Frontline Magazine (The Hindu Newspaper) August 17, 2019 - August 30, 2019 (Volume 36, No. 17)

Frontline Magazine (The Hindu Newspaper) August 17, 2019 - August 30, 2019 (Volume 36,
No. 17)
Volume 36 - Issue 17
Aug 17, 2019 - Aug 30, 2019
Table of Contents
COVER STORY
Agony of Kashmir
Kashmir under siege
INTERVIEW: MOHAMMAD YOUSUF TARIGAMI‘The RSS wants to change the demographics
of the State’
SUBCONTINENTAL GEOPOLITICSIndia-Pakistan: Regional equations
INTERVIEW: M.K. RAINARemoval of Article 370: I have never felt this kind of alienation, says
theatre personality M.K. Raina
TOWARDS HINDU RASHTRARSS' agenda on Kashmir in action
WORLD RESPONSEKashmir: World watches, cautiously
INTERVIEW: SITARAM YECHURYAbrogation of Article 370: Tyranny of the majority, says
Yechury
FOR POLITICAL GAINHistory of betrayals in Kashmir
ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 UNCONSTITUTIONAL Kashmir: Murder of insaniyat
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX OF KASHMIRKashmir's Development statistics: Nailing a lie
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVEAmit Shah’s ‘history’
THE NATION
Book on Karunanidhi in Tamil from Frontline
LEGISLATIONTriple Talaq Bill: In the guise of justice
CRIMEUnnao rape case: The story of an unravelling
CRIMEUnnao rape case: Corrupt nexus
CHARGESHEET AGAINST JNU TEACHERSCharge-sheeting JNU teachers: Stun and subdue
HUMAN RIGHTSAmendments to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993: Trampling on rights
CAFE COFFEE DAYCCD founder V.G. Siddhartha's death: Brewing mystery
Makeover move
COLUMNS
C.P. CHANDRASEKHAR
When pessimism rules
ARTS & CULTURE
CINEMA
SOCIAL JUSTICE ON SCREENCaste on celluloid
MUSIC
MUSIC AND SOCIETYLooking back, looking ahead
WORLD AFFAIRS
VIOLENCE IN AFGHANISTANShades of Vietnam
TRUMP AGAINST SOCIALISTSWar on socialism
ENVIRONMENT
MAHARASHTRA COASTAL ROAD PROJECTNowhere road
WILDLIFE
WILDLIFEIconic wildlife species
WILDLIFEIndia’s big seven
SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
1
AEROSPACELasers tell the distance between spacecraft
MEDICINEHigh BP and high risk of heart attack
PHYSICSSolar panel that unfurls automatically
BOOKS
The scourge of violence
Woven with dreams
Mapping herstories
OTHER
LETTERS
Letters to the Editor
OBITUARY
OBITUARY: SUSHMA SWARAJSushma Swaraj: Compassionate to the core
https://frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/article29047231.ece
COVER STORY
Agony of Kashmir
VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN
Print edition : August 30, 2019 T+ T-
Home Minister Amit Shah. Photo: PTI
In Jammu on August 5. An indefinite security lockdown was in place in Jammu and Kashmir
from the date, confining millions to their homes. The State authorities suspended some Internet
services and deployed thousands of fresh troops. Photo: Channi Anand/AP
M.S. Golwalkar.
The abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A of the Constitution, which conferred special status on
Jammu and Kashmir, and thedraconian moves that followed bring to the fore the Sangh Parivar
scheme to establish a Hindu Rashtra.
“Let us no longer allow ourselves to be influenced by false notions of nationhood. Much of the
mental confusion in the present and future troubles can be removed by the ready recognition of
the simple fact that in Hindustan only the Hindus form the nation and the national structure must
be built on that safe and sound foundation. The nation itself must be built up of Hindus on Hindu
traditions, culture, ideas and aspirations.... The people who have come to power by the quirk of
fate may give in your hands the tricolour but it will never be respected and owned by Hindus.
The word three is in itself an evil, and a flag having three colours will certainly produce a very
bad psychological effect and is injurious to a country.”
—From the editorial titled “Whither” