Author: Harini Calamur

A dismal picture: Why India’s rape problem is becoming worse

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

A young woman in Hyderabad faced every woman’s worst nightmare. Her two-wheeler was deliberately punctured, she was kidnapped by 4 men, who raped her, and then burned her. Her body was discovered the next day. Some reports suggest that she was still alive when she was set aflame.

In Buxur (Bihar) the charred remains of a young woman – police are still ascertaining whether she was a minor – who had been raped and murdered, was found. There was another story about a law student gang-raped by 12 armed men, in Ranchi. In Puri, a woman was gang-raped by 4 men. If you start looking for stories around this, it is an abyss that stares back at you. There is no end to the gruesomeness of these crimes.

The anger against rapes is boiling over. The last time one saw this kind of rage publicly expressed was in the aftermath of the Jyothi Singh rape and murder in Delhi, in 2012. Known as the Nirbhaya case, the outrage at the brutality led the ordinary people, who would never otherwise take part in protests, to take to the streets in anger. It culminated in the appointment of the Justice Verma committee to look at amendments to criminal laws that dealt with violence against women in general, and sexual violence against women in particular. Parliament diluted some of the recommendations of the committee but passed the amendments in 2013. Seven years later, the rapists and murderers of Jyoti Singh are still alive, living off taxpayer’s money. One of them, six months shy of being an adult at the time of the rape, was released, and is free to commit a crime again.

The data is dismal. There were 38,947 rapes in the Republic of India, in 2016. Or 107 rapes every single day. Of these, the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) says that 2,167 are gang rapes. That is almost 6 gang rapes every single day.  The numbers are slightly better in the 2017 report, the number of rapes reported dropped to 92 a day, but the NCRB has stopped reporting gang rape data separately while starting to report rapes by age. It starts with the rapes of those under the age of 6.   Further reading of the report has even more depressing data points. Of the 17,807 cases that came to trial for rape, in 2016, there were 4,475 convictions – a 25 percent conviction rate; and of the 732 gang rape cases that came up for trial, 260, or 35 percent, were convicted. A large number of cases never made it to court.

Parliament has been discussing rape. And amongst the comments heard is why we must lynch rapists. While popular sentiment, and public rage may indeed impel such actions, the fact remains that the state cannot go around lynching people without trial. The other extreme of this ‘take them out and hang them’ stance is ‘we need more laws’ view.

We do not need more laws to curb rape. A glance at the laws will tell you that we have enough and more.  The problem is twofold. The first is implementation. At the core of the breakdown of implementation is an overworked police force that neither has the time, nor the training to handle violence against women.  Add to this a criminal justice system that works at the pace of a lame snail, and you have people getting away with a crime forever. And, between the cop station and the trial courts is where the system breaks down. Not enough rapists are going to jail. And, even when they do, it takes far too long to put them there, and they don’t serve enough time.

The second problem is the elephant in the room – that is the way men in India are brought up and socialised. This is a country that celebrates a movie like Kabir Singh which is all about the breach of consent. Popular drama calls this breach of consent, love. We tell young men that if you behave like Neanderthals, stalk women, make sexist comments, and act like savages – then it is considered manly. It is believed that 99 percent of the rape cases in India go unreported. And, most of these are committed inside the household by the husband on the wife. If young men grow up in households where consent is not considered important, it is likely that they will grow up to be older men who don’t consider consent to be important.

Usually we hear about violent gang rape stories in societies that have broken down, or conflict zones. In India there are 4 of these in a day. And there is something that tells young men that it is ok to gang-rape women, and even murder them for fun.  That is something that most women find it so very difficult to come to terms with. That for some kinds of men, women are just objects to use and dispose of. And, those men could be anyone.

Harini Calamur writes on politics, gender and her areas of interest are the intersection of technology, media, and audiences.

Read Harini Calamur’s columns here.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

Maharashtra Political Chess: Winners, losers, and lessons

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

If you have been in outer space the last few weeks, you probably missed the best live political drama on earth, right now. Thrown into the entertainment mix were sulking scions, ambitious scions, old godfathers, new political fixers, break-ups, betrayals, alliances, and the most incredulous alignment of political forces.  It was a mix of the Godfather, House of Cards, Game of Thrones, Lion King, with a smattering of the Ekta Kapoor soaps.

At the centre of the political manoeuvrings was the grand old man of Indian politics – Sharad Pawar. He showed that it wasn’t just the age and experience but the mileage of political life, and political favours that mattered. In the political ring with him was Amit Shah, the master puppeteer of the BJP who had a knack of installing governments with a simple maxim: “I will make you a deal you can’t refuse”, to win over the numbers needed to rule. This giant game of political chess was played between the two, with the rest — Uddhav Thackeray and the Shiv Sena, and Sonia Gandhi and the Congress bringing up the supporting cast.

At the core was the question: who would be the Chief Minister of Maharashtra? Uddhav Thackeray, who felt entitled to be the CM, possibly because he believes that his father’s legacy is enough to get him there or Devendra Fadnavis, the outgoing Chief Minister of the state. There were side stories of estranged cousins, silent leaders, and sulking nephews. Ajit Pawar tried to break the NCP by aligning with the BJP in a midnight dash to power, but it looks like Sharad Pawar won that battle, possibly also settling who inherits the mantle after his time — his daughter or his nephew.

Sharad Pawar has shown that he may be old, but his political instincts and ruthlessness are as sharp as ever. He is undoubtedly the man of the match. But who are the losers?

The first is definitely the BJP. It has not just lost its oldest ally, the Shiv Sena, it has also lost the state of Maharashtra for now. But, it has also lost more than that. It has lost a bit of its sheen amongst its own supporters in the rather unseemly haste in aligning with Ajit Pawar to form the government. If you remember, Ajit Pawar was most famous for asking farmers complaining about the drought situation and the release of water from dams, whether he should urinate in the dams to provide water. He apologised later but the damage was done. This, of course, was in addition to the many cases of corruption that are pending against him.

The Indian National Congress has lost its sheen on secularism and secularistic principles with its alignment with the Shiv Sena. It has also been reduced to a junior partner in Maharashtra, and a triparty alliance at the next polls will see the seats it contests shrink further. While Baburao Thorat has managed to keep the Maharashtra Congress from falling apart, there doesn’t seem to be enough ideological difference between it and the BJP in Maharashtra to keep its people going. It has to find a radical new strategy to build the party ground up.

It is a bit early to understand whether the Sena is a winner or a loser in these circumstances. But, it needs to answer what does it stand for. Is it still a party that believes in Hindutva? Is it going to double down on its Maratha antecedents and become the voice of the Marathas? Is it going to imitate its origins and look at the trade union space? How does it see itself divorced from the BJP? While in politics there is no point saying never, it looks unlikely that the BJP and the SS will kiss and make up anytime soon.

Finally, there is also a lesson for Congress in all this. Power is not gifted; it has to be fought for. DK Shivkumar in Karnataka showed them that in a battle they lost. And, Sharad Pawar has just pulled out all stops to win power including aligning with the Shiv Sena. And, that is the kind of political instinct the INC needs. Its older generation has become backroom operators, and its younger generation doesn’t seem to have the fire in their belly to win elections. Mr Pawar is whoever he wants to be — the master of backroom politics, the ardent campaigner, and with still fire in the belly to want to win. The INC will do no better than call for a merger and get Mr Pawar back as their president.

Harini Calamur writes on politics, gender and her areas of interest are the intersection of technology, media, and audiences.

Read Harini Calamur’s columns here.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

The rise of Cyber Sovereignty: How do we balance security and privacy on the Net?

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

All of us, citizens or businesses, in the real world are subject to some form or other of government regulation. There are checks and balances on our freedoms, and violations of the law are dealt with penalties However, when we look at the digital ecosystem, it almost seems like none of these matters.

At its core it goes back to the evolution of the internet as a disparate set of servers that allowed handles to interact with each other, in a completely decentralised, and independent manner. For the longest time the internet was free of corporations, government control, and different communities of interest thrived there. While conceptually most of us believe the internet is still that way, it isn’t.

Over-centralisation of power

In a world mediated by technology giants like Google, Amazon, and Facebook – there is an over-centralisation of power in the hands of unaccountable corporates. Their platforms can be used to destabilise governments, cause a run on economies, foment trouble in troubled zones, be used to radicalise young men and women, and in general cause all kinds of mischief and mayhem. We are not yet talking about massive invasions to privacy of individual citizens across the world, that imperils their security. And, yet these platforms are not held accountable. And, over and above this, Facebook, YouTube and other platforms are asking governments to set the rules and regulate customers, instead of regulating the platforms.

With the internet becoming more ubiquitous in our lives, impacting every part of it, there are two questions before most governments. The first is who controls the internet? The second related question is how we get to control it. Countries like China take it one step further, and talk about Cyber Sovereignty – the control of the internet within its own borders. This policy is backed by the Great Firewall of China that doesn’t let ‘outside’ internet, allowing its own homegrown technology companies to bloom. It isn’t that the Chinese don’t have social networking. WeChat, Weibo and Baidu are all companies that connect millions of Chinese with the same experiences that their counterparts in the rest of the world enjoy, but without being allowed to leave their walled gardens. The Chinese internet authorities employ extremely sophisticated filters that can block words in real-time. It can also peek into private WeChats.

And, while this may sound terrible from the point of view of individual freedom of expression, and privacy – this is what many governments across the world are looking for. Russia too talks about cyber sovereignty, and calls its suppression of unfettered internet content, as an exercise of its sovereign rights over what goes on in its territory.

While India doesn’t have a formally stated cyber sovereignty policy, it flexes its sovereign muscles against platforms and, indeed, the internet itself. One simple way of exercising sovereignty is controlling access – and the internet blockade of Kashmir is just that. At the other level, it is pulling down content that it doesn’t want people in its territory to see. The Indian government leads the demand for content being taken down by social networking platforms – India had 77,620 requests for takedown, followed closely by Russia at 77,162 requests.

There is another angle from which the Indian government is approaching cyber sovereignty. It is asking for data localisation. At the first stage this is aimed at e-commerce companies and financial services companies based abroad. But, it is expected to extend to other sectors too – ecommerce, social networking sites, and the like. This essentially means that the data of Indian citizens who use digital platforms based elsewhere, will be collected, processed, and stored in India, in addition to it being transferred abroad. This is to ensure that the laws of the land are adhered to, especially those related to privacy and security.

Data localisation issue 

There is a schism between the developed nations, and the emerging economies when it comes to data localisation. The European Union despite its stringent privacy laws, embodied in GDPR, that requires data localisation opposes India’s demand for data localisation. The Americans too oppose this.

However, in a world where unregulated technology giants gather, store, slice and dice, glean insights, and share your data without your consent – there is need for regulation to protect us from big technology. The problem that needs to be solved for is how do we protect us from a future government, who can use this data against us.  And therefore, in parallel with data localisation requirements we need to work out ironclad guarantees for privacy and security, and ‘what if’ scenarios. The starting point would be to strengthen cyber security – and not allow cyber terrorists from attacking strategic data.

Harini Calamur writes on politics, gender and her areas of interest are the intersection of technology, media, and audiences.

Read Harini Calamur’s columns here.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

Twitter banning political ads is not the solution to combat lies

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

Last week, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced that the platform will not carry any paid political ads. He tweeted “We’ve made the decision to stop all political advertising on Twitter globally. We believe political message reach should be earned, not bought.” This is primarily to prevent fake advertising from being targeted at users. This does not just include direct advertisements of political parties, but also those involving political issues. These issues could include topics like climate change, rights of minorities, freedom of expression, equality campaigns, campaigns by marginalised people and others.

At about the same time, Facebook said that it would do nothing about fake political ads. This is with the backdrop of the last US elections which were considered manipulated by a huge influx of fake propaganda, including news stories that discussed fake incidents, paid trends based on fake news, and of course, fake ads.

Facebook has recently come under increased fire for failing to curtail fakes, especially given that it has said that it would do nothing about fake ads being run against Presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son.

On the ubiquitous Facebook platform, while advertising of false claims by commercial products is explicitly banned, they seem to make an exception for political advertising. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO and founder of Facebook, believes it is not the job of tech platforms to censor politicians, or the news in a democracy, even if they are telling lies.

Facebook’s policy of allowing politicians to run blatantly fake political advertisements has come under fire from most rational quarters. Presidential hopeful Senator Elizabeth Warren from the Democratic Party ran a set of deliberate fake advertisements, last month, to prove a point. And, then went to town about it, to show how a powerful platform can be made to be the incredibly viral disseminator of lies. But, even that has not deterred Facebook from banning political advertisements that tell lies.

For Jack Dorsey, on the other hand, it is a matter of credibility. He tweeted, “it‘s not credible for us to say: “We’re working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info, buuut if someone pays us to target and force people to see their political ad…well…they can say whatever they want!”

On the face of it, Jack Dorsey is the man of the moment. The tech billionaire who has stood up to defend democracy from the perils of negative propaganda. And Mark Zuckerberg is cast in the role that he has been holding for the last few years since the Cambridge Analytica scandal broke- that of the man who would rather see the world burn than prevent his platform from being used of lies and hate.

While the latter statement may hold water, Twitter’s actions need to be looked at more closely. Banning fake political ads is different from banning all political advertising.  Banning all political advertising or political campaigns to prevent fakes is a bit like locking up all women to prevent rape. It is a knee jerk reaction and has no basis in rational behaviour. And, in any case, direct political advertising on social media is a tiny part of the overall propaganda piece that plays out on social media on a daily basis, across various countries and regions.

