politics – Fifth Pillar

Seeking asylum is a human right

By – Vishal Agarwal

“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.

The Curious Case of Dynasties in Democracy

By – Diya Ramani

“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.

References

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228256474_The_Dynasty_Advantage_Family_Ties_in_Congressional_Elections

Click to access sid_dynasties_draft_29jan2019.pdf

Dynastic politics: BJP feeds the monster while claiming to spear it

https://blog.finology.in/recent-updates/rise-and-fall-of-rajapaksa-family

https://scroll.in/article/829588/most-political-parties-in-india-are-dynastic-but-some-are-more-dynastic-than-others

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-61411532

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-61295238

Kejriwal – A Man Of Systems

By – Jayishnu Agarwal

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.

The Old City Of Ahmedabad, Segregation And History

By – T S Venkat Narayanan

Ahmedabad or Amdavad is a city in the western state of Gujarat and the only city in India to be listed on world heritage sites. It is also called the Manchester of the East, but funnily Kanpur is also called the same however Ahmedabad lost a lot of its mills to competition from other places due to which many had to shut down rendering around 40-50,000 people jobless.

I went to Ahmedabad for a few days some time ago and I just can’t shut up about it. The old city of Amdavad lies on the eastern bank of Amdavad and is a walled city with around 12 gates which don’t serve much of a purpose other than being landmarks and a few looking absolutely magnificent.

The eastern side is congested and cramped with small roads, with shops everywhere. It wouldn’t be wrong to say that everything one could buy with money could be bought in this part of the city. Clothes, pipes, toys, bicycles, diamonds- Old Ahmedabad has it all.

There is a certain legend about the most bustling that a few centuries ago a woman was leaving the city in a hurry. When stopped at the gate by a guard and asked why she was leaving, she said “I’m leaving your king’s kingdom. I cannot stay here anymore.” The guard a little confused, asked her to promise to him that she’ll stay where she is as he has to go and ask the king about what had to be done. The lady promises.

And the guard never comes back. He kills himself. That lady was Goddess Lakshmi and she never left the city.

It is said if you have anything to sell and set up a stall or a shop, it would be sold within a day. Even if the thing is completely useless or devoid of value.

Teen Darwaza and the market around it. It stretches for a kilometre

The old city has the railway station at the heart of it, and various religious places sprinkled generously around it. Hindu and Jain temples and mosques all co-exist peacefully within a few 100 metres of each other.

The city is incredibly religious and it wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that probably every street has its own temple or mosque.

This begs the question – why did this city experience such violent communal riots in 2002?

The answer isn’t so simple. And the riots in 2002 weren’t the only ones it had seen in its history. The old city has been seeing communal violence for the past 300 years. Yes, even before coming under British rule the city which boasts of having the Sabarmati Ashram has experienced communal riots and has seen almost 100 riots since independence and this city has had the most deaths in such violence across the entire nation.

This leads to people of the different communities having distrust towards one another and also led to segregation. Segregation led to people becoming self-sufficient in themselves and finding it difficult to mix with people from other communities which leads to the mistrust between them deepening. This also leads to development of stereotypes for all sorts of people. And this makes it easier for more such communal violence to take place.

The green represents the density of Muslim population in Ahmedabad

And even in the Hindu areas, people prefer to live with people who belong to the same profession or caste. Such neighbourhoods are called pols. These neighbourhoods have usually 2 entrances/exits and some secret exits to be used in case of emergency or violence.

Around 40% of Ahmedabad comes under the Disturbed Areas Act which is very controversial. According to this law, a person cannot sell their house to a person from some other community without the approval of the district collector to ensure ‘the property has been sold on their free will and at a fair market price’.

Even though the intent behind the law sounds good, it has been misused by some miscreants.

And what makes things worse is when the Chief Minister of Gujarat says “A Hindu selling property to a Muslim is not okay. Muslims selling property to Hindus are also not okay.” He added, “We have set this rule in areas where there have been riots to tell them (Muslims) that they must buy property in their own areas.”

Fortunately, the city hasn’t been through such violence for 20 years. But with the polarised and communalised environment, one can just pray for the best. Khushwant Singh writes in his 2003 novel ‘the end of India’- “…Gujarat’s capital, Ahmedabad, was built by a Muslim ruler in the middle ages. I noticed that milestones on the main highway leading to the city had dropped Ahmed from its name and made it into Amdavad.”

It is our duty to prevent this increasing communalisation that happens for political wins.

One way this is done is through re-writing history, exaggerating specific facts and situations to make the community they are trying to appease, look wronged.

While new ideas emerge with time leading to us viewing the history through a different perspective, however, this cannot be equated with the kind of re-writing fascist groups do nowadays. This shall lead to cultures losing their identity and uniqueness. People brought up in such an environment develop a closed mind and shall not be open to new experiences, people and things.

Such loss of cultural heritage will also lead to monotony which is something that is not synonymous with our country at all.

And at this moment, M.K Gandhi’s quote stands more relevant than ever.

‘No culture can live if it attempts to be exclusive.’

Coming out to my parents as a non-BJP Supporter

-by Shihij Hanjura

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.

Reforms the Government can inculcate

-by Vishakh Garg

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.

The man in white

-by Devika

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.

The Greatness of the Indian Education System

-by Viraaj Kumar Kulshreshtha

Education in India is not a scam. I mean look at the historical evidence we went from a system where we used music and poetry to teach students about math and science to using written textbooks. And all a child now has to do is remember certain facts and vomit, I mean to write them down on a piece of paper that they will never see again. It’s not like your life depends on that sheet, does it? Of course, it doesn’t. So cheer up and I’ll show you some of the amazing things about our system!
The Indian education system is by far the greatest system of education because everyone has to give the same exam, equality you know. I mean sure you might have different interests and might be better than me at some things but we need to make sure that everyone is measured using the same scale, it prevents discrimination based on our abilities.
You might never use some of the things taught by the system in your life, but knowing the derivation for the terminal velocity of a body in free fall is more important because you never know when you might be given a pop quiz on the topic. Taxes? Don’t even bother learning to do those because we have special people for those.
And remember that what you pay for is what you get so make sure to spend a lot on your education because even though what we teach is the same, it’s the extra comfort we give you that matters right? We wouldn’t want you to be uncomfortable while you study so just pay the money. You’ll have to do most of the work but you’ll still be more comfortable. It’s not that much either, just a few lakhs here and there I’m sure most of you can afford it.
And the most important things in your life are those marks, don’t let them fall or you won’t be anything in life. Sure Facebook was made by a college drop-out but at least he went to school right, so focus on your marks. Once school is over, make sure to go for tuition because you need to make sure you get those marks. It’s alright if you don’t understand what is taught because even we don’t know what is being taught to you. Just memorize it and write it verbatim in your exams.
And always remember, after all, that, you need to be a bit active. All work and no play make Jack a dull boy, right? And how can we forget, homework! Especially ones that are due the next day. And make sure that you sleep for at least 8 hours, we cant have you dozing off in our classes, can we?
Stress? Depression? Mental Health? What’s that? Well whatever it is, I’m sure we can make it into something we can teach. But don’t you have to complete your portions? So let’s just give those classes to your other teachers, we still need those marks after all.
And remember, even though we’ve pushed you to do good in your exams, we need those marks from you because once your exams are done we can show your face to the world and tell them that we taught toppers like you. So do your best in those exams that won’t matter to you in the long run!
All the best!!!

Diplomacy and Ceasefires: The LoC 2021

-by Shreya Volety

As a person born in the latter half of 2001, when India and Pakistan were still recovering from Kargil, I have never seen tensions between the two countries truly disappear. And this isn’t just a cliche statement with which I intend to start my piece, for it belies a troublesome and insidious relationship between the two nations. Since 2003, India and Pakistan have had a back and forth relationship, alternating between visceral declarations of hatred and diplomatic statements of fragile peace. 2003, of course, witnessed the first real ceasefire attempt between the two countries, with the then Prime Minister of Pakistan Zafarullah Jamali offering a statement of peace and India officially accepting it a few days later. This agreement was in the phrase, an iteration of the 1972 peace treaty or the Shimla agreement, signed by Indira Gandhi. While the 2003 ceasefire agreement did not necessarily maintain peace between the two countries, diplomats, politicians, and officers from both sides kept retreating to the agreement to assert peace whenever necessary.

