in the shelling. If it had not been for Kargil’s people, this would be in Pakistan today,” he says, pointing

to the ground.

Refuting the government’s claim that development works had suffered over the years due to Jammu and

Kashmir’s status, Raza says the government had promised air connectivity to Kargil as well as a tunnel at Zoji

La so that it wouldn’t get cut off from Srinagar during winter. “They haven’t fulfilled their own promises of

development, so why talk of the State government,” he asks.

The Ladakh MP refutes these charges. In a crowded room at the BJP headquarters in New Delhi, three weeks

after the government’s announcement, Mr. Namgyal says, “People need not have fears [about land and job

security]. We asked for Union Territory status precisely because we didn’t have the protections. Under Article

370, our land, jobs, socio-economic aspects and culture were not secure.” On the allegation that the Centre

has failed to fulfil its promises, Namgyal says the expansion of Kargil airport “with ₹200 crore given by the

government is under process”.





75

“As far as the Zoji La tunnel project is concerned, it was the Modi government that issued tenders. Congress

leaders raised some objections. Then there was another tender. IL&FS came, but it had financial troubles. So,

there was yet another tender. The government is making all efforts possible to implement it,” he says, as party

workers jostle to click selfies with him.

Rejecting the notion that Kargil residents are unhappy with the move and have come out on the streets, Mr.

Namgyal says a small group of people is protesting “just to lodge its attendance”. “Kargil is not just one market.

There are people spread over an area of 15,000 sq km. I represent all of them,” he says.

In Kargil, though used to the presence of armed forces given Ladakh’s location, locals say the sight of gun-

wielding soldiers in the market has become the new normal since August 5.

“We used to have faith in the government. Most of the people here were supporters of India. Those who used

to roam around with the tricolour in hand are now rethinking everything,” says Sajjad Hussain, who works as

an education and health counsellor with the State government. The right to vote has been “snatched”, he adds,

with Ladakh’s representatives to the Jammu and Kashmir State Assembly not finding any space now.

Communication woes

Though phone lines have not been snapped in Kargil, mobile Internet has been cut off by the government citing

“law and order” as the reason. Phone and Internet services in Leh have not been cut off, but the communication

lockdown in the rest of Jammu and Kashmir has affected citizens.

Mohammad Ali, a household goods shopowner in Kargil, says transporters have started demanding double the

rate to bring products from Srinagar, fearing trouble. “Our stocks are running low. We did a hartal and it caused

us losses, but we will keep our shops closed for a month if we have to. Article 370 was the backbone of Jammu

and Kashmir and the government has removed it. We will not step back. We will continue our protests,” he

states.

“They have turned Jammu and Kashmir into a jail. Is this democracy? We can’t speak to our relatives,” says

Abdul Ghani Shah, a businessman from downtown Srinagar who is in Kargil on work. Interrupting him, a farmer,

Mohammad Abbas, says, “Look, I’m dialling the landline number of my relative.” The phone doesn’t connect

though it has been a few days since the government announced restoration of landline connectivity in the

Valley. Abbas says this news was merely “propaganda by the media”.

Gyurmet, a taxi driver in Leh, rushes home three times a day in between airport drops and city sightseeing trips

with tourists. In November last year, he was diagnosed with kidney failure, which means he needs to get

peritoneal dialysis done at home thrice a day. The solution that he needs for the procedure comes from

Srinagar. “The phones are not working, so I have not been able to order the fluid. I’m running out of it. I don’t





76

know when and how I will be able to get more. The other route to get it is through Manali, but it’s much longer

and more expensive,” he says.

An uncertain future

For now, Kargil is waiting and watching.

Sheikh Nazir Mehdi Mohammadi, president of the Islamia School that is the hub of the Shia Muslim community

in Kargil, and the chairman of the Joint Action Committee, says there is a lot of visible anger. “Since August 5,

there have been protests and hartals. There were some students from outside who resorted to pelting stones

and objectionable sloganeering. We made it clear in the Friday prayers that we condemn this. We are reminding

people to respect the law and to demand our rights within the law,” he says. The committee, he says, may call

another hartal if the Chief Secretary does not meet its representatives.

The Ladakhis fear that outsiders may buy land and take away their jobs which were earlier kept for the locals.

With the isolated region already facing employment issues (according to the 2011 Census, the percentage of

non-workers in Leh and Kargil districts are 43.76% and 63.16%, respectively), jobs seem to be on everyone’s

mind. “The next generation will suffer the most,” says Najumunisa, a government staff nurse working in Kargil

town. If they have to compete with students from across the country for government jobs, they will find it all

the more difficult to find employment now, she says.

Zehra Bano in Chuchot Shama village in Leh is stunned that the decision was taken without consulting anyone.

“Even when there is a wedding in the village, we all get together before it is fixed. Here the government took

such a big decision, but didn’t talk to anyone,” she says quietly. Her puzzlement slowly turns to anger. “They

[government] can do anything they want. But they can at least keep the phones working, right? Our children

are studying in Srinagar and we can’t speak to them. What is the fault of our poor children? My brothers are

all in the Army. We have given our lives for Hindustan, but Hindustan has done this to us,” she says.

Everyone is worried about the future. In Leh, though happy, people want to know if their land and employment

opportunities will be protected. Kargil’s residents want to find out where the office of the new Lieutenant-

Governor will be. Questions and concerns are many, answers and assurances few.



THE HINDU IMPORTANT EDITORIALS OF AUGUST · achievers ias academy +91 8880120120,...

Documents

Transcript of THE HINDU IMPORTANT EDITORIALS OF AUGUST · achievers ias academy +91 8880120120,...