Author: Harini Calamur

Barbarians at the gates: How to deal with lynch mobs

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

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

There have been a spate of lynchings across India. Be it the outcome of rumours involving the transport of cattle, or the presence of strangers in an area, followed by WhatsApp messages on child kidnapping, the response is crowd violence.

The crowd gathers, the crowd metes out extreme violence, and the crowd disappears. The law, like in old Hindi movies, arrives too late to prevent the violence, or the perpetrators disappearing.

This, in turn, emboldens more killings and allows murderers to get away with brazen murder. And, the cycle continues – a new month, a new rumour, and a new lynching.  Since 2010, there have been 89 lynchings, with 291 victims and 35 deaths, that have to do with suspicion of stealing cattle, or eating beef. There have been reports of 14 lynchings, based on rumours of child kidnapping.

In some cases, these lynchings have a communal undertone, in others a xenophobic one – in both cases, the ‘otherisation’ possibly makes the violence easier. The lynchings are brutal and have become a regular part of the news cycle.

It is given this frequency and brutality of lynchings that prompted the Supreme Court to ask the government to bring in a special law to curb lynchings. And, this has caused a huge debate between those who think that lynchings are going to turn the country into mobocracy; and those who believe that it isn’t a major problem.

There are those who argue that for a country the size of India, and with a staggering population of 1.3 billion people, lynchings are not even a fraction of the crime committed. And they are right, if you look at it purely from the point of view of the cause of death.

But, imagine a mob of enraged people beating an absolute stranger to death with their own hands. 103 mobs – made up of ordinary people, people with every day lives, everyday families- who suddenly turn into brutal killers is not a small matter, and demonstrates the total contempt that people have for the law and order machinery in their state.

There are others who argue that lynchings are a tear in the fabric of India, and a new law is needed to curb this tear becoming even larger. But, the problem with India is not the lack of laws, but the lack of implementation.

There are enough social theories that show that higher crimes are committed, because people who commit ‘lower’ crimes get away scot free. For example, there are laws against honking, or the use of loud speakers, or not wearing helmets while on two wheelers – most of these go unchecked in most of our localities.

This leads to a sense of believing that the state is blind to even higher trespasses. And, allows for more deviant behaviour. Unless the state focuses on maintaining order, it is not going to get policing right. The Broken Window Theory says that  law order tends to focus on larger crimes such as murder, rape, and burglary – and ignore ‘smaller’ crimes like vandalising.

The proponents of this theory, James O Wilson and George Kelling – suggested that if the police focused on the smaller crimes, and took care of order, larger crimes would decrease because the message would go out that the State meant business. This theory has been used effectively in curbing crimes across the world. India too needs to see how constructs like this can be used to reduce incidents of mob violence.

A new law against lynching, or amendments to the existing law, will only work if the entire criminal justice system is geared towards stopping crime, protecting the innocent, and punishing the guilty. It means starting with basics, and getting an order in the localities, and imposing the law. Not allowing people to get away with the crime.

Right now, like the system is severely crippled, allowing mobocracy to prevail. A climate of fear created by random mobs, with anonymous faces, who pick and kill random strangers, cannot be good for the country. A mute police force is even worse for the country. And, unless the state is proactive in stopping lynch mobs, unless politicians stop felicitating alleged murderers, unless murderers feel the weight of the system, no law is going to help curb violence.

The entire compact that citizens have with the state, includes obeying laws. The day enough number of people decide to break the law together, the state starts crumbling. And, that is what is happening. People are coming together to murder together.

And, in doing so are helping the state unravel. As the famous political philosopher Max Weber pointed out, in his lecture “Politics as a Vocation”, the State is the only entity that has the monopoly on the legitimate use of force.

By taking violence into their own hands, mobs are questioning the authority and the legitimacy of the state, just as Naxals or other terrorist groups do. And, this is what needs to end.  It is immaterial if it is via a new law or amending existing laws.

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

Assam NRC: What defines citizenship and who is a citizen?

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

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

Historically, Assam is the confluence of many genetic and cultural strains. Negrito, Austro-Asiatic, Mongolian and Nordic genes have intermingled to create a melting pot of ethnicities.

The languages spoken in Assam, are derivatives of an Aryan linguistic base; Tibeto Burmese and the ancient language of Khasi has Austroasiatic roots. These cultures have lived together for centuries.

History of Assam

In modern times, the British annexed Assam from Burma in the early part of the 19th century, at the end of the Anglo Burmese wars. Assam itself was merged, for administrative ease into the Bengal Presidency, and Bengali was made the official language of the province in 1837.