While researching this piece, I found a report that said around 600 CFVs or ceasefire violations from Pakistan in 2017 was a sudden spike from previous years. 2020 saw 5133 ceasefire violations from Pakistan’s side. Now that’s a spike. This is comparable only to the number of CFVs in 2002, right before the 2003 ceasefire. Considering that India was seeing action both on the LoC (Line of Control) and the LAC (Line of Actual Control), it was a major relief when both the DGMOs (Director General of Military Operations) collectively issued a ceasefire statement, right in the middle of the period of disengagement talks between India and China. For now, there seems to be a brief resolution to what everyone predicted to be a collusive two-front attack by Pakistan and China on India’s frontiers.

If one were to break down this agreement of peace, there are perhaps three questions one must answer – what prompted this, one could argue, a rather sudden concession to peace; what does this mean for future relations between the two countries; and most importantly, will the peace last?

Let’s start with number one – With tensions between the two countries high through 2020, what prompted the ceasefire? 2020 not only saw the numerous CFVs as mentioned earlier, but there was practically no trade, no health care coordination to deal with the pandemic (one such attempt with SAARC was very openly turned down by the Pakistani Prime Minister), and there were extremely strong statements issued by both sides regarding Article 370 and the resurgence (or well, continued surging) of terrorist activity within the enemy state. Just when analysts in media houses were preparing to expand on the prospects of nuclear conflict, the agreement came through.

One popular theory is that the disengagement talks with China might have prompted the ceasefire with Pakistan. There is no real evidence to prove this, and tactically it might not make complete sense. While Pakistan might definitely collude with China should skirmishes break out again, the same cannot be said the other way around. Nevertheless, ruling out any possibility might also be misinformed. The second theory is, of course, the change in US Administration, and the possible pressure the Biden government could have put on India and Pakistan. Seeing as the Biden administration openly welcomed the ceasefire, this could also be a possibility, but one cannot support either statement with certainty.

Further, we cannot ascertain for sure just how sudden this agreement truly is. India has always had backchannels and informal routes of diplomacy with Pakistan, and while Pakistan has denied any backchannel diplomacy, India hasn’t openly refuted it. Backchannels can lead to constructive efforts to building peace, and a heavily worded ceasefire agreement as the one issued might as well have been a product of gradual talks of softening aggression over the LoC.

What does this mean for future Indo-Pak relations? There’s only one honest answer – nobody knows. India and Pakistan’s effort of maintaining peace has always been undercut by instances of aggression – the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the spike in CFVs in 2014, the Pathankot attack, the consequent Uri surgical strike, and the list goes on, until the most aggravated cumulative conflict in 2020. There is simply no way of knowing if this is simply a tactical move or a prelude to a greater political initiative at achieving peace. Neither country has changed its position on the central conflict of Kashmir, however, the de-escalation of this situation was necessary. While some online left-wing editorials seem extremely harsh towards the progress made, the truth is, it is still progress, even if it comes with some blandly worded Pakistani hostility.

And finally, will the peace last? For now, I believe, yes. Considering the importance of the people who might’ve been involved on both ends of a potential backchannel, it is safe to assume that for now, there won’t be any escalation for a while. There are talks of opening up trade again, and the ban on using each other’s airspace was lifted even before the ceasefire. Will the peace last forever? Obviously not. A ceasefire agreement is a semblance of peace, and it does not erase long-bred systemic hatred and conflict. Only long-term political action and effort can result in true peace, but this might be a start.

References:

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/india-pakistan-agree-to-ceasefire-along-border/article33930265.ece

War Is Over Between India and Pakistan—for Now

https://carnegieendowment.org/2018/10/24/ceasefire-violations-in-kashmir-war-by-other-means-pub-77573

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/analysis-indications-that-india-and-pakistan-have-been-in-back-channel-talks/article33935351.ece

https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/what-led-to-india-pakistan-ceasefire-at-loc-and-will-it-hold-for-long-1773379-2021-02-26

Myanmar: The endless struggle for democracy

-by Shreya Volety

Introduction:

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.

Sources