India’s Tryst With Destiny

By Anish Gawande

To see Nehru so viciously denounced today signals the end of an era and the crumbling of the idea of India.

On the 27^th of May, fifty years ago, millions of Indians cried as the radio announced the woeful news of the death of a man who had steered the nation for seventeen long years. Jawaharlal Nehru was dead, and a grieving nation could not imagine life without the towering persona who dominated the political and social landscape of the nation till his last breath.

In many ways, Nehru was a remarkable man. An Oxbridge-educated scholar, he was more a statesman than a politician and while he may not have risen to power from the dusty soil of the plains of Central India, one could certainly never doubt that he was a patriot. A skilled orator whose speeches are remembered till today (who can forget his historic address to the nation on the eve of Independence?), Nehru commanded not just respect but also admiration.

A Fabian socialist at heart, Nehru had an unceasing desire to uplift India’s poor from their misery. While his ideals may today seem redundant and even regressive, one must remember that history is portrayed very differently in retrospect. In an age where the Great Depression had led capitalist nations to war, and wherein socialism and economic planning had saved the Soviet Union from financial collapse, Nehru’s protectionist and socialist leanings ensured that in its early years India did not fall prey to foreign economic domination and neo-imperialism, and (unlike many other African nations) avoided becoming a banana republic.

Swapan Dasgupta, a man who leans more towards Nagpur than New Delhi, claimed that “India has been too kind to Nehru”. Can a nation ever repay the debt it owes to a Prime Minister who not only successfully steered India towards becoming a leader in the Non-Aligned Nations sphere (successfully drawing benefits from both the United States and the USSR) but also raised the prestige of a nation which was left poor, hungry and undeveloped after a long period of British colonisation? There has been no Indian leader who commanded as much respect in the international sphere as Nehru, as is evident by this quote in the Guardian on Nehru’s visit to London in 1957 (which Ramchandra Guha reproduced in his fascinating piece on Nehru in the Hindustan Times¹) –

A hundred men and women of the West were being given a glimpse of the blazing power that commands the affection and loyalty of several hundred million people in Asia. Put in its simplest terms, it is the power of a man (Nehru) who is father, teacher and older brother rolled into one. The total impression is of a man who is humorous, tolerant, wise and absolutely honest.

Yet, Nehru’s greatest accomplishment was the upholding of Indian democracy. Despite knowing that the Congress was virtually unchallenged in the early years post-Independence, Nehru insisted on holding timely elections and galvanised the machinations of the State to ensure that the nation remained a sovereign socialist secular democratic republic. While neighbouring Pakistan plunged into chaos with a military dictatorship soon after it became independent, India has till today continued its tradition of democracy and the rule of the people. Nehru was a man who believed in the ideals that this nation is built upon – he encouraged political opposition and welcomed criticism, going as far as to compliment RK Laxman for his caricatures of the Prime Minister.

One must remember, however, that despite the hero-worship that was and is so characteristic of Indian society (as became evident in the recently held General Elections), Nehru was a mortal just like you or me. The sahib from Trinity who could give rousing speeches in the Queen’s English was also one who failed miserably in predicting the true intentions of neighbouring China, leading to a humiliating defeat for India in 1962. His ambitious plans of using PSUs as the “temples of modern democracy” backfired when they were ineffectively run by bureaucracy that lacked the technical expertise to harness their full potential. His decision to take the Kashmir issue to the UN and his repeated altercations with Sheikh Abdullah damaged ties with the state.

Yet, it is disheartening to see that these are not the issues that Nehru is criticised for. He is vilified for being a philanderer and a womaniser – claims that are not only unsubstantiated but also irrelevant to his role as leader. He is criticised for being the patron of dynastic politics when in reality his daughter, Indira, never came close to any sort of public office till his death (after which opportunistic Congressmen placed her on a pedestal wrongly expecting her to be a puppet which could be manipulated). In fact, had Nehru been alive today, he would have scorned his own successors, who time and again threw to the wind the very ideals he’d stood for all his life and who pandered to vote-banks rather than to the collective consciousness of the nation. In fact, AM Rosenthal, an American journalist, visited India during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency and lamented that were Nehru alive he’d be in jail writing letters to the Prime Minister on the importance of democracy and democratic institutions!

It is not a coincidence that a man who ascends the throne of the Indian Prime Ministership has chosen to be crowned just a day before the fiftieth death anniversary of India’s tallest leader. Narendra Modi will ascend to India’s highest public office on the same day that Nehru breathed his last and vacated it. An era, defined by the Nehruvian consensus (which was broken, incidentally, in large measures by Indira and Rajiv) which advocated respect for democratic institutions and the precedence of ideology over issue-based politics, has come to an end.

Let us remember Nehru’s words on the eve of Independence. While Modi claims “Acche din aane waale hai”, Nehru wistfully proclaimed that “The ambition of the greatest man of our generation has been to wipe every tear from every eye. That may be beyond us, but as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over”.

Narendra Modi’s tryst with destiny has just begun. Whether he will be able to reconcile the ideologies that built this nation with his own brand of personality politics, and whether he will be able to deliver upon an agenda of not just economic development but also inclusive social welfare, will determine whether the India that 33 crore Indians envisioned and fought for in 1947 will be the same India that 120 crore Indians voted for in 2014. 

The Idea of India

by Parth Jhaveri

For some reason that I have yet to understand, this video brought a tear to my eye.

We live in a cynical India. Everywhere I look, I see people giving up on the idea of India, an idea 156 years in the making. With corruption, poverty, a skewed sense of social morality (one that frowns at women in skimpy clothes and whistles at item numbers with equal gusto), and a hundred other evils, who could blame them for giving up? These circumstances make it easy for us to become cynical; nothing is ever going to change is it? Wouldn’t it be better to just leave on the pretext of an education, or to sit comfortably isolated in our ivory towers, cushioned from the constant degradation around us? I certainly thought so, as do many members of my generation.

There is a man in the mountains however, a man who, under the shadow of snowcapped peaks, still believes in the idea that is India. Shyam Saran Negi, has believed in this idea all his life, and for the past 63 years, he has, in the face of cynicism and doubt, made a pilgrimage to cast his vote. In 1951, he became independent India’s first voter, and though he saw his country, recently untangled from the bounds of oppression, fall into the hands of the selfish and the corrupt, he never lost faith in the spirit of this great nation.

When our forebears fought for the idea of India, they did so not for us Cynics, but for the true believers like Mr. Negi. They fought for an India rooted in its culture and its traditions, but open minded and progressive in its thoughts; they fought for an India diverse in its composition yet accepting and understanding in its nature; they fought for an India where equality and liberty abounded, where honesty was valued, and where every man’s worth was decided not by virtue of his caste, creed, or religion, but by the strength of his character and the sweat on his brow. I ask you, where is that India today? The India of 2014 is as religiously polarized, as it is corrupt, as socially regressive as it is unaccepting of diversity. The freedom of expression is readily pulped, while justice is meted out only when it is convenient to those with means. We have achieved our freedom, but our population still remains oppressed.

When at the stroke of the midnight hour we attained our freedom, we did so in peace, not in violence. No shot was heard around the world. The shot was heard 4 years later however when Mr. Negi cast the first vote in Independent India and began what would become the largest democratic exercise in the history of mankind to that date. In a matter of 2 months, 800 million Indians will again cast their vote and exercise their great power to shape their collective destiny. But as we move into this election, we must as a nation realize that we aren’t voting for a person or a party, but for the spirit of Mr. Negi, the spirit of our forefathers and for the idea that is India. We must acknowledge that this idea is worth fighting for. And though not all of us will be able to affect change at a massive level, we must try. Whether it be paying a cop or cracking a billion dollar deal, we must keep in mind the idea of India.

To paraphrase John F. Kennedy, we may not achieve the idea of India in the next 5 or 10 or 20 years, or indeed in our lifetimes, but let us begin. Be proud of India, maybe not for what it is today, but for what it stands for. And remember that we the people hold the power to affect a change.

Jai Hind.

 

About the Author

Parth recently completed his 12th standard board exams at the Cathedral and John Connon School, Mumbai, and will be studying Economics and International Relations at Tufts University this Fall. His area of interest includes Parliamentary Debate, Model UN and Indian Politics.

The Politics of Arms Aquisitions

by Aakash Brahmachari

Corruption in Indian defence deals is as old as the country itself. The only difference between 1948, when Minister of Defence VK Krishna Menon was accused of ignoring procedures for buying jeeps from a British firm, and the present, when a sleazy Italian businessman allegedly bribed a former IAF chief and senior Congress politicians to favour helicopters from an Italian manufacturer, is the sheer magnitude of the bribes involved. These facilitation payments often take the form of “consultancy fees” to shell companies established by politicians and bureaucrats. Their value, according to sources familiar with the Indian defence sector, may equal up to 10% of the deal’s worth – a quick fortune  and particularly appealing for parties seeking to build a war chest to fight the next general elections.After all, those free TVs before the elections aren’t just going to pay for themselves.

Despite widely publicised scandals, the trend is unlikely to end soon and so the big question remains – why do elected representatives and government servants indulge in these corrupt practices? Apart from filling their pockets, the simple answer is that they can get away with it.

India’s anti-corruption measures in arms’ acquisition vary from competitors appealing to vigilance authorities when they suspect wrongdoing, to foreign investigative services indicting arms dealers for paying bribes to Indian nationals. In the latter case, India’s Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) is invariably drawn into the fray. The CBI, despite assurances of impartiality, remains a political puppet and its conviction rate in such cases is abysmal. That is hardly surprising, considering that the politicians being investigated and at whose doorstep the money trail ends, are invariably the ones who dictate the CBI’s functioning. In the latest such instance, the “Choppergate” scandal directly indicts the upper echelons of India’s ruling party. Whether they will ever be investigated and brought to book, sadly, remains anybody’s guess.

Even a ‘clean’ Defence minister such as AK Anthony has been unable to stem the rot. His vow to investigate any and all allegations means that firms which have lost contracts now allege corruption in the hope of the contract being re-tendered so that they have a second chance at winning it. This has haemorrhaged the arms’ acquisitions process while corruption scandals continue to fester and the root cause remains unaddressed.

The key to stemming the tide of corruption lies in greater transparency. The complex bureaucratic mechanisms which dictate arms’ acquisitions allow politicians and bureaucrats in influential positions to alter the course of a deal at their convenience without accountability. Curing this malaise through investigations has failed and the only answer may be its prevention through a transparent and accountable process. To do this, the secrecy around arms’ selection should be lifted. Archaic policies which are altered every passing year need to be replaced with an open tendering and selection process which is subject to public scrutiny.

Though this is not a new idea by far, it is unlikely to occur given that doing so will dilute the influence wielded by key ministers and officials. Various excuses have been cited to preserve this opaque arrangement, including that of compromising national security. However, the underlying motive remains the same: why give up power (and easy money) when you don’t really have to?

Aakash is a risk consultant specialising in the defence sector. After completing an M.Phil. in International Relations from the University of Cambridge, he worked at the Commonwealth Secretariat’s Political Affairs Division in London and helped establish the national security desk at Gateway House, a foreign policy think tank in Mumbai. He currently works for Control Risks Group.

(Image Source: TOI)

Art for Democracy: Reflections from Know Your Vote and Art4All’s Workshop

By Saanya Gulati

What is the connection between art and democracy? This was the question at the back of my mind as I made my way to Know Your Vote and Art4All’s “Art for Democracy” workshop last Saturday.

At 2:30 P.M.about a dozen people gathered at the Art Plaza outside Mumbai’s famous Jehangir Art Gallery. There were artists, political junkies like myself, college students, and the organisers from Know Your Vote and Art4All.

Nikita, an intern at Know Your Vote, walked us through a short video (Credit: I Vote for India) and presentation on the importance of voting, and how voter apathy is a vicious cycle in India, in order to look at some of the traditional reasons people do not vote. The most common of these is the‘I am too small to make a difference’ syndrome – a trap that many of us fall into. But Delhi’s most recent election has perhaps proven this notion wrong.

Yet, there are a myriad of other reasons that owe to low voter turnout in India, including the lack of good candidates and lack of information about candidates’ performance. If you share some of these concerns, I urge you to look at the handout below that was distributed to the participants at the workshop. It contains some useful information on how you can involve yourself in the political process.

We spent some time discussing our poster ideas, and how we could mobilise the residents of our city to vote in the upcoming election. I learnt 3 simple rules to effective poster making: be concise, be clear, and connect with your audience. The message I chose was inspired from the idea that if you don’t vote, you lose your right to complain. In India, people complain endlessly about the current political system;from its corruption, to its candidates. Still, we don’t want to fulfill our basic duty as responsible citizens and vote. My poster depicts this dichotomy through the ‘complaint box’ and ‘ballot box: ultimately the choice is up to us.

Several innovative ideas emerged through the brainstorming session, which each of us expressed using simple graphics, short messaging, and vibrant colours. As for the connection between art and democracy – let’s just say there’s more than meets the eye!

It was encouraging to see several passers-by stop and ask questions about the posters and the workshop. From a six-year old boy for whom the analogy of ‘electing class monitors in school’ was used to explain the importance of democracy, to the several others who came. Their interest and support only reinforce the end goal of the workshop, which is to raise more awareness.

“a six-year old boy for whom the analogy of ‘electing class monitors in school’ was used to explain the importance of democracy”

This year’s general election in India expects close to 150 million first-time voters, a category which most of us who attended the workshop fall under.A lot hinges on how we choose to address the problems in this country. Luckily organisations like Know Your Vote and others, which are working to increase citizen engagement in the political process, are creating new avenues for us to become more aware and involved. The fact that young voters from South Bombay –a constituency that is notorious for its poor voter turnout –take timeout on a Saturday afternoon to come and spread this message tells me we are off to a good start.

Mumbaikars, keep an eye out for our colourful posters, and do share them on your social media channels. You can check out the Art for Democracy album on Know Your Vote’s Facebook page.

On returning to India after completing her B.A. from Tufts University in Boston, Saanya has worked on different initiatives that increase citizen engagement in India’s political discourse. She blogs about contemporary political and social issues, when she is not curled up with a book at home, or out exploring new lands. You can follow her on Twitter, at@BombayDelhi Girl.

I’ll Be Dammed

By: Sneha V.

      Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.

                                                                                                                                                        – Edward Abbey.

Dams are good. Dams create hydroelectric power. Dams provide irrigation. Dams reduce rainwater dependency. Dams improve agricultural ability and alleviate rural poverty. They prevent flooding. Or so your sixth-grade textbook says. Oh, the sheer irony.

India has over 4000 dams, placing it third in the world after the United States and China. Graphically speaking, this is what it looks like:

Total Damns Constructed in India

As of 1999, we had 4291 dams, with an additional 695 under construction (Agarwal, Narain and Sen, 1999). In India, it is estimated that reservoirs have displaced some 21 million to 42 million people (Bartolomeand Mander, 2000). All these figures are at best only careful estimations, and include mostly those whose homes and/or lands were flooded by reservoirs: millions more are likely to have been displaced due to other offshoots of dam projects such as canals, powerhouses, and associated compensatory measures such as nature reserves. That, just to give the readers a clearer idea of the numbers, is the entire population of Mumbai plus a substantial (if not entire) chunk of Delhi being politely asked to leave their homes, or else they will, well, drown. And what do our forsaken millions get for it? According to the Land Acquisition Act, the Government is not legally indebted to offer displaced persons anything but cash transfers. Cash transfers to tribes who, prior to being told to pack their belongings and head off into the sunset, have had no concept of money. And so they move. With no forests with fruit and no river to fish, they have to learn how to live all over again. From scratch. Zero.

Take a moment to imagine what that would feel like.

Nehru already addressed this minor hang-up in the ‘50s: it is for the “greater good”. What has the “greater good” then, so remarkably, and if I may, so generously, achieved?

Let’s see.

We have substantially increased landmass under irrigation. Wonderful, you say. Does that translate into increased agricultural productivity, which is presumably the eventual aim of any development project? Here is where the data gets noisy. There is no source of data available that can say for sure whether or not dams do lead to a substantial increase in agricultural produce. Esther Duflo tried it, , and here’s what she has to say: “Those living in the vicinity of the dam fail to enjoy any agricultural productivity gains and suffer from increased volatility of agricultural production. Our poverty results also suggest a worsening of living standards in the district where the dam is built; though limited data availability for the poverty outcomes limits our ability to wholly disentangle the poverty impact of dam construction from district-specific time trends in poverty, which re-correlated with geographic suitability for dams.” Flippant estimates gauge an increase of 14 million tonnes of food grain due to dam construction in a country that produces over 500 million tonnes and loses 12 million due to poor storage facilities. Marvellous. Would not the lakhs of crores spent on building our dams be better invested in rainwater harvesting and food grain storage?

I’m not even going to begin talking about the ecological time bombs our dams are.

So then, why do we build dams? On the basis of a myth? Because of what our geography textbooks say?

Why Four More Years Matter to YOU.

By Tarini K.

Today was an important day for the United States of America and the world at large. President Barack Obama remained in office after a hard-fought battle against Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. The US Presidential Election has been in world news for many months now. In India, the news has focused more on domestic politics, a strategy that makes a lot of sense. Still, the attention on the US elections, particularly from the youth, has drawn comment. Why, people wonder, does anyone care? Ultimately, India is not particularly high on the US foreign policy agenda. There are a lot of people who passionately support Obama, who with bated breath, spent Wednesday morning glued to live coverage, waiting for the official announcement of Obama’s presidency.

Given the watch parties, the interest, the hope for change that seems to have travelled across the world, there is one lament that rings out; “If people cared as much about Indian elections, politics in India would be different.” This complaint is problematic. At the most obvious level, it is an oversimplification. Political events which generate the massive world attention that the US election did are bound to have people interested whether they are American or not. However, the interest in the US elections expresses a deeper sentiment amongst Indian youth (and some more mature citizens, too). There is a profound desire for hope, and, more importantly, for inspiration.

There are, naturally, practical reasons to pay attention to an election like this one, much in the way that there is merit to paying attention to China’s upcoming change in leadership. Why, then, are we more glued to the US election? The fundamental issue at stake is choice. The democratic process in the US, flawed though it may be, provides us with a concrete and ever-so-visual (thank you, CNN) example of a people making a choice. Even in the case of a hotly contested election such as today’s, a choice was made. That choice, the choice for more evenly distributed opportunity, a woman’s right to her own body, a move toward a more inclusive society, one in which healthcare is not a luxury but a right — was broadcast to the world. Now, the question remains, why are we captivated?

It is fair to say that Indian politics leave something to be desired, and after experiencing both 2008 — the heady euphoria of history in the making, and 2012 — the reaffirmation of faith in a man’s ability to lead, that lack is inspiration. Today, we saw a country put themselves behind a President who many have criticized. A lot of their criticisms were fair, whether they were regarding his ability to deal with the economy, his not standing up to opposition, or his foreign policy. As we in India inch toward elections in 2014, what are our options? More accurately, who do we look to in the hopes of reform?

Surely a well-spoken statesman from any party could generate the type of interest we’re seeing for and in the rest of the world? We are, as a people, mesmerized by the possibility of change, of decisive action. There are those in Delhi who would argue that the Obama administration is the wrong one for India, that Romney’s policies would bring more money into the country — and this might even be true. However, President Obama’s backing of India’s bid for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, and his hardened stance on both Pakistan and Israel could be more than enough advantage in the foreign policy field. Ultimately, in watching the elections, here is what we are forced to think about;

India is the world’s largest democracy. It is also perhaps the most unruly experiment in democracy in the world. The sheer diversity of our people is staggering on every front. After uniting to gain independence, we have spiraled into a state of what some call “functioning anarchy.” Whether this is a factor of the flaws of a multi-party system or not is up for debate, but the fact remains that unity has been scarce.

After fighting for autonomy from the British, the United States of America formalized their union and created an enfranchised population. Civil rights were denied to the Black population, and the very country in which that was the case rose to the occasion and elected a Black President. Twice.

Why is it relevant now? Because it is inspiring.

There were two Republican candidates for the Senate, Akin and Mourdock, who both made statements on the topic of rape (in connection with the issue of abortion) that were both blatantly false and offensive. Today, we witnessed the consequence; neither of them was elected into their Senatorial positions. In both their states, there was a long history of voting for Republican candidates. What they were shown is that regardless of their connection to a regionally favoured party, they would still be held accountable for their statements. These men were affected where it matters – in their bid for power. They were shown unequivocally that they were wrong, and that as a result, they would have no say in the functioning of the country.

 That is inspiring.

At home, we have been forced to hear male and female rape apologists. We’ve heard every excuse there is from politicians faced with a rising number of (reported) rape cases and increasingly dangerous environments for women. The police force has been absent — more of a hindrance than a help. What have we been told – that Chow Mein must have something to do with it, or that when men and women interact freely, rape is a reality that we must learn to expect? Rape victims are ostracized by society and their families, they are not protected by their own government, and statements like the ones that have been printed and reprinted and aired on the news are a further violation for the victims, and of women everywhere. What little agency and consent they are afforded is stripped away again, this time by institutions supposedly built for them to rely on. For a roundup of these horrifying statements, check out our last blog post , or this fantastic article.

We need to get real, this state of affairs is decidedly uninspiring.

Now, this is where people start to roll their eyes. “We are not the same as the US.” “We aren’t as developed.” “We’re going through growing pains, we’re young, every country does.” We’ve all heard it before. There is a regrettable amount of

Government Retribution as People Demand Answers

Since the beginning of economic reforms in 1991, people have been demanding that the government remove the obstacles in politics that have led to corruption and inefficiency in the political system.  An important landmark was the Right to Information Act, which was passed six years ago.  Several hundreds of thousands of Indians have filed complaints against corrupt officials demanding information, and for the most part, they have received it.

However, there have been instances of people being murdered or attacked and tortured because they have filed complaints under the Act.  For example, on August 16, 2011, Shehla Masood, a business woman from Bhopal, was shot to death by an assailant contracted by the government. After being the lowest bidder for a government contract and not having received the tender, Masood filed numerous complaints to the authorities. Yet, instead of  receiving justice Masood ended up being murdered in cold  blood. Repercussions like those Masood faced, take place because members of government are increasingly passing the information in the complaints that individuals file on to criminals. These criminals then attack or murder the citizens trying to use RTI.

It appears that the government is not willing to forgo its power over the populace. These instances are proof of government intimidation, and cannot be tolerated. The Right to Information is crucial. It has, in fact, been tremendously successful, and has led to people in government being ousted or arrested because of their involvement in illegal activity.  For now, the number of violent repercussions on people using the RTI is low. Since the beginning of 2010, approximately 12 individuals have been killed because they have filed complaints under the act, and 40 more have been attacked. According to the Asian Centre for Human Rights, most of those who were attacked live in remote rural or tribal areas, which are far less transparent. Occasionally, officials are also threatened. A policeman named Babbu Singh was killed after he filed a RTI petition requesting information about public spending in his village. It is important to recognize that these terrible events have taken place because of the success of the Act. People have been emboldened, and have been demanding accountability more vigorously, putting more pressure on guilty officials.

Generally, complaints of murders and violence as a result of filing petitions under the RTI have gone largely unacknowledged. The victims have not gotten the justice that they deserve.

However, things appear to be changing for the better. Masood’s murder may just be the straw to break the camel’s back. The Asian Centre for Human Rights is pushing hard to violence due to RTI complaints under their purview. This would lead to the incidents being filed in a special category that would be quickly investigated, and dealt with.

The Right to Information is something that we as Indians cannot afford to lose. In our corrupt system, the Act allows us to get answers. The violence taking place against petitioners is intolerable, and we must not lose sight of the fact that additional transparency is making the Government nervous. We must keep fighting for it, and to keep our right to information.  Knowing is something you have a right to, so elect officials willing to share information and hold themselves accountable.

Know Your Vote.

For more updates on the Masood case, check out our facebook wall.