“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” — Emma Lazarus
India hosts more than two lakh refugees and is at the centre of refugee movements in the South Asian region. It has been a home to refugees from numerous neighbouring countries.
Since India’s independence and partition, it has had an influx of migrants from its neighbours, and this incident is not pertinent to the partition of India. The issue of the economic burden India has to bear and the significant demographic changes brought about by this inflow were frequently raised. In addition to economic and demographic problems, the refugee crisis also endangers India’s security. The legal demands of migrants, internally displaced people, and refugees have all been controlled by existing laws, although this has not yet been formally acknowledged. Although the matter has been partially addressed by current law and court involvement, there are still significant obstacles to resolving the bigger issue. Existing domestic laws regulating foreign nationals’ entry, stay and exit in normal circumstances are inadequate to deal with refugees. In the absence of domestic law for refugees and asylum seekers, there should be a domestic protocol on their status, assigning specific responsibilities to specific agencies. This will ensure prompt response and enhance accountability.
India follows the principle of dualism when it comes to Refugees; that is, international law is not directly applicable domestically and must be implemented through law by Parliament. But in the light of current international situations, we need to review the current scenario from a legal and humanitarian perspective. It is high time that a proper legal framework is set up for the same! Refugees and illegal immigration are also two distinct concepts. However, both groups are treated equally under Indian law because of the Foreigners Act of 1946.
An individual seeking international protection from persecution is called an asylum seeker, and a country may grant refugee status to an asylum seeker. But sadly, there is no clear definition in India regarding this! Moreover, India is not a party to the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol – vital legal documents about refugee protection in International Law. As a result, the government’s policies and solutions to address these problems lack clarity and policy value. This leads to India’s refugee policy being guided primarily by ad hocism! This enables the government in office to pick and choose ‘what kind’ of refugees it wants to admit for political or geopolitical reasons. This is sad; ultimately, the refugees end up suffering.
However, India has signed numerous Human Rights Instruments that articulate a commitment to the protection of Refugees. India is a party to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948 and has joined the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) -1966 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)- 1966 since 1979. India is also a signatory to -the convention on eliminating all forms of Radical Discrimination (CRED in 1965), which ensures equal human rights to all human beings without discrimination.
Moreover, Article 51(c) of the Indian constitution directs the state to respect and uphold International Law. Keeping all this in mind, we can say that a Refugee law has been awaited for a long time. With the recent enactment of the Citizenship Amendment Act, 2019 (CAA), India further fails to address the real issue of refugees and exclusively addresses the issues of illegal immigrants, which are not the same as refugees. Furthermore, the CAA act goes against the basic principles of our democracy, like equality and religious non-discrimination enshrined in the constitution!
With traditional knowledge and values, progressive nations and economic behemoths like India might function as impetuses for international aid and asylum management.
By passing national refugee legislation, India may better calibrate its treatment of asylum claims in light of the global humanitarian and economic crises.
“Most democracies are dynastic; some are more dynastic than others.”
A quick glimpse of the newspapers of the past month would be enough to conclude that the island country Sri Lanka is facing one of the worst economic crises ever witnessed. And while this crisis is a result of various complex factors, it is the Rajapaksa family who is being blamed for wreaking havoc. For the past 20 years, the Rajapaksa family has had a dominant presence in Sri Lankan politics. Hence they certainly cannot escape the blame for running a dynastic setup. It is a classic case study to analyze the relation between political dynasties and democracy. But it isn’t the only country to witness this oxymoron; in fact, it is rare that democracies and dynasties don’t share this peculiar relationship.
Thousands of years ago, Indian king Dhritarashtra, blinded by the affection for his son, named Duryodhana his heir instead of Yudhishthira. And now here we are – a democratic 21st century nation with modern and meritocratic ethos. Or are we? A dozen dynastic families right from Kashmir, Punjab, Bihar, and Maharashtra to Telangana get elected “democratically” and control all the levers of power. And this takes place in the world’s largest democratic country! Dynastic succession in a democratic nation is a strange irony. Democracy entitles its citizens to choose their leaders based on their capability and achievements. Hence the very survival of the dynasty seems unlikely. So, how does a dynastic succession last in a democratic country? Why do the people seem so accepting of it? Isn’t such a set-up detrimental to the nation?
According to an article published by Washington University, political dynasties offer a “brand name advantage”. Be it the Gandhis or the Kennedys, the successors of the family do usually enjoy the power of the name they carry. In the same paper, it was noted that essential indicators like past experience or fundraising for campaigns don’t act as a major differentiating factor between candidates, thus emphasizing the fact that caliber is sometimes side-lined due to the “brand name” advantage. Moreover, in an imperfect ecosystem where a common man faces the inability to perform complex analysis of various important factors for selecting a leader – like job creation, economy, party agenda, etc. – citizens will retract to finding a familiar and reliable face instead. This natural instinct only gives further rise to political dynasties.
Another reason for the existence of political dynasties is the experience, mentorship and exposure of the past generation in a political climate. When a politician succeeds, they want their successors to not only reap the benefits of their work, but also continue their legacy. This “inherited incumbency advantage” acts as a primary factor for successors to continue in this profession. And the perks provided by the State to an elected official do play the role of the perfect cherry on the cake. Statistics from a recent research paper back this fact. According to the paper, the chances of an individual choosing the same occupation as his father is about 5 times. In politics, the odds turned out to be a humongous 110 times. But, democracy is not binary-it is a continuum. Hence, it becomes important to analyze the gradient of the existence of political dynasties all over the world. One also wonders whether a more developed society will be more vigilant towards their extant. Starting with India, although the expectation would have been that political dynasties are on the verge of extinction given that this was one of the primary reasons that the ruling party came into power, such is not the case. Research suggests that the seats occupied by dynasts were 9% more in the Lok Sabha in 2019 compared to 2014. Such examples are seen all over the world as well. The Bush family in America, Trudeaus of Canada, Bismarck’s of Germany, Archer family of Australia, and the Park dynasty of South Korea are very few examples of political families existing in democratic nations. Dynasties are more prevalent in developing countries, election systems that are “candidate-centered” and where the process of choosing candidates within parties is delegated to local players. But, while their influence might alter over the spectrum, it is still omnipresent. This proves that the dynast-democracy relation is a prominent and ubiquitous one, although its influence varies across countries.
Now, let’s revert to our case study of Sri Lanka. If political dynasties are indeed ubiquitous, then what went wrong in Sri Lanka? Such dynasties come with their own huge list of cons especially in a democratic set-up since they stand against the moral principles of democracy. But no nation has seen its wrath the way Sri Lanka has. Emergency has been declared in the nation with the inflation reaching 50%, the health system being on the verge of complete breakdown and the country being declared bankrupt. It all started in 2009 when Mahinda Rajapaksa was elected as President and was hailed as a hero by the majority Sinhalese for ending the nearly 30-year civil war. With time, more members of the Rajapaksa clan began to hold major political offices, with Mahinda assuming the role of the patriarch of this dynasty. While the Rajapaksas were accused of grave human rights violations, prejudice against minorities, and assaults on media, the Sinhala majority turned a blind eye to the injustices for several years. It is a classic case – when democracy within political parties is in danger and identity politics takes over other important agendas, it gives birth to a class of politicians both entitled and incompetent. And when actions of political dynasties go unchecked by the voters and are not contested adequately by a strong opposition, the incentive to work for the actual well-being and development no longer exists. This results in a catastrophe.
Political dynasties will exist in the future as well. Although they oppose what democracy stands for, it is in human nature to promote such a compromise. However, people cannot afford to blindly have faith in a family just because of a name. The opposition also shall raise awareness when dynasties reach a point of comfort. It is indeed a tightrope to walk on, but a vigilant population is the only way to prevent this rope from snapping.
The Punjab elections gave India its most successful political startup, making its supremo Arvind Kejriwal one of the most influential and powerful people in India, leaving behind its opponents, clearly becoming the only one to be at least on the same track on its march to the finish line of the 2024 elections.
Kejriwal, an ex-Italian and civil servant, is one of the most educated and learned IItians in the country. He has worked in every system that exists and aspires to change the lives of people in this country, from corporate jobs to NGOs to policymaking. Arvind had been a part of every system, but his constant drive was to change the system. From his days in Parivartan to joining India against corruption, he has blatantly rallied against every political party and ideology and has had a phenomenal role in bringing the importance of the right to information to the public light.
Arvind’s movement against corruption brought the entire country together, from politicians to writers, actors, businessmen, and even high-profile civil servants, rallying behind him, eventually bringing the Sheila Dixit government in Delhi down. He formed his own party that represented the plight of the common people and called it the Aam Aadmi Party to fight the Delhi elections. He claimed that his party would follow a democratic process, not make individuals into cult figures, promising to be grounded and not include corrupt people in the party, the one thing against which he fought and found his name popular among people. He promised to use the Maruti Wagon, a symbol of the middle class refusing to even have security. Eventually, he even won the elections and formed a government in coalition with the Congress, vowing to pass the Jan Lokpal bill that would make government officials accountable for their work, failing which he even resigned on a record day. He was loved by people for his integrity and was again unanimously elected with a thumping majority in the coming Delhi elections.
He suffered a huge setback when his party members, namely Prashant Bhushan and Yogendra Yadav, left the party, which later only cemented his place in the party as the party supremo. He became very popular among young people. His image of a learned, secular, and welfare-oriented administrator screamed for a change in the system that the young had long awaited. He began well, with his policy affecting the lives of the poorest of the poor. He aspired to make new schools and change the existing ones, including the happiness subject, for which he was appreciated across party lines. He seemed a little different from the other politicians who cared for the people and not a career politician who had joined politics to just raise his ranks.
However, things started changing as Kejriwal’s aspirations grew. It began with the onset of the 2017 Punjab elections. Kejriwal started doing things that every ordinary politician did, cemented his position in the party, and removed the rule that limited the number of times a member could be elected president. Next, he started promising things that were neither feasible for the economy nor able to be delivered. With this, he was stuck in a web of lies from which he never came out. He openly lied about the number of jobs delivered, and the number of buses installed, and also lied about the water supply facilities for which he had sold the dream. Even his closest friends in politics left him and were on record accusing him of escalating a riot in Punjab to win an election.
In an interview, he went so far as to question the integrity of the RTI act. His politics now seemed to be that of a football match where he was just passing the blame and moving forward, playing the victim card time and again to gain public sympathy. He went so deep into vote bank politics that his image of a secular leader now seemed like that of a tourist agent offering free religious travel to the people of his state. After gaining complete control of the police in the state of Punjab, he started using his powers to threaten his opponents in the state of Delhi, misusing the public services as a private entity to silence his critics. So much irony for a person who has made his way up to criticising every other politician that has existed in the country. His party members were found guilty of rioting while he was outright defending them. Both the big riots that happened in Delhi in the last few years had AAP leaders at the helm of affairs while the party was still defending them.
The major problem I have with him is that he seemed like a change, a strong force in the political system that would change it forever, but now he seems like every other politician that has ever existed in the country; the same old people that have rotted the public system; a person who could go to any lengths for his personal gains. His actions have not only damaged his reputation but have made sure that no politician is born of a revolt against the system because of the living testimonials that he has provided. He has also crushed the hopes of every little youngster that wanted to join politics because of the dream they were sold off, and the idea that you could change India still remains a distant dream. Nevertheless, it has cemented the one belief that stands the test of time: that in India, politics is not for the common man and that the name “Aam Aadmi Party” is the biggest irony that has ever been in the modern politics of India.
Patriotism is the most sublime feeling and India breathes patriotism. But a vast majority of patriots don’t even know what they stand for. What drives this feeling? Since time immemorial, India has always taken pride in its cultural heritage and diversity, and yet, we are ready to trade it off. In fact, we are diluting it for reasons that we never ponder upon. With great honor, we celebrate Republic Day and Independence Day, but are we really independent?
The Constitution of India has always stood as the hallowed shrine of Democracy and yet we barely read anything beyond the preamble. My article from here on, though very easy to misrepresent, raises 2 major concerns- 1. Recognizing the colonial gaze.
2. Decolonialising India on an individual as well as community level.
So, the next set of questions that pops up is –
How do we recognize the loss of cultural heritage if we don’t even recognize its existence?
How do we research the ways we are still colonial?
The answer is simple but subjective. We tap into our own experience. People resonate with the country, and experiences resonate with society at large.
To explain this, let’s assume that every society has a core and it is fashioned in the form of concentric causation- with every fringe that moves away from the epicenter, the quality of commitment to the tradition deteriorates. The outermost fringe of society- which does not practice the tradition at all, does not live the experience in any way, is hoping to impose a system of the universal standard on the core practitioners owing to their inability to practice the discipline and experience themselves, thereby diluting the very foundation itself, as opposed to it being the other way round. This is cultural fascism and essentially what colonialism does.
In an idealistic scenario, assuming that it is theoretically possible to adopt a uniform and universal standard- it is important to take everyone’s input into account. There’s a certain degree of compromise that all of us are bound to make and a certain degree of retention that all of us are entitled to, and that’s how we realize what is core- what is important and what is not. This is, unfortunately, being muddled as moral relativism. That’s not how a system is imposed. Discussion and deliberation are important. When Colonialisation peaked in the 17th and 18th centuries, did anyone take into consideration the origins of other cultures? When you approach other cultures with a sense of benevolent condescension and try to fix them or with a sense of superiority- you infantilize other cultures. Universal standards do not translate into the universalization of one particular standard. At the very least, it means basic participation by the major cultures across the world.
It is amusing to think that a civilization that has lived far more than any other civilization wouldn’t have encountered this problem. And this is why, I am sure that we can emerge immensely powerful, provided we believe in our culture and learn from our heritage.
There’s a saying- “history distorts those who distort history”. And unfortunately in India, we’ve been robbed of accessing our history, our experiences, and what makes us a society. We do not talk about the massive psychological damage, dehumanization, disruption of society’s structure, and undermining of social traditions and of cultural heritage- all in colonial interest and many of the problems today including the persistence in some cases the creation of racial and ethnic and religious tensions that were a direct consequence of our colonial experience. It is rather rhetoric that our history books promote the fallacies of Aryan Invasion Theory and India as the world’s oldest civilization is barely talked about. If this isn’t colonialism, then what is?
Unaware of our own laws and customs and the diverse ethos, we haven’t been able to get rid of the “fixing” or “civilizing the natives” narrative. This ‘colonial gaze’ is so well internalized, that even after several decades of being “independent”, we still employ it in our ethics, rights, science, polity, and policies. We look at our own culture and social problems with this borrowed colonial apparatus.
In fact, India is in fundamental conflict with the idea of “Bharat” or the Indian civilization and it is evident everywhere: deeming Coloniality and modernity inseparable, the linguistic apartheid promoted by the state, the Collegium System of an Elitist Judiciary, and intrinsic corruption in every government body.
The sacrosanct foundational stone of this conflict is the Indian Constitution.
The British India Act of 1935 was the longest Act ever passed by the British parliament. It was a 4000 pages long binding document solely aimed at governing India with a sense of racial and intellectual superiority. According to Pt. Nehru, it was a charter of slavery. History suggests that the courts promulgated a new constitution and we became a republic in 1950 after it was accepted. But what we are unaware of is that ironically, the constituent assembly with no representation of the people of free India, used the same act as a template to formulate the constitution of the Indian Republic.
Contrary to popular belief, Sir Benegal Rao was really the framer or the writer of the constitution and not Dr. Ambedkar who was the chairperson of the drafting committee. While the committee only made suggestions, Sir BN Rao, ICS and the companion of the order of the Indian Empire, knighted in 1938 for his loyalty towards the British Empire, constitutional adviser to the constituent assembly 1946, travelled to various countries and presented the initial draft in 1948.
Even the constituent assembly was itself a colonial institution. There was no separate ratification body. Unlike countries like Brazil- there wasn’t even a referendum to consider the votes of citizens. The colonized elite who were subservient to the British Empire imposed this structure on the masses who were simply the passive recipients of the ordinance. How did we even arrive at “ We the people of India”? Most importantly- where is free India?
This can be easily understood in the following manner:
People’s representatives- Non-Colonial State/ Free State
Fix the people or teach discipline or moralize them- Colonial State
Now, the USA is considered a superpower and has one of the most efficient institutional systems in the world. It also has the world’s oldest written constitution. It’s a 4500 words essay in plain English ( 7700 words with amendments). The motto is that the constitution protects the citizen from the tyranny of a govt. It is the sovereign, not omnipotent. The father of this same US Constitution- James Madison believed in simpler language and natural rights. When we draw a parallel, we realize that not only is it against the basic principles, the most odious and disturbing feature of the Indian constitution is that the Indian Constitution is 150000 words written in legalese- the legacy of the British to subjugate India. What good is the law if the people can’t even understand it?
We got Independence in 1947 but if we look at the institution of the state- it is exactly the same as it was pre-independence. The Constitution is held as the ‘Law of the Land’ and yet has no roots in our land and no history of jurisprudence in our land.
According to the Government of India Act, the federal courts were set up, and “his majesty” decided his bench for law enforcement. The qualification criteria being: the person has to be 5 years judge of HC in British India or Federated state or a barrister of England or Northern Ireland of 10 years standing or a member of the faculty of advocates in Scotland of at least 10 years standing. I won’t be exaggerating if I say that exchanging “Federal” with “Supreme” and making a few tweaks gave us the idea of the Supreme Court of independent India which not only is inherently elitist but has a collegium system for the appointment of judges.
The Legislature continues to exist as Assembly and Council and the police as the Executive continues to thrive on the power of Lathi Charge. Linguistic Apartheid of the SC compels the usage of the English language. In contemporary India, owing to its colonial history, linguistic discrimination that is pushed by the State is the most severe and ordinary form of discrimination that people experience in everyday life- jobs, army, academia, social hierarchy, Supreme Court, etc. What justice will be served if 90% of people cannot even speak the language? Even the emergency proclaimed in 1975 used exactly the same act. All these reasons constitute the argument why this is not constitutional Morality but British Colonialism.
With corruption at its peak, the basic flaw in our institutional system is that the system is not based on the state servicing the needs of the people, but on imposing requirements. To bring more people into the formal economy- we need to dismantle the colonial idea of extortion first. Where getting a company registered is a Herculean task, an English-only IT-enabled GST cannot bring people into the formal economy. This is why the informal economy seems a good escape from colonial methods.
Power tends to corrupt. State tends to destroy. The state has no business to be in business. Limiting the state power by separating the power to legislate, tax, and spend and vesting them in distinct bodies is the key to a free market and economic freedom. Radical decentralization of the state is important. Longer the accountability loop, the more the potential for corruption, and the lesser efficiency is the delivery. Corruption is not the attribute of the morality of Indian people- it’s an attribute of the colonial system which is why privatization yields better results.
We also need to understand that Justice and Judgement are different. Free and Freedom are different.
Colonialisation did not just mean recession, poverty, hunger, and famines. It also meant the loss of our heritage. Our intellectual humility and the inferiority complex bolstered by colonialization have led to us disrespecting and dismissing Indian knowledge systems. We have been conditioned to believe that science has also emanated from the West and there’s only one way to look at it. Practitioners of our sciences, rich traditions and jurisprudence have either become passive or are so abysmally low that we try to justify the ancient sciences using modern science which by the way is minuscule in comparison to ancient science. We ridicule Ayurveda and term our menstrual practices as orthodox without proper scientific articulation. For ex: In the Sabrimala issue- despite the protests, the ruling was decreed upon.
As a historically knowledge-driven society, it is extremely important for us to take back the agency as to how we perceive knowledge and thereby get rid of the colonial apparatus.
With my article, I do not mean to justify the shortcomings of India as a society nor do I wish to bring every ancient practice into the present, but we must reassess the needs of our society. Delve for solutions within our culture before outsourcing them. The colonial state wanted to fix society but let’s not forget that society is our strength. Decolonization translates into the need to recognize and realize the true power of India as a civilization, and for that, we must acknowledge its existence.
It’s the acknowledgement that matters that reparations are owed and not how much or to whom it should be paid. ~Shashi Tharoor
Take pride in our motherland, celebrate the true spirit of being Bharatiya.
The Indian Constitution is the first thing that springs to mind when we hear words like “JUSTICE,” “LIBERTY,” “EQUALITY,” and “FRATERNITY.” These are words from the Indian Constitution’s preamble, which signified the birth of an independent India. This Sovereign document, drafted by the Drafting Committee led by B.R. Ambedkar, is the world’s largest and longest Constitution, with 395 articles and 12 schedules, long enough to make us fall asleep yet powerful enough to manage a country the size of India. However, the length and language are irrelevant because it was intended to cater to a small subset of privileged individuals. Consequently, they ensured the language was tough enough, and the text was long enough to bore the public.
The thought behind making the Constituent Assembly was to reflect people’s desire. The phrase “We the People” indicates that it was written by, for, and about the people. But “The People” who represented our will, did they consider everyone’s will? It appears that the definition of people for them was our “beloved” politicians. But, I suppose, they’re utilising that power to represent the people’s will. But I think that’s the beauty of Indian society. I mean, we would have probably posted some good Instagram stories showing that we care, but in reality, I think that’s all we have done, which is a significant amount of work to improvise our Constitution.
The first draft of our Constitution came out about 70 years ago, and things have been going well for India. After such a violent history and all of India’s misfortunes, I believe these 70-year-old concepts would be sufficient to operate the system for another 70 years. Evolution has been a massive part of the human race, and I think it has influenced all of the changes and advancements we’ve made, but I don’t believe the laws of nature apply to our Constitution. How flaw “less” could it possibly be?
Our Constitution was written to protect the people’s interests, but does it do so? Take, for example, the concept of “Religion.” Every religion, like every other, has its own set of beliefs. The semantic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, are rooted in the faith in a single God who created all things and beings. On the other hand, we have Indic cultures, and customs practised for thousands of years and are considered ancestral wisdom. There is no single God, no single holy book, and no claims to truth in Indian faiths. As a result, the term “Religion” to embrace fundamentally distinct ideas confounded and perplexed the framers of the Constitution and their descendants. Our founding fathers did such an excellent job that we could sum up a person’s beliefs in a single word. It may mean different things to different people. Still, these people were so confident of their ability to express people’s will that they could never fathom someone having a different viewpoint, but that has always been the beauty of Indian leadership.
What surprises me is that our founding fathers were more concerned with our fundamental rights than our essential responsibilities. Maybe it’s just me, but I believe they perform a very similar and equally vital function in any society. But, in any case, they were concerned about everyone’s well-being. But, because they kept “my interests” in mind, I think I shouldn’t be questioning them now. One of the significant flaws in our legal system is that it is supposed to provide justice to all (social, economic, and political), one of our Constitution’s primary goals. It is one of the slowest systems, but I believe it has been fed in our minds that our court system is slow but provides justice. I try to think of it, but it reminds me of the Ayodhya Babri case or criminal instances such as Jessica Lal, Priyadarshini Mattoo, Nitish Katara, etc.
But I don’t think all of this matters because at least we could satisfy the needs of some “privileged” class. That’s the beauty of our Constitution.
My parents have been BJP supporters for as long as I can remember. At family get-togethers, my relatives bond over Pappu jokes, fanboying over Arnab Goswami and the general Modi mania, spread all over the country since 2014. For a significant part of my life, I supported BJP too, as I inherited my parent’s political views; which is fairly understandable if you are exposed to the same political narrative since you were a child. Then, I grew up and I was exposed to different political ideologies, friends with dissimilar political inclinations, and new socio-political views. With time, I couldn’t help but notice the biasedness and hypocrisy of almost every media house in the country, as I realized that none of them presented facts without a tinge of their own opinions and they were either blatantly right-wing inclined or propagated left-wing ideologies. This made it harder for me to form my own opinions as this time around, I wanted them to be purely my own and not influenced by any prejudice. Gradually, after a lot of unlearning and educating, one thing I was sure of was that I did not share my parents’ political ideology. Now, my father and I had always discussed politics with great enthusiasm, so I decided to break the news to him. The conversation was a hard one, and it felt as if I was coming out to him as a non-BJP supporter.
Me: Dad, I’ve to talk to you about something.
Dad: Sure, go ahead?
Me: Dad, I don’t think I support BJP.
Dad: Haha, good one. Now you’ll say you support congress, ah?
Me: Well, no. But, I don’t think I agree with what BJP stands for.
Dad: What rubbish, this is western propaganda. Don’t let those liberal news outlets get to you.
Me: These views aren’t influenced by any external source. On the contrary, this is the first time in my life I’m forming my own opinions.
Dad: Oh god, this is what social media is doing to the youth. With all this fake news flying around, no wonder you guys get influenced under peer pressure.
Me: No, actually I’ve formed these opinions after reading up on these parties, their politicians, and what they stand for, while fact-checking every news article I consume. As for social media, this morning, you forwarded me a WhatsApp video about the farmer’s protest that turned out to be doctored. Dad: Well, this is just a phase. A fad that you will grow out of once you see sense. Moreover, if not Modi, then who?
Me: I won’t deny that my political views are subject to change, as I’ve learned that it’s important to be receptive to new ideas and opinions. And instead of voting for a party that stands for ideologies I don’t believe in, I’d rather vote for NOTA.
While I can hardly imagine how hard coming out of the closet must be, and in all seriousness, I cannot possibly compare these two experiences, it is safe to say that it is often hard for parents to accept the fact that their child is growing into an adult, and therefore they will shape and restructure their identities and opinions. This is an integral part of growing up, and must not be stifled.
I hope my readers are aware of what a government is, how it is elected, what are the duties and functions of a government and why it is an integral part of the nation. Conventionally, a government consists of 2 or more politically very strong unifications called parties. The parties try to diplomatically win over the support of the citizens of the nation. The side earning the maximum votes forms the union government. The new government now allocates different portfolios to varied leaders and regulates policies. According to me, the highlighted drawback to this present system of Indian politics is the fact that many strong, educated, and logical leaders from the opposition side are at a loss which not only affects their credibility but also results in the depreciation of the post and the duties they would have undertaken. Under the pretext of Anti-Defection Law, a legislator can be disqualified under the scenario of defamation against their party also if they voluntarily decide to opt-out from the party itself. One can also be charged under the circumstances of noncompliance with the methodology or intentions of a party. Therefore, many progressive and challenging politicians are devoid of having an opinion of their own. The stature of the particular portfolio assigned minister is questioned if he/she is competent enough to be designated or not. As citizens, we are not aware of the ministers and the post they will hold post-victory. Hence, because you call it deceptiveness or corruption, a lot of angst and disappointment is unleashed intra-borders. An alternative outlook to this problem that I cater to is that instead of giving the power of decision to the residing government, the ministers should contest for a particular position. The candidature of the fellow candidates is out in the open for the nation to see and judge. It provides a level playing field for both the applicants to win over their mettle. Going further ado with my theory, I certainly feel that the whole concept of battling two or more parties is rigorous and lacks integrity. To become a Member of the Parliament, a minister must join either party. It does not matter whether he/she gels with the ideas of that particular party. Another flaw that we generally overlook is that when a party fills in the government, only a few political leaders, especially those from the winning side, cuts. The other leaders, especially the worthy ones from the opposite side, are left with a per-say on any public matter. To cite an example, Shashi Tharoor, a member of the Parliament from the opposition side, is a