Also Read: Why Assam desperately needs an NRC

Imperial Britain converted the rich hills of Assam into tea plantations that would satiate the unquenchable demand for tea, and they began importing labour from all over their other territories including central India.

British also brought in Chinese labourers. In 1874, Assam was separated from the Bengal Presidency, and Bengali and Assamese both became languages of the state. The imposition of Bengali and the hiring of Bengalis in plum positions became the root cause of the resentment between the two groups.

We have seen similar stories of clashes throughout modern India centred around “outsiders who take ‘our’ jobs” issue.

The next big defining event was the partition when the province of Sylhet was partitioned from Assam and became part of Pakistan (Now in Bangladesh). Sylhet predominantly speaks Bangla. Refugees poured into India – into the states of West Bengal (now Bangla) and Assam. More Bengali speakers.

And, then came the Pakistani civil war which led to the Indo-Pak war of 1971, and the birth of Bangladesh. There were refugees once more, and Assam, as well as West Bengal, bore the brunt of the refugees.

The Assamese vs Bangla Issue

The Assamese vs Bangla issue has been simmering for long. The tension has three major components, all of whom are equally powerful – language, culture, and now religion. Those who crossed over between 1947 and 1971 were both Hindus and Muslims. This would change in the years that followed the birth of Bangladesh when acute poverty – they were poorer than we were – led hundreds of thousands to cross over for a better tomorrow.

In 1979, the All Assam Students Union led by Prafulla Mahanta launched an agitation to deport all illegal immigrants. In 1984, the then prime minister Rajiv Gandhi signed the Assam Accord which promised to do this. It brought an end to the agitation. A key clause of the Accord was that those who entered the state after 1971 would be deported. This was 14 years after the birth of Bangladesh.

The publication of the first draft of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) that has left out four million names out of the registry is just the latest in a set of measures that many Assamese believe is necessary to protect their culture.

The registry contains all names who can prove that they were in India before 1971.  Many left out are Bengali speaking Muslims. Most claiming to be Indians.

It is likely that many of those on the registry are from other Indian states, and will have to get their states to verify their antecedents. It is likely others will get a reprieve on appeal. Even then there is a fair amount of people to repatriate.

What Next For The Four Million People?

And, that brings us to the next question. Even if these people were Bangladeshis at some point in time, they are in a very grey zone in terms of citizenship and will possibly appeal. There is nothing that tells us that repatriating them to Bangladesh is going to be a cake walk.

If you place them in refugee camps then the state has to bear the cost of that and, there will be some level of fall out in the geopolitical scene, which, no doubt, will be dwarfed by what Donald Trump does with immigration in the USA.

After 47 years of the birth of Bangladesh, and 33 years after the signing of the Assam Accord, the NRC is going to cause turmoil in Assam.  In these 47 years, people have set up homes, found work, and made a life. They and probably their children and grandchildren have the most required documentation including voter’s card,  ration cards and Aadhaar cards, passports and driving licenses.

And, now many of the 4 million will be disenfranchised or not have the rights of a citizen. While a passport is more of a guarantee of residency, if not citizenship – Aadhaar is slightly more tricky. While it is given to residents of India, and the Calcutta High Court had ruled that it isn’t proof of citizenship, it is still based on already existing government paperwork.

The possession of the  Aadhaar card or a passport would be good enough to challenge disenfranchisement in the courts. And, while the NRC has been conducted under the watchful eye of the Supreme Court, there is no reason why they won’t hear appeals based on one of the most vexing constitutional question of the modern era – what defines citizenship, and who is a citizen? Is it culture? is it ethnicity? is it residence? Is it only by birth? What is this thing called citizenship?

Unless Bangladesh agrees to take people, and there is no rational reason for it to accept an influx of millions of people. What happens next is mired in ambiguity. It is unlikely that the government is going to be able to deport many people. The question is whether it should even try? Should the Indian state disenfranchise lakhs of people? Place them in refugee camps?  And, to what extent?

What the Indian government needs to do now is seal off borders and ensure no fresh migration takes place. It is unlikely it is going to be able to do much about the past. It is just too many years that have gone by.

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

ALSO READ: Why Assam desperately needs an NRC

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

India’s Iranian dilemma

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

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

Iran and the United States of America have had a tumultuous relationship for the best part of the last seven decades.

In the 1950s, there were two major upheavals. The first was the nationalisation of oil by the Iranian government, that moved the resource from the controls of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company – the forerunner of British Petroleum – to the state.

The second was a CIA funded coup in 1953, to replace the democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, with the more pliant Reza Pahlavi as the Shah of Iran.

The Shah ran a ruthless regime, that was despised by the masses. But, he found favour with his supporters in the west, so much so they backed the Iranian nuclear programme in the 1950s. As Shah got closer to the west, he also alienated the citizens of Iran, with a repressive regime. The discontent was tapped by an elderly cleric, Ayatollah Khomeini, who led an Islamic revolution to overthrow the Shah in 1979 and establish the Islamic Republic of Iran.

New Regime And The US

For the new regime, the US was the great Satan. And, for the United States, the Iranian government was a rogue that had to be contained. This cold war has gone on for almost 40 years. To complicate it further, Iran is the driving force behind the Shia Muslim movement, and is at loggerheads with its predominantly Sunni neighbours, especially Saudi Arabia.

Exacerbating this already complex scenario was Iran’s nuclear programme, that the country claimed was for peaceful purposes. Iran’s nuclear programme attracted the ire of the west, and the country has faced massive trade sanctions from the US and its allies.

The rest of the world also faced problems trading with Iran. The 2015 Iran Nuclear deal went a long way in reducing the tensions between Iran and the west. It also led to relaxing trade sanctions and commerce became relatively easier. Then the US elected Donald Trump as its president.

The Trump Era

Trump is not known for his diplomacy. He has been hard on his allies. He accused the Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau of making a ‘false statement’.

Trump told the English press that Boris Johnson would make a great British prime minister and alleged that PM Theresa May did not listen to his advice on Brexit.

German chancellor Angela Merkel invariably ends up looking exasperated each time she is photographed with Trump. He has attacked China on Twitter, got a conversation with the Australian PM mixed up, breached protocol, and upended the international system. And, thus far it has only been friends that he has tried bulldozing. Now it is the turn of foes.

Iran has been in Trump’s cross hairs for a long time. He came into power promising to renegotiate the nuclear deal, and has been true to his word by withdrawing from the deal.

Now, he has turned his attention to trade, and the imposition of sanctions on Iran, that were done away with in 2015. Not only that, the Trump administration has unequivocally stated that it will impose sanctions on non US companies and independent nations that continue to trade with Iran. This has serious implications for India.

Implications for India

Since 2015, India and Iran have expanded trade ties. India is helping develop the Chabahar port in Iran that would provide the country with access to Afghanistan and Russia. Strategically, the port is of vital importance to India, not just for trade, but for expanding and maintaining a sphere of influence.

Also, the relationship with Iran, helps India counter balance Pakistan’s influence in its western neighbourhood. Iran became the second largest supplier of oil to India, surpassing Saudi Arabia. This is a relationship that works well for India, because Iran allows India to pay for the oil in Rupees. All this is in jeopardy, because Trump wants to impose his will on the whole world.

India needs to protect her interests in West Asia, and her access to Afghanistan and beyond. China is already spreading her influence in the region, and the Chabahar port is the gateway to our regional ambitions.

Iran is our immediate neighbour and fills our growing need for energy. At the same time, a rampaging Trump must be contained. India needs to ally with the European Union (EU), China, and Japan – all of who are in Trump’s cross hairs for trading with Iran – and make sure we do not end up kowtowing to American will.

Narendra Modi government must keep friendly relations with the US but it should stand firm on Iran issue. India must protect her long-term interests in the region, not the short-term interests of an American leader.

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

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

Crumbling infrastructure, dying cities

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

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

Monsoon has arrived in Mumbai with full force and it has dissolved most of the arterial roads.

A foot bridge that connects the densely populated halves of Andheri east and west collapsed off, an arterial flyover between the two parts of the suburb, resulting in cordoning off the flyover for further repairs, throwing the area into traffic chaos. Sinkholes have appeared across the city, so is large potholes that make Mumbai seem the ideal venue to test out vehicles for the surface of Mars. While there are problems with construction on some roads, there are issues of water logging with others. Sometimes, accumulated water hiding the danger of large potholes and craters.

The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) has attempted to fix the potholes, but the intensity of rain keeps washing away the freshly laid parts of the road. At the start of the week, the arterial Sion-Panvel part of the highway connecting Mumbai and Pune was so tattered, that the traffic snarl was backed up 11 kilometers. It has been a month since monsoon began and the death toll is going up. There were similar scenes from Delhi as last week’s rain brought the city to a standstill. Images of buses and other vehicles submerged in water mixed with sewer and uncollected garbage was flashing across the media.

There were media reports of Delhi Secretariat getting flooded. In 2015, we saw images of Chennai drowning post a severe downpour after roads became waterways and people were marooned in the city. Urban infrastructure in India seems to be creaking across the length and breadth of the country.

Cities are unable to cope with the mass of population, and their aspiration for a life with basic minimum dignity – food, clothes and shelter. These metropolis’ hold populations larger than population of smaller states. For example, Croatia, that was runner up in the World Cup football, boasts a population of 4.1 million people and New Zealand has a population of 4.6 million. If you look at other large cities, New York has 8.5 million people and London 8.1 million people.

At the very core, Indian mega cities are extremely large administrative units and the local government is unable to cope, and citizens are not able to demand accountability. Part of the problem is that we have colonial era systems to govern modern Indian cities. An unaccountable civil servant who calls the shots, while elected local government representatives look on.

The solution is two-fold, create smaller cities and devolve power to the city councils. The City Momentum Index, published recently looks at cities across the world – in developed and developing markets and analyses their ability to be prepared for a technology enabled world that attracts the right talent, the right industry and is capable of growing. Out of the 30 cities earmarked for being on the right track and poised for long term success, not one Indian city featured.

And, this is not just a problem that faces India, it is the case with cities in China, Africa and the rest of the developing world. Our cities are burgeoning, but without a plan. And this lack of planned growth is going to have dire consequences. Seven Indian cities featured in the second list of 30 – those with short term growth momentum. This is defined as cities with urban economies and real estate markets that are transforming the fastest.

Mumbai comes at number 20 and China has 11 cities on this list.

If the government of India is serious about making cities the hubs of innovation and commerce, then there must be a series of policy initiatives to make the metropolises worth inhabiting. Right now, it seems like we are working on a wing and a prayer, hoping that some hidden power will move us to a goal of prosperity. Urban development, at best, is haphazard, at worse is callous. Because people who take decisions for the city has no skin in the game and no accountability. Smaller cities may prove to be the solution, with local government, that is accountable to the voters, empowered to act. If we aspire to superpower status, it won’t happen if we don’t even get basic infrastructure right.

Right now, basic infrastructure is in shambles and that has to change.

Harini Calamur works at the intersection of digital content, technology, and audiences.

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 ticking population time bomb

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

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

The world population clock at the time of writing this column was 7,635,090,661 people. The counter moves at almost 3 people added to the total, every second. This year 74 million births, and a shade over 30 million deaths have occurred, leaving the net addition to the world population at approximately 44 million.

India, the second most populous nation on earth has 1,297,357,781 people – with 25 million births, and 9.6 million deaths this year.

By 2050, barring a catastrophe that wipes out billions, the world population is expected to rise to almost 10 billion people, most of whom will live in cities (66%).

Africa and Asia are expected to be the largest contributors to world population numbers. As the population of the world hurtles towards its next milestone – 8 billion, and as India moves to overtake China as the most populous nation, it is time that the world recognised the problem for what it is – a massive strain on resources available.

Population and the “demographic dividend”

When we talk about population, often references are made to the term “demographic dividend”. This is an assumption that people born into an economy, will reach a state of productivity in adulthood, and become contributors to the economy in terms of production, consumption, and taxes.

The thing to keep in mind is that the demographic dividend is only possible when infants have access to adequate nutrition, clean drinking water, a disease free environment, schools run by trained teachers, medical health facilities, sports facilities, and more. And, the basic starting point of this is adequate nutrition and water.

It is estimated that 10% of the world (about 700 million people) suffered from severe food insecurity. As per the World Food Programme (WFP), close to 200 million people in India are under nourished – that is thrice the population of the United Kingdom.

While India is a food surplus economy, and is self sufficient in the production of food, millions starve. Amongst the most impacted are women, 51% of Indian women are anaemic.

Women who are undernourished, produce babies that are stunted, and this cycle continues. Stunted children have a lower chance of survival than children of acceptable weight; even if they do survive, their cognitive abilities are likely to be impeded.

This will have an impact, in later life, on productivity, income, and even social skills. If malnourishment is rampant, it will also have an impact on the larger economy.

Shortage of potable water

The second major problem is clean drinking water. As per UNESCO, the world currently uses 4,600 km3 of water every year. This is expected to rise by 30% by 2050. Ground water sources, across the world, are either drying up because of over use, or are getting extremely polluted.

Currently it is estimated that 27% of the world population lives with extreme water scarcity. Water is not just needed or personal consumption, but also agriculture and industry. Without adequate supply of water all of this will be imperilled.