The problem is not political advertising. The problem is allowing fakes to co-exist with the truth on an equal footing. You cannot have unsubstantiated campaigns to co-exist with campaigns based on fact.  The other problem is the economics of campaigning. A ban on political advertising on social media channels will possibly impact the poorest candidates most. Would President Obama, nor President Trump, or indeed Prime Minister Modi, in his pre-2014 campaign, made such waves, but for the drumroll provided by social media campaigning – paid and organic?

And, there is another complication. In a world where troll farms are used and paid per tweet or per post to trend content, would these trending hashtags be seen as paid advertising or organic content? Since Twitter is not the party that is getting paid, they can wash their hands off the lies. But those lies not only exist, they use the platform to spread it. This political action is a bit like Pontius Pilate washing his hands off the problem. And, that is a disastrous idea.

Jack Dorsey has taken the easy way out. The key is not a ban on political advertising. The key is being able to sift the truth from fakes and bury the fakes.  Not censor all political advertising.

Harini Calamur writes on politics, gender and her areas of interest are the intersection of technology, media, and audiences.

Read Harini Calamur’s columns here.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

It’s better to begin and build: Why nations should look at RCEP as a beta release

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

On Diwali day, farmer groups in multiple states in India protested against the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) – a proposed free trade agreement between ASEAN –  that has 10 member countries – and a group of six other nations – China, Japan, India, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. These 16 countries account for almost half the world’s population, and a third of its GDP. The RCEP, if it goes through, is expected to transform trade in the entire geography, and improve growth. It is expected to create a single market, allowing goods and services to trade freely across borders, boosting choice, increasing consumption, and propelling prosperity across the 16 countries.

Spearheaded by China, the RCEP, first proposed in 2011, is often seen as the Chinese response to the now defunct, Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) put forth by the US, that promised to create a massive free trade zone. The United States, under President Trump, withdrew from the TPP and has begun an onslaught against free trade, in general, and trade with China in particular. The Chinese push to operationalise RCCEP should be seen in this context.

Impact on free trade

The deal, if it comes through, will have a tremendous impact on free trade in goods, services, investments, and even intellectual property. At the very basic level, RCEP hopes to start with standardising tariff rates – the rate of tax on imports – across all member countries.

Like all trade deals, there will be winners and losers. In India, the major impact will be felt by small industrial units that manufacture lots of little things – plastic buckets, steel utensils, plug points, torches and clothing. Given rising labour costs in India and given the economies of scale that China has achieved in manufacturing, this sector of small industries is likely to face the brunt of free trade. At the other end of the spectrum, you will see the extremely strong services sector in India being given a fair-playing ground in other countries. Indian pharma may attract new markets, and cars and mobiles manufactured in India efficiently, can be sold across markets. We may see India become a hub for large manufacturing.  If we look at the economy as a whole, it will benefit. But there will be sectors that lose out. That is inevitable. The government needs to look at how to mitigate this, while enabling those who benefit from free trade to expand to maximum potential.

One area likely to be protected is agriculture. Even the European Community when it started, treated agriculture with kid gloves. It protected agriculture then, it continues to protect agriculture now. The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)  has a twin-pronged goal, one is food security for all, the second is to ensure a decent standard of living to families involved in agriculture. It has aid billions in subsidies to achieve both. While farmers are protesting in India against RCEP, worried that cheap imports of cash crops, palm oil, coffee, tea, coconuts and other produce would destroy their livelihood, it is likely other countries are facing similar protests.  And this could see agriculture being kept out of the equation.

Economic disparity

One big concern is the economic disparity between the countries. Countries like Australia, New, Zealand, Japan and South Korea, that have a high standard of living and strict pollution controls, will compete against nations with lower standards of living, and little pollution control. Environmental standards are not a part of this deal, nor are labour rights. Therefore, countries that guarantee a fair standard of living for its inhabitants – minimum wages, labour rights – may find themselves being less competitive than nations that have no such guarantees.

However, it is better to begin and build, rather than try to achieve everything from day one. Governments should look at the RCEP as a beta release, continuously adding features and upgrading. It is better to start small and build, than to get over ambitious and fall flat.

As the clouds of trade war loom between the United States and China, and as Europe goes through its own uncertainties in the post-Brexit era, the rest of the world is scrambling to create some form of insurance against the trade fall-out of the biggest economies pulling up their drawbridges. India has to choose, draw up the trade barriers and go it alone, or become part of a larger alliance that grows together. The Indian government has to choose the latter.

Harini Calamur writes on politics, gender and her areas of interest are the intersection of technology, media, and audiences.