very knowledgeable and skilled leader. Apart from his knack for writing and passion for the English language, which is often both appreciated and trolled, he is a commendable diplomat and had formerly held that portfolio. If he is given an equal opportunity as the current external affairs minister, Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, he would prove his worth and be an efficient diplomat. If you see the current finance minister, Mrs Nirmala Sitharam, is from an economic background, with being appointed as Assistant Economists in the Agricultural Engineers Association in the UK. Although she is highly educated and experienced in the field, some fiscal policies pressed upon by her were ineffective and baseless, which also received a massive backlash from the citizens. It was during her reign the GDP of the country went down from 6 to 5. Once in the lower house of the Parliament, Lok Sabha, she claimed to come from a background where they do not prefer Onion and garlic in their food, hinting that the rising prices do not affect her much. Coming back to the point, had a contest been held between 2 specific politicians irrespective of whether they belong to a particular party or not, she might not have been elected provided that the public knew about the regulations she would bring about. My next debate is that one does not need to be in opposition if he/she is competing against a body or a single candidate. The current governing system does not give the opportunity, or even if it provides, there is misconduct in communication between the proposition and opposition that hampers the administration overall. Looking at the system as a whole, the motive of the opposition by default becomes to suppress the governmental policies to a large extent. The scope of the government shifted from welfare to soothing their own party member’s egos. The winning side of the elections should always welcome the ideas of the losing side with open arms. Inculcating this method, both sides will work to their full potential with no one feeling dejected or suppressed. I hope that soon a tide of fresh and youthful minds sweeps the Parliament off their feet to fill in with a revolution of ideas. Many such young leaders already have the support to come forward to give the nation a new trajectory of thought-process it deserves by the masses. Apart from this, I firmly feel there is a dire need for integrity and honesty in the flag bearers of the nation. Most of them lack these qualities. It is the mundane task to look into the newspaper in the morning and read about a politician caught in a scandal. Therefore, to conclude the article in a crisp manner, I feel that an individual cannot bring the best out of them when they move in packs. When a minister represents a party, there are an innumerate amount of considerations one has to look into before taking a step. A leader, whichever rank he/she holds, of any nation or party, should always put the need of others first before themselves.
It was a regular day. Just as normal as the other days. I came out of my house to meet my friends. But there was a commotion outside and people gathered around. So even I went to see what the commotion was about. It was the man in white. By the man in white I mean, the municipal chairperson. He always wears white kadhi, so I gave him that name. He came to interact with the locals. He goes to a different locality once every week. This week he came to my locality. You might think – why are the people so hyped up? Well, he is a bit different from other politicians we see these days. He made many changes in our municipality. He made our municipality the best in the entire state. He is all ears when people tell him their problems, so they were eager to meet him.
A man approached him and asked something, then he abruptly said “I want you to grab me by the collar and ask me – why aren’t you doing any development to my locality?” I wondered – what is wrong with him? Why is he saying such unusual things? Then the man in white continued, “But you have lost the right to ask me such things because you have sold your vote to me.” I was curious to know what his reply would be. Unsurprisingly, the man agreed that he sold his vote and added that he even took money from the other party. It got me thinking – what did he mean by ‘that statement?’ It was him who bought the votes by distributing money during the election campaign! Why is he making such statements now?
After racking my brain, I understood what he tried to convey by saying so. We do lose our right to ask or question our representatives when we sell our vote instead of casting our vote to those who are best qualified to govern us. Candidates who purchase votes consequently overturn the scale of evaluation – their purchasing power masks their inadequacies. He criticized that man for selling his vote. He wanted us to cast our vote genuinely without selling it or taking freebies from any political party even if we are in dire need of it. He wanted us to realize that our vote is not for sale, but it is there for us to select the best-qualified person to represent us and our interests.
On the morning of 1st February 2021, an aerobic dance instructor was recording herself live in front of the Parliament building at the Burmese Capital Naypyidaw, being completely oblivious to several black sedans and vehicles zooming past behind her towards the barricades. The footage is accidental coverage of historic significance – for this shows the beginnings of the coup by the military junta of Myanmar that illegally wrenched control from the NLD (National League of Democracy) party that held an uncontested majority in the Parliament. 2020 saw many shifts in political power in several countries, and Myanmar was not immune to that. Myanmar held its second general election in November 2020, where the NLD party under Aung San Suu Kyi claimed a landslide victory. The military funded opposition party launched several attacks at the results, including voter fraud and rigged counting. Now, the military junta has declared the elections fraudulent, imprisoned several civilian leaders, including Suu Kyi, and declared a year-long emergency. Before attempting to understand the nature and reasons for this coup, it is necessary to assess the long and strenuous history of Myanmar under military rule and its slow transition to democracy.
The history of military dictatorship:
The British colonial rule created economic ruination, global isolation, and ethnic conflicts during its time in Myanmar, just like it did in several other now independent countries in the world. When Myanmar attained freedom in 1948, it chose to implement a parliamentary democracy, but this did not last very long. The country came under military rule in 1962, when General U Ne Win led a coup against the civilian government. Under the military dictatorship, economic conditions worsened, and discrimination was rampant. The junta adopted even harsher isolationist policies than the British, which effectively cut off Burma from the global economy. The seeds of ethnic conflict and civil war sown by the British came to fruition, as minorities were stripped of basic human rights, including the right to citizenship. The socialist policy adopted by the government opened up avenues for corruption, black market economies, child trading, while poverty ravaged the country. U Ne Win ruled without opposition until 1988 when massive student-led protests broke out across the country. Of course, in true dictatorial style, these protests were squashed down brutally, but U Ne Win was forced to give up direct control of his government.