Food Scarcity

A world short of food and water isn’t a part of a distant future. It is here and now. Earlier this year Cape Town, in South Africa, was facing day zero. The day it would run out of water. It has pushed it by a year, but the threat looms large. Food riots have already been seen this year in Venezuela.

It is believed that the genesis of the Syrian civil war lay in the worst drought seen by the country. Severe shortage of food and water will see unprecedented rise in violence, and the state may not be capable of stopping this violence.

Food and water are the absolute basics needed for survival. Any development, any progress, is only possible if the population of a nation has enough food and water.

For a country like India, the demographic dividend will turn out to be a demographic nightmare, if adequate steps are not taken to retard the growth of population and ensure that we are prepared to feed and provide water to the population that we do have.

Political parties must stop beating around the bush, and place population control at the centre of the agenda. They have to look at innovative methods to ensure that people stop reproducing – this could include cash pay-outs to individuals and families not adding to the population.  Since the lifting of Emergency, and the era of forced population control, family planning has gone off the agenda of governments and parties.

It is time that it was put back where it belongs – as a top priority.

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

Is it time for a universal basic income?

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

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

Since the end of the second world war one credo has been sacrosanct world over. Trade is good. Nations, blocs, and people have quibbled over it, debated it, but the overall benefits of international trade were accepted.

Now, the international system based on trade is under attack, and the perpetrator of this onslaught is the United States of America, led by Donald Trump. There have been a volley of measures and counter measures, angry statements, and a hardening of stance across the board. With this, it is expected there will be job losses.

It is believed that the United States, the agent provocateur in the current trade battles, could lose as much as 400,000 jobs. The impact on India is still being estimated. What is more worrying, is that it is assumed that the rate of jobs being created world wide will decrease.

While trade wars loom, so does the move to produce things even cheaper, to be able to compete on a global scale. And, a part of this, is to replace human workers with machines.

A number of assembly lines, across industries, are completely operated by robots. Last year the World Bank President, Jim Yong Kim, sounded a warning when he said the world was on a crash course, as people’s hopes collide with mass automation, where millions of jobs are automated.

A report by McKinsey estimates that between 400 million and 800 million workers would be replaced  by automation, and need to find new jobs by 2030. Another study saw each robot replacing 5.6 workers.

Whichever way you slice the data, it is clear that jobs are going to vanish. One theory was that the people replaced by machines will reskill themselves to deliver more human oriented services – such as nursing, or training.

But, even that seems a bit suspect. How many teachers, and how many nurses can the economy support? While countries like India may have a long way to go to plug the teaching or medical services gap, it is fairly evident that even if those jobs were filled, they will be barely a drop in the ocean of jobs needed.

Also, now robots are being deployed in the care giving area. Recent reports talk about robots working with patients with Alzheimer’s disease. While it may be great news for those with Alzheimer’s, it is terrible news for jobs.

Overall, between a terrible outlook on trade in the future, and the replacement of workers by robots domestically – there is going to be a massive shrinking of the workforce. While there is the “there will be new jobs in the future, don’t worry” brigade – there is a great deal of confusion on what those jobs will be, and how do we skill the workforce for these new jobs.

Given that we live in a market economy, the lack of jobs portends a very dark future. People will not have income.  And, if they have no income, they can’t spend. Demand will be crushed. Industries will shut down. Economies will go into stasis.

And, governments across the world have to be cognisant of the impact of their actions (and inactions) on jobs and the economy. The way the world is moving right now, it seems like leaders are patching gaping wounds with tiny band aid, hoping that the problem passes. But, the problem is here to stay

One way out is the introduction of a Uniform Basic Income (UBI)- a grant from the Government to every citizen – old or young, rich or power, working or not, child or adult, that is rolled out automatically. The Economic survey of India (2016-17) says the UBI   “could be to the twenty first century what civil and political rights were to the twentieth.

It is premised on the idea that a just society needs to guarantee to each individual a minimum income which they can count on, and which provides the necessary material foundation for a life with access to basic goods and a life of dignity. A universal basic income is, like many rights, unconditional and universal.”

That we live in an economically uncertain world is a given. A world in which jobs for life are no longer guaranteed. But, what can be guaranteed is a basic sustenance income. And, that is what needs to be translated from policy to action.

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

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

Is India the worst country on the planet for women?