Read Harini Calamur’s columns here.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

The Kamlesh Tiwari murder: Right or Left, free speech needs to be defended

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

A few days ago, Kamlesh Tiwari, formerly of the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha and later the president of the Hindu Samaj party, was stabbed 15 times, and for good measure shot with a bullet in the face. He died of his injuries. Being considered anti-Muslim by a handful of radicalised men was enough to get him murdered.

His murder, say the cops, was by young Muslim men who wanted to avenge his statements on the Prophet Mohammed. Kamlesh Tiwari’s statement on the Prophet had led to protests by sections of Muslims, especially in Uttar Pradesh. Two clerics, Anwar-ul-Haq and Mohammed Mufti Naeem Kazmi put a bounty of Rs 1.5 crore on his head. At that time, the Samajwadi Party led by Akhilesh Yadav was in charge of the state. The politics of the state were different. Akhilesh Yadav had Kamlesh Tiwari arrested under the National Security Act and locked up. He was released on bail a year later and granted police protection because the state was afraid that someone will try and claim the bounty. The police were literally caught napping.

Offensive 

Kamlesh Tiwari may have been offensive. But, does being offensive warrant someone going to jail, or have their neck slit and their face blown in? Does the state have no role to protect your freedom of speech from radicalised zealots who will kill? And, this is not the first time radicalised youth have killed those who go against their world view.

Between 2015 and 2017, we saw the assassinations of Dr Narendra Dabholkar, Govind Pansare, MM Kalburgi and Gauri Lankesh. It is believed they were killed for what they said and wrote. All four were fearless. As rationalists and atheists, they were rather vehement about their rejection of God and God’s words. As leftists they called the State and the system to account. And, that didn’t go down well with the radicalised. Being considered anti-Hindu or anti-Indian by a handful of radicalised men was enough to get them murdered.  It is believed that these four murders were linked and carried out by highly motivated members of an extreme right wing group.

One of the things that is striking here is that it doesn’t matter if you are right wing or left wing, if you exert your freedom of expression, it is likely to have serious repercussions in a touchy world, where every word and statement is amplified and disseminated many times over.

Often discussions on freedom of expression are framed by right- and left-wing biases. Each side wants their set of exceptions to the absolute freedom of expressions. “You cannot ‘insult’ God/State/Nation/Gays/Jews/Africans/Indians/Customs/Traditions/Women/Children” goes the chorus. But, the problem is that if you take into account everyone’s exceptions, you probably will have nothing to talk about or indeed write about.

State is complicit

People have the right to their beliefs, and expressing their beliefs without worrying about radicalised youth coming after them with guns and knives.

And, this is where the state is complicit in the murders.

The inaction by the centre and the state when the clerics placed the bounty on the head of Kamlesh Tiwari, was criminal. Why were they not arrested, tried and put in jail for incitement to murder? Why were the investigations after the Pansare murder so slow – had it been faster could the murders of the others have been prevented?

The Indian State has been lax in the protection of freedoms. It is standing by and letting the radicalised set the agenda on what is acceptable. And, that is not acceptable.

Harini Calamur writes on politics, gender and her areas of interest are the intersection of technology, media, and audiences.

Read Harini Calamur’s columns here.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

A hotter and hungrier world: How climate change is hampering the fight against poverty

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

In 1980, there were 133,000 natural disasters in the world; In 2015, there were 282,000. As climatic patterns across the world change, disasters caused by climate change are on the rise, accounting for 80 percent of all natural disasters. Cyclones, floods, typhoons, droughts, changing monsoon patterns and more, are all placing a tremendous strain on agriculture and food production, leading to an assault on the world’s collective fight against global hunger.

The New Global Hunger Index, published this week, shows how hunger across the world has gone up since 2015, with 785 million then to 822 million in 2018. The two main contributors to this rise in hunger is climate change and conflict. It is expected in the years to come, climate change will directly lead to conflict with wars over water, and over grain. And, it is mostly those who do not substantially add to the carbon footprint who are most likely to suffer hunger. As Bill Gates pointed out “The big irony is that sub-Saharan African countries have less than 1 percent of [global] emissions and yet […] they’re going to suffer the most.”

Impact on farm output

In India too, those majorly impacted are the poorest, and the most vulnerable. Often women farmers, landless labour, and other sections of society who have traditionally been marginalised. With the changing of monsoon patterns in India there are issues of major flooding in some areas, and drought in others. This is expected to have a considerable impact on crops. For example, rice that depends on the amount of water available, is the most vulnerable. Even this year that saw massive rainfalls in parts of India, seeing an overall increase in rain water of 1 percent, saw other parts of India having scarce rain. Parts of Maharashtra and Bihar, for example, saw floods. And, other parts of the same states saw 20-30 percent deficit in rains.

As human activities, including crop production, raise the temperature of the earth by 0.2 degrees a decade, there has been an impact on farm output. Food production has been impacted by both rising temperatures and decreasing rain. Globally, yields of major crops such as maize, rice and wheat have been on the decline. This has a major impact on food access. As yield declines, prices go up, and food becomes expensive, and unreachable for most suffering from poverty. This has a direct impact on nutrition – especially of the most vulnerable. Additionally, nutritional value is also impacted by the rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. As per recent research protein, zinc and iron content of the crops decreases with increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Vulnerable areas

As per the Global Hunger Index, South Asia is one of the most vulnerable areas when it comes to hunger. The other being countries in Africa south of the Sahara. India ranks at 102 in the GHI, sandwiched between Niger and Sierra Leone. The population size makes the extent of the problem even more severe. In India, according to the GHI report, there are just 9.6 percent of all children between the age of 6 and 23 months who are fed a minimum acceptable diet, leaving the rest with various degrees of malnutrition and stunting.

A recent report suggests that India might reduce its stock pile of grains by giving it as aid to deserving countries. While this is a laudable notion and befits India’s aspirations of playing a meaningful role in world affairs, it may also be a good idea for the government to reflect on how it can reduce the nutritional imbalance within the country and combat hunger.

Simultaneously the government needs to work with industry and agriculture and see how the impact of greenhouse gases can be mitigated. Right now, the people who generate the least emissions – they neither have cars, nor air conditioners, nor are they using gas guzzlers – the marginalised farmer family is facing the bulk of the backlash of an angry nature.

Bleak outlook

There needs to be change in the way the world’s resources are being consumed, and pace at which richer countries and regions devastate the environment in the name of development. Those changes have to be made fast, before it is too late. And, before we tell the poor and marginalised that this is their lot in life, and they have to learn to grin and bear it. Or even worse, tell them they have to produce and consume even less, so that the rich in the world can continue polluting.

All in all, the outlook is rather bleak. We live in a world where climate change deniers not only are given equal footage and time with those who advocate climate change, but in many cases they are running nations and shaping policy. As a result, the fight against climate change has taken a beating. And, if you are in denial about climate change then the likelihood of action being taken to mitigate the damage caused by it will be non-existent.

Harini Calamur writes on politics, gender and her areas of interest are the intersection of technology, media, and audiences.

 Read Harini Calamur’s columns here.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

Frenemies forever: India and China have a lot to gain from working together

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

President Xi Jinping  of China and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India are all set to meet again, in the second set of informal talks between the leaders of the two nations. The first was held in the Chinese city of Wuhan, and this one is to be held in the city of Mamallapuram in Tamil Nadu.

The Wuhan set of interactions between Modi and Xi led to a serious lowering of tensions between the two countries after a 70-day stand-off at Doklam. It normalised relations to a great deal. Post that, India and China have had multiple speed bumps in their relationship. The first was India’s participation in Quad – a grouping with the USA, Australia, Japan and India and that looks at countering China in the Pacific. Then there is the issue on trade and the conflicting signals about whether Chinese giant Huawei will be allowed to participate in 5G trials.

Right now, post the abrogation of Article 370, China has been steadfastly supporting Pakistan’s stand, and relations are not what they ought to be. But the reason is less Kashmir, and more the creation of Ladakh as a separate union territory. China has traditionally claimed a part of Ladakh as its own.

Contentious issues

While there will always be contentious issues between India and China – the border, their land claims, water and Pakistan – there are many areas of collaboration between us, outside of trade, that will help both our people. And, this collaboration can be in areas that doesn’t impact military security, sovereignty and supremacy – rather it looks at cementing ties between two nations that hold 36 percent of the world’s population and increasing the welfare of peoples of both nations. And, in a world confronted by the potential disaster to be wrought by climate change, there is nothing more important that joining hands to combat this.

The first area is environment. Both nations have a disastrous record on pollution caused by development and the pollution that chokes urban agglomerations. Like India, China too suffers excessive air pollution owing to vehicles and factories. Much of the air is unbreathable. And, both countries have been trying hard to bring down pollution. Almost 2 decades ago China declared war on air pollution and has been gradually working towards reducing pollution in cities. India is still grappling with this. This could be an area of co-operation, working together to reduce pollution. China has had a head start on working on EV batteries, and environmentally friendly mass transit.

The second area where there can be collaboration is water. India and China have 36 percent of the world’s population, but only 11 percent of its water requirements. Both countries have been grappling to solve this problem. Both countries have plans to dam and divert rivers. China to make sure that its dry northern regions have water; and India to ensure that one part of the nation doesn’t drown while the other one is dying of thirst.  Rivers don’t know national boundaries. The Brahmaputra that rises in Chinese territories feeds large swathes of the Northern and Eastern parts of India, and the Chinese are planning to dam and divert the water, that would have an impact on Indian agriculture. While you can’t change the country’s priorities, can you collaborate on helping conserve water resources better?

Need to work together 

The third area is food and agriculture. Both nations have made tremendous advances from the late 1940s till now – going from nations where millions died of starvation, simply because of lack of grains and the means to transport them, to nations that export food.  But, is it enough for populations aspiring for better? Can we collaborate on research on less water intense cultivation of rice, or the production of fortified wheat? Can we learn about animal husbandry from each other?  With climate change and weather patterns changing, the nature of crop cycles is changing too. Can the two giants work together in these areas?

Finally how do you trade off the growing aspirations of people and consumption associated with it, with lower carbon footprints? Is there a way scientists and researchers in two massively populated economies can work together to find a solution?

India and China have lived most of their history in peace. Or absence of war. There have been academic, cultural, scientific and trade exchanges. We don’t have to be the closest buddies. But, can we as neighbours work together for a better future?

Harini Calamur writes on politics, gender and her areas of interest are the intersection of technology, media, and audiences.

Read Harini Calamur’s columns here.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

What would happen if Gandhi was alive today?

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

Every year, on October 2^nd, Mahatma Gandhi gets moved out of the mothballs we stored him in for the rest of the year, dusted, and venerated. And, then when the day is over, he gets put back in the crate and forgotten for the next 364 days. This year, the venerations have been a bit louder and the remembrance a bit more forced. This is the 150^th anniversary of the birth of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and everyone is trying to appropriate him as their mascot – the ultimate semi-divine approval from the martyred father of the nation.

“If Gandhi had been around, what would he have done?” is the oft-seen statement on a number of timelines, op-ed pieces, and general statements. And, the answer to that is rather more complex than it seems. Had he remained alive, and in some modicum of health and fitness at age 150, Gandhi would have been a deeply unhappy, completely marginalised person in Indian politics. He would have derailed policy, interfered in foreign relations, marred negotiations and more.

In the short span of the 5 months between independence and his murder by Godse, in 1948, he had already thrown a spanner in the government of India’s handling of Pakistan over the invasion of Kashmir by beginning a fast unto death. Post-Independence, there was a division of not just land, but assets. Amongst the assets was the transfer of Rs 75 crore from India to Pakistan. The first instalment of Rs 20 crore had been paid, and there was a balance that had to be paid, when Pakistan government-backed Pashtun tribes invaded the independent kingdom of Jammu and Kashmir, setting off a chain of events that reverberate in the sub-continent even now. The government of India led by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and home minister Vallabhai Patel decided to withhold the payment of the remaining money. Rs 55 crore in 1948 was a lot of money – and Pakistan needed this money, and the government of India saw a strategic advantage in using this to her advantage. But Gandhi would have none of that. He believed that India should not ethically and morally link the two issues and went on fast to bend the government to his way of seeing things. And he succeeded.

Had he been alive, for decades that followed there would have been a no greater thorn in the side of the Indian government than Gandhi. He would have gone up against the powerful Indian National Congress in the post-independence India. Stood against the construction of dams, stood against the modernisation planned by Nehru. It is likely he would have fasted against Operation Polo – where India annexed the princely state of Hyderabad, and later the annexation of Goa. He would have definitely intervened in the post-war negotiations with Pakistan in 1965, and 1971. It is likely he would have opposed Emergency, and he would have stood against the state on operation Bluestar. He would have protested the anti-Sikh riots in 1984 actively, and the Babri Masjid demolition; he would have stood with those whose homes would have been submerged by the Sardar Sarovar Dam, and he would work closely with citizens in Naxal dominated areas – including Naxal leaders. He would have protested the Gujarat riots, and he would have opposed excessive industrialisation. In other words, he would have protested so much in the 70+ years following his death, that his protests may have landed him in jail just as frequently as he visited it when the British were here.

Right now, you can sure, had Gandhi been alive, he would be fasting until the government changed its stance on Article 370. And you could be sure of the backlash – press coverage on Gandhi’s eccentricities; media moguls going apoplectic at whether protests of conscience are treason. The term traitor and the phrase “Go to Pakistan” would be applied liberally to him. There would be a meltdown on social media – and comedians would have a field day with some of his utterances on the ‘morning constitution’, and celibacy.

Had Gandhi been alive today, he would have pretty much done what he did then – protest against injustice non-violently and go on fast against things that really bothered him. In an era far more cynical, where consent is manufactured by mass media organisations showing you a distorted version of reality – Gandhi’s multi-layered personality, his sense of humour, his empathy, his genuine belief in ahimsa and love for all beings (including those of other religions) – may have broken through the clutter to attract a new generation. He may have been a beacon for many today, as he was then.

And, if we take away the manufactured packaging of Gandhi as a brand, and revert his messaging to his core values, those values would still resonate. In a world where devotees of the murderer Godse are welcomed as heroes, there will always be the need for a multi-layered person like Gandhi, who helps you aspire to become the best version of yourself.

What would Gandhi have said? – be the change you want to see in society.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow

Why Greta Thunberg matters: Teen eco-warrior’s wake-up call spurs climate change dialogue

KV Prasad Jun 13, 2022, 06:35 AM IST (Published)

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

The 16-year-old Swedish environmental activist, in a fiery speech at the United Nations, spoke about how the older generation, and powers that be have ruined the future for her generation, by ruthlessly exploiting nature for immediate profits. She said, in her speech at the UN Climate Action Summit, “This is all wrong. I shouldn’t be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!”

In a voice quivering with rage, Thunberg, who has been protesting against inaction on climate change since last August, called for a radical decrease in the use of fossil fuels to be able to save the earth for future generations. Thunberg is not the first person to talk about climate change. But, she may end up being one of the most influential. Her quiet, non-violent protest outside the Swedish Parliament, was aimed at bringing the issue of climate change to the centre of Swedish politics. Cutting class, dressed in her uniform, Thunberg stood outside the Parliament with a board calling attention to the issue of climate change.  It acted as a lightning rod for protests by school children across the world. After all, they, when they grow up, are going to find the world in a worse place – climatically – than the world their parents came of age.

Warnings about climate change did not start in August last year, with Thunberg protesting outside the Swedish parliament. It began almost 50 years ago, with an academic study authored by E Robinson and RC Robbins from the Stanford Research Institute for the American Petroleum Institute. Titled ‘Sources, abundance, and fate of gaseous atmospheric pollutants’, the report spoke about the linkages between carbon dioxide emissions and climate changes– including a rise in sea levels, and an increase in temperature. 1975 saw the first use of the phrase ‘climate change’ and global warming, with an article by a geochemist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, Wallace Broecker. His paper was titled ‘Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?’.

This was the era when the West was growing rapidly, Opec was at its height, and warnings on the use of fossil fuels fell on deaf years. After all, no one wanted to cut profits by cutting emissions. While people and governments knew something was off kilter, they didn’t track it back to their own consumption patterns, to try and make a change. While scientists published their scientific papers on the issues of rising CO2 levels, and rising temperatures – the language of the papers was aimed at other academics, rather than policy makers or the general population.

It took Al Gore’s Oscar winning film An Inconvenient Truth in 2006 that linked climate change and global warming to impact on life or ordinary people. While it won plaudits from filmmakers, there is little to show that it made an impact on emissions that continued to impact the world. However, by this time it was the economic growth of China, India and other developing countries that came under the scanner, and there was pressure on these countries to cut emissions, while the west continued to pollute as normal.

The Paris Accord on Climate Change, signed in 2016, made noises about cutting emissions, and keeping the temperature rise to below 2 degrees. But, it was too little too late. A Nasa study showed, with data, how 2015, 2016 and 2017 have been the warmest in history. The IIPC’s special report on global warming, in 2018, spoke of the implications of a 2 degree rise in temperature over pre industrial levels. And, it is not a good future.

It is in this context that you need to see Greta Thunberg. A 16-year-old has managed to do what most scientists and policymakers have been unable to do. Shake up the sheer inertia around the climate change dialogue. At a time when the world is on the brink of mass extinctions, we need more than what international conferences and get-togethers offer us. You need a sharp shock to the system that enables course correction. Greta Thunberg is the lightning rod that makes it possible. You don’t have to like her; her shrill delivery of facts may put you off – but it is unavoidable to miss her message. And, if that message is acted on, it means future generations have a hope in hell.

Harini Calamur writes on politics, gender and her areas of interest are the intersection of technology, media, and audiences.

Read Harini Calamur’s columns here.

Elon Musk forms several ‘X Holdings’ companies to fund potential Twitter buyout

3 Mins Read

Thursday’s filing dispelled some doubts, though Musk still has work to do. He and his advisers will spend the coming days vetting potential investors for the equity portion of his offer, according to people familiar with the matter

KV Prasad Journo follow politics, process in Parliament and US Congress. Former Congressional APSA-Fulbright Fellow