While this in no way marked the end of military rule in Myanmar, it started the relentless rebellion and fight for democracy that went on for a solid two decades. In 2008, the military junta drafted a new constitution, one that is followed even today and allows for the military to declare an emergency the way it did last week. The constitution was the first step of Myanmar towards a partial democracy because it allowed for democratic elections, but the document still heavily tips the scales of power in the junta’s favor. For instance, twenty-five percent of the seats of the parliament cannot be contested and are reserved for the junta, and any policy reform requires a majority over seventy-five percent – which gives the military the power to veto absolutely anything. There are 160 seats reserved for the military, and a party backed by the military would have to win only 166 (which is the USDP) for the military to take control of the government. As opposed to that, the NLD or any other civilian party would have to secure 322 seats to win control, which is exactly double the number mandated for military rule.
For many of the reasons cited above, Suu Kyi and her party decided to boycott the elections in 2008. However, in 2010 many of the political prisoners were released, and 2011 marked the fragile but steady shift from military rule to partial democracy. In 2015, the NLD won with an overwhelming majority and formed the first (pseudo) democratic government of Myanmar. However, the military is still a large part of the Burmese government. The junta controls all internal defense departments and foreign military policy decisions. Because of their veto power, the civilian government is in constant strife with the military over policy reform. In truth, while the 2015 election is a watershed moment in Myanmar’s history, little reform followed under Suu Kyi. The problem would have either been reluctance on behalf of the government for introducing reform or the more likely reason of constantly being deadlocked in parliament by the military vote. But through all of this, the one person who stands out the most in Myanmar’s political history is Aung San Suu Kyi – and it is just as important to understand the trajectory of her career.
Aung San Suu Kyi:
Suu Kyi was an independence leader’s daughter and rose to prominence in the 1988 protests, where she led the rebellion against U Ne Win. She was forced under house arrest for 15 years and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while under house arrest in 1991. She modeled the resistance movement after Mahatma Gandhi and Nelson Mandela’s civil disobedience drives and is extremely popular in Myanmar. In 2015, she became the leader of the government, although she was not allowed to become president because her sons had foreign citizenship, a rule included in the constitution to specifically target Suu Kyi. However, she is considered the de facto leader of the country.
Her stellar reputation was questioned in 2017 when the brutal crackdown on the Rohingya Muslims was ongoing in the Rakhine province of Myanmar, Suu Kyi not only denied that the military was committing mass genocide but also made no move to correct the situation in any way. In general, there was little reform under the Suu Kyi government to reduce discrimination against minorities. Some argue that while her denial of the genocidal tendencies of the military is unethical, she simply needed to concede with the military to reach a truce. Myanmar has over 135 recognized ethnicities and Suu Kyi’s attempt at being a pragmatic ruler ultimately made her a problematic one.
Despite this, she continues to have immense popularity with the majority (mostly the larger Buddhist communities).
The coup and geopolitical implications:
In the 2020 election, Suu Kyi’s party won 396 seats in Parliament while the military only won 33. Some international scholars claimed that the election wasn’t altogether fair because of the disenfranchisement of some minorities, especially the Rohingyas, but, by all means, it was a complete sweep for the NLD. The military could not bear to watch Suu Kyi’s increasing popularity from the sidelines, and thus the coup ensued. Protests have broken out all over the country and are the strongest in the capital. The military is being brutal in squashing the protests using extraordinary violence against protesters of all ages and professions. Yet, there seems to be no evidence of the protests dying out. Several world powers have spoken out regarding the coup. Joe Biden threatened to reinstate further sanctions against the military (along with previous sanctions already in place during the Rohingya genocide) but the Chinese government stated its favor of the military government. India and New Zealand also issued statements denouncing the coup. The United Nations has given strong warnings to stop violence against civilian protesters and the UNHRC is set to convene soon to discuss the situation in Myanmar.
Historically, the military always bore close ties with the Chinese government, and only in 2012 did Myanmar seek relations with other countries. Barack Obama made his first official visit in 2012, and he appointed an ambassador to Burma for the first time in many years. Myanmar received a lot of aid from several countries and is the subject of many grants from the World Bank. The transition to democracy opened up several portals of international trade in the country, considering it houses many valuable natural resources. One of the primary motivations for the US to lift sanctions against Myanmar in 2012 was to prevent Myanmar’s excessive reliance on China. Moving forward, it is difficult to predict what exactly will happen.
It is abundantly clear now that Suu Kyi’s tactic of siding with the military during the Rohingya genocide did not work, as the military is rabid in its need to exert influence and control. It is possible for the military to take control for an extended period of time unless there is external pressure or force put to use. Myanmar’s struggle for freedom and democracy has been long and hard, and all we can do is hope that all this conflict eventually has a peaceful resolution.
Right from the start, the farmers’ protest was peculiar. Whether or not the protests were justified is a different issue, what we saw was an uprising that set an example of how people could voice their dissent peacefully without resorting to violence. It was a breath of fresh air after the mindless means of protesting that we saw in February last year. But unfortunately, all of that goodwill was lost on the 72nd Republic Day of India when farmers decided to carry out a peaceful tractor rally in Delhi and NCR to promote their cause – a written assurance of the MSP and cancellation of the three farm laws.
During the Supreme Court hearings on the ongoing protests, the Chief Justice of India, SA Bobde expressed his concern that allowing a tractor rally on Republic Day could spark violence. The Attorney General K.K. Venugopal had said that maintaining peace and order on the congested roads of Delhi will be difficult if 5000 tractors are brought in. Even the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had urged the SC to ask farmer unions to put off the tractor rally because “extraneous and outside elements and ideologies have taken over the agitation”. Despite these legitimate concerns, advocate Prashant Bhushan assured the Court on 20th Jan that the tractor rally will be on the Outer Ring Road to celebrate Republic Day and will not breach the peace. How the event unfolded, however, was there for the entire world to see.
Delhi Police and farmer unions mutually agreed upon certain rules to be followed during the rally, 37 in total. And almost all of these rules were violated. The timing of the rally was supposed to be from 12 pm to 5 pm, after the Republic Day parade. A cap on the number of tractors was also put in place and a designated route was set for the rally. It was also decided that no display of force or brandishing of weapons will be tolerated. However, all these rules were thrown under the bus. The protesters began clashing verbally with the police as early as 6:30 am on the 26th in Ghazipur. What followed was a slew of violations wherein protestors forcefully barged in through Ghazipur, Singhu, and Tikri borders while the Parade was still going on.
It continued to go downhill as the so-called farmers continued to march ahead, leaving destruction in their wake. Mobs carrying lathis, rods, swords, stones, etc destroyed over 40 DTC buses, uprooted railings, and broke road dividers. One protester lost his life as his tractor toppled upon colliding with a barricade. Fake news about him being shot by the police was also propagated fervently. The aggravated assault against policemen led to 300 personnel being hospitalised. Even female police officers were not spared. The ITO turned into a battleground as the police restricted the mob from heading towards the parliament. The mob then split into two parts, with one marching towards the Red Fort and the other staying on Vikas Marg.
The rioting on the Red Fort was a sight to behold. It was unlike anything the country had ever seen. As pointed out by the Prime Minister in his recent Mann Ki Baat radio address, “India was saddened by the insult to Tricolour on Republic Day”. The rioting mob barged into the Red Fort, vandalised some of its rooms, and forcefully hoisted the Nishan Sahib on a minaret beside the Tricolour. While the Nishan Sahib flag is sacred and venerable, Republic Day is all about the Tricolour since it captures the spirit of the entire country like none other. Hoisting any other flag near it on Republic Day is an insult to the martyrs who sacrificed their lives for freedom and national integrity. What was even more shocking was that some of the rioters were seen carrying Khalistan flags, communist flags, etc which clearly showed that the Solicitor General’s assessment was accurate. What started as a protest against farm bills had now turned into something entirely different.
There is a section of the media that is arguing that there is nothing wrong with hoisting a different flag since it is sacred to the Sikh community. First of all, the incumbent government did not bring a law against the Sikh community particularly. The laws were about the farmers, and so were the protests. It is surprising how even an agricultural issue could transition into a religious issue so smoothly. Secondly, the same media which says that there is nothing wrong with hoisting a sacred flag on a national monument calls people fascists whenever the Bhagwa is brought into the limelight or when “Jai Shree Ram” chants are heard. I seriously wonder if these media houses would defend the rioters similarly had they been Hindus.
Another popular narrative doing rounds is the alleged hypocrisy of Hindus who supported climbing atop the Babri Masjid and its eventual demolition but are opposing the march towards the Red Fort. What I fail to understand is that when did this become a competition? Some media houses showed how the rath yatra in 1992 did “greater damage to the nation” than the recent protests. While that may be true, this information is simply irrelevant and the only reason why it’s being fed to us is to fuel the “us v/s them” mentality and somehow downplay the mess created on the 26th.
The thing that hurt the most was that none of the major political or farmers’ leaders were to be seen either at the Red Fort or at any other place where the violence was rampant. The law and order situation of the city needs to be questioned thoroughly. Delhi Police, which reports to the centre did not look in control of the situation until it was too late. It is the responsibility of the central government to ensure that law and order are maintained properly in Delhi, a job that they’ve been consistently failing at.
Amid this absolute pandemonium, a section of farmers led by Yogendra Yadav marched on the Delhi-Jaipur highway, Masani, and Nuh peacefully, sparking hopes that the actual agenda is still alive. Even if the mob in Delhi consisted of some bad elements who had nothing to do with farmers’ protests, it should have been the responsibility of the farm leaders to calm the mob down since the followers were, in most cases, misguided youths. I believe that the reason why no major leader came forward was to save themselves from any future probe into their possible involvement in the riots. Therefore, they decided to steer clear of it.
While the aggressive and coercive law-making nature of the government should not be condoned, it is the fundamental duty of the protestors “to safeguard public property and to abjure violence” as per Article 51A of the constitution. Also, as per Article 19(1)b, the protestors must gather peacefully and without arms. This, however, was blatantly violated in the recent protests, especially by Nihang Sikhs who waved swords at people fearlessly.
In the wake of recent violence and maligned image of the protests, farmers have decided to put off the march towards the parliament, earlier scheduled to take place on 1st February. Protesters must realise that violence and vandalism only discredit a legitimate mass movement. They help neither the agitators nor their cause. Therefore, leaders must take responsibility and ensure that the fellow protesters don’t go haywire. It can only be hoped that the farmers will once again earn that trust and goodwill as time goes on. A recent clip of Rakesh Takait breaking down and threatening to hang himself if the laws are not repealed may look like a publicity stunt, but it seems to have struck a chord with the farmers all around the country. The overwhelming support for him has led to more and more farmers flocking towards Delhi and swelling up the borders. Prime Minister has reassured the farmers that his government is still open for dialogue and is willing to suspend the farm laws for 18 months, but the farmers seem to be relentless. With several state elections lined up, it will be interesting to see how everything plays out.
Fifth Pillar - VIT 