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

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

This week’s outrage meter was activated by the report on the World’s Most Dangerous Countries for women, published by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

In a world dominated by the Syrian conflict, ISIS terror, the troubles in Afghanistan, South African violence, the Mexican Cartels, the Congolese civil war, the middle Eastern crisis, the refugee crisis, all of which take their toll on women’s lives, safety, security, India ranks the most dangerous place for women. In 2011 the foundation had carried out a similar survey and in that Afghanistan topped the list, and India was number 4.

The outrage is at three main levels. The first are government supporters who believe that the report is part of a systematic plan to show the current government of India, led by Mr Modi, in poor light. They believe it is a cabal of journalists, NGO, non-Hindu religious organisations, that are responsible for consistently showing India declining in a variety of such studies- be it the most dangerous place for journalists, or the most dangerous place for women.

The second level is those who question the methodology. There were “548 experts focused on women’s issues including aid and development professionals, academics, health workers, policymakers, non-government organisation workers, journalists, and social commentators” who were polled for their views. And, their perception of safety for women, is not backed by hard data on crime or health. It is just their point of view, being passed off as world opinion.

At the third level, there is the main stream media, and political parties that have taken up the poll. Rather than ignoring it, there are vigorous debates on the pros and cons of the poll, rather than its content. People are fighting their corner hard.

The poll itself is based on six main parameters, that lead up to India’s number one position.

1. Healthcare, which include access to doctors, primary health services, optometrists, dentists, specialised services. India ranks 4th more dangerous here. While India has made tremendous progress here, despite our agreement or disagreement with the ranking, we must admit that we have a long way to go.

2. Discrimination: this includes being excluded from the formal job market, wage discrepancies, the access to livelihood, discrimination in terms of property rights, and more. India ranks number 3 here.

3. Cultural Traditions: This includes acid attacks, female genital mutilation, burning women, forced marriages, stoning, and more. India ranks number one in this, as per the poll

4. Sexual Violence: this is primarily focused around rape. Rape as a weapon of war – as used by ISIS against the Yazdis; marital rape; rape by a stranger, gang rape; coercion into sex for access to government services (corruption); access to the criminal justice system. India, according to the poll, ranks number one in this.

5. Non Sexual Violence: this is, primarily, violence associated with war, and civil war. India ranks number 3 in this.

6. Human Trafficking: which includes modern slavery, domestic servitude, forced labour, bonded labour, forced marriage, and sexual slavery. India, ranks number 1 here.

As pointed out by those, who disagree with the methodology, this ranking is based on the perception of experts than hard data put out by various ministries, or even world bodies.

One look at the list, and we all know that India has a long way to go to make the country far more equitable and safer for women. But, the question is, and it is an important one – is India the worst country on the planet for women? The answer is a resounding no.

Then what causes the perception that India is more unsafe than South Africa, where 54 percent of men have claimed to use violence or threat of violence to get sex from women; or Saudi Arabia – where raped women have been stoned for being victims of rape; or Congo – where children as young as 10 have been raped, and used as prostitutes? While India has a long way to go in terms of women’s safety and security, it is nowhere as dangerous as some of the other places on earth. So, what makes experts perceive India to be dangerous?

The answer is simpler than we think. Look at Indian news channels. The focus is on violence, and sexual violence. The gorier the story, the more the air time.

Now ask, where are the stories of law and order delivering justice? Where is the focus on restitution? Where are the stories on women led panchayats that are bringing about equity at the grassroots? Where are the stories on businesses that are delivering health care at the village level? Where are the stories of women being rescued from trafficking and resettled into a normal life?

If the media is a window into a society, then people will perceive India to be a violent, misogynist society, because that is what is shown. And, while there is violence, and sexual violence, and discrimination against women – the converse is also true. If you must change the way the world perceives India, we have to start by changing the way we see ourselves.

The problems with imprecise surveys like this, is that they become the topic of conversation, rather than the ills that it seeks to point out. While the system seeks to address the issues of perception, those perceptions arise from a break down in law and order, and the slow moving criminal justice system. It is this break down of a creaking law and order system, that needs to be tackled on a war footing.

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

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

Who bears the cost of cutting trees for ‘development’?

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

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

It was a bit like Chipko movement in Delhi earlier this week.

Hundreds of citizens turned up to hug trees and protest the felling of almost 17,000 to create homes for government officials and commercial complexes.

Although a court in Delhi has placed a stay on chopping of trees for now, the event once again raises the eternal conundrum of development – how do you develop without damaging the environment (too much)?

There is an environmental cost attached to development. This is not a modern phenomenon. When the first hunter gatherers settled and took up farming, they cleared the forest to build farms. Later, when cities came up and grand palaces were built, forests were cut, both to clear the land and as building material.

In the Mahabharat there is the story of the forest of Kandhavprastha, which the Pandavas clear to build their capital – Indraprastha.  However, in the pre industrial era, the type of growth, as well as relatively smaller populations ensured that a certain balance was maintained between development and nature.

The modern world is different. Not only is their unprecedented mass industrial growth but also a booming population. There are 7.6 billion people inhabiting the planet and over 17 percent of this lives in India. People need space, jobs, food, and energy – at the very least. And, that is going to be produced at the expense of some amount of environmental damage.

When cities, homes, factories, railway lines and ports come up, they replace trees, and forests that stood there. Hills are demolished to make way for housing. When factories fire up, they are going to emit something into the atmosphere, that is going to make the quality of air worse. When industries come up next to water bodies, there is going to be water pollution. And, when we expand the farm cover, it is at the cost of forests. There is a trade-off between development and environment and it will always be there.

The question is, who bears the cost, who reaps the profits, and what is the trade off?

What we are seeing across the country and the globe, are citizens refusing to take on the externalities of development. Externalities are negative consequences of an economic activity on unrelated third parties.

For example, in Toothukudy in Tamil Nadu local residents were protesting the environmental impact of an economic activity – the Vedanta copper smelter. The company sold the copper. Buyers bought the copper. The community bore the brunt of this transaction. The economic gain to the community was considered less than the cost imposed by pollution. Governments usually try and mitigate an externality with a tax – a pollution tax, for example – but that is usually not seen as being enough to mitigate the damage to the local community.

Recently in Maharashtra, we have seen another type of policy making that has impacted one particular community – the community of plastic manufacturers. The much needed ban on single use plastic, has come into play. The purpose – to reduce pollution, and protect the environment. The action has consequences on profits, production and jobs.

The question every policy makers faces is simple. How do you minimise the cost to others from an economic activity? The simplest answer to that would be to involve the community and show them, in tangible terms, how they will benefit from the development. Make them stakeholders and help them make the transition. Much of development gets stuck because of top down diktats, that doesn’t have a buy in from the community. And, where all that they get from the project are externalities.

Delhi’s tree cutting saga, is a metaphor of development woes across the country. That Indian cities, and India, needs their green cover is not in question. The question also is not whether India needs to develop fast – she does. The question is how do get them to co-exist?

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

Trump’s ‘my way or highway’ approach puts global order in a great dilemma

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

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

Trade war theatrics between the US and China are roiling global markets after US president Donald Trump finally imposed tariffs worth $50 billion on Chinese goods with the latter retaliating with its own $34 billion-worth of trade tariffs on  US goods. These American tariffs are in addition to the sweeping 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminium. China’s reactionary tariffs are on agricultural products and motor vehicles. It has promised another $16 billion worth of tariffs to follow soon.

Caught in the cross-hairs is India who is evaluating her own $300 million worth of tariffs on American imports.

Donald Trump came to power promising to make America great again. Part of the promise was to reduce dependence on all things foreign. He promised controlling immigrant influx in to the USA, bring back manufacturing jobs from China and services jobs from India.

In Trump’s world view, America had ceded its dominant role in the world economy by giving too many concessions for trade that benefitted corporations more concerned with the bottom-line than concepts such as nationhood. Part of his drive is also to curb big businesses who have distributed supply chains across the world in a manner to exploit favourable tax rates in offshore havens in order to pay least amount of tax. Trump has directly attacked technology giant Amazon for paying ‘little or no tax’.

In Trump’s world, the global supply chain is responsible for a great many ills, from jobs moving offshore, to tax moving offshore. And, much of what he is doing, is to increase the cost of offshoring, and therefore keeping the jobs, and taxes in America.

What may seem like random madness to the rest of the world is part of his worldview. And that worldview is borne out of a sense that American interests have dwindled and American power has diminished in a globalised economy.

Since his surprise victory in November 2014, he has been making good on his promises. Immigration into the United States has been severely tightened. H1-B visas for skilled individuals have virtually dried up. And, now comes the assault on global trade. So far, Trump has announced tariffs on, apart from other products, steel and aluminium. He has announced tariffs on goods from China. He has threatened tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and the European Union.

The world economic order is reeling under the assault of Trump’s personality. It has been a long time since modern world has seen a leader who has scant concern for international diplomacy. There is no trace of diplomacy in Trump’s approach, nor is there any seeming desire to want to negotiate. It is a ‘my way or the highway’ approach. This puts rest of the world in a great dilemma.

The new world order is built on an international system of negotiation and consensus. How do you deal with someone who isn’t interested in any of those?  Also, if other nations even try and reason with Trump, they will look like they have bowed down to his excessive machismo making their positions back home untenable.

With the trade war rearing its uglier head in the coming days, it is likely to impact the end consumer — us. While we may substitute products from other nations, it is the integrated global supply chains where the maximum impact is going to be felt. Tax will be applied on components that go in to making larger products, leading to both profits of corporations getting depressed and prices of goods going up. Inflation is bound to follow.

His personality may blind us to the obvious, but Trump’s policy insofar as immigration, trade, and taxes should not be seen in isolation but as part of a holistic campaign ‘To make America great again’.

That it is not going to achieve those objectives is something that will only be understood after the damage is done.

Harini Calamur works at the intersection of digital content, technology, and audiences.

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

Making sense of Trump’s tirades on trade

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

Listen to the Article (6 Minutes)

The instinct towards protectionism is not new. It has been a part of economic history since the beginning of trade.  In 75 CE, the Roman author and active citizen complained about the trade between the Roman Empire and India.

He observed that there was ‘no year in which India does not drain our Empire of at least fifty-five million sesterces’.

Up to 55 million sesterces were the Roman trade deficit with India. There probably were discussions of limiting trade with India (quotas), or imposing a tax on them (Tariff). But Roman merchants had access to Indian markets too. Therefore quotas and tariffs at one end would be mean a reciprocal action at the other end.

Throughout history, while there are tales of closed markets, the predominant story is that of trade between kingdoms, and then trade between nations. There have been difficulties in trade – primarily caused by economic depression, or war, but since the end of the second world war in 1945, the predominant move has been to increase trade ties between nations and reduce tariffs and quotas.

The Global Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) was born out of the ashes of the second world war, and it had one goal – to increase trade between nations. The idea behind it was simple, the more nations are intertwined in trade, the more likely each country to be invested in peace.

GATT transformed into the World Trade Organisation, the trade in services began, and the world became more interlinked. Today 164 nations trade together, under the watchful eye of the WTO. It seems that profits and prosperity trumped protectionism and war.

However, all this has changed in the last few years since Trump became the President on the United States. Elected on a promise to put up the barriers to protect American jobs, Trump has been delivering, gradually dismantling multilateral agreements on trade, by simply refusing to play by the rules of international trade.

The first agreement that Trump tore up was the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) that would have opened trade between 12 countries, that control 40% of the world’s GDP. He has had the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in his crosshairs, and he has no qualms about imposing tariffs on goods from other nations, citing national interest as the criteria. Recently the Americans imposed a 25% tariff on steel and a 10% tariff on aluminium.

Most impacted by this are the Canadians, EU, Mexico and China. Battle lines are clearly drawn. In April, the world almost came to the brink of a trade war, when the Chinese imposed tariffs on 128 American goods; and Mexico followed suit by imposing tariffs on almost $3 billion worth of American goods. Massive backroom manoeuvring averted the war, with China agreeing to import more to reduce their $375 billion surplus with the Americans.

India is not immune from the Trump tirade on trade. He has accused the Indian government of imposing 100% tariffs on multiple product lines including the Harley Davidson motorcycle. Already hurt by the tariffs on steel and aluminium, India has approached the WTO to resolve this issue.

India and other countries believe that the United States is running roughshod on the rule book on trade, upending existing systems of rules, and throwing the world into chaotic waters. While India may not have the economic weight of a China to threaten retaliation, in a world defined by a show of strength, it is unclear what other option India has. Kowtowing to Trump’s demands are not the solution.

The Trump approach to trade seems quite like that of an injured bull in a China shop. Things are going to get broken. He believes the whole world is out robbing the “American Piggybank” and it has to stop, even it if means the end of trade. This pronouncement is from the G7 meeting that took place a few days ago in Canada. His refusal to sign the joint statement was put out on twitter.

The problem with the new American Approach to international trade is “my way or the highway”. It is exacerbated by the fact that international treaties that would otherwise stand the change of government are no longer inviolate – they can be upended and thrown out.

The problem with the Trump approach is that he does not seem to understand that the Americans were the prime architects of the current world economic order. It was done primarily to help their businesses gain access to our markets. The problem is that America has lost its way in the world order.

But Trump does not seem to want to see this, nor does he seem to want to move it through a rule-based system to some sort of consensus. While agreements fall apart, and trade wars look imminent, it seems likely that the rest of the world has to come to some form of agreement without the participation of the Americans. Trade is too important to be left at the mercy of tantrum tirades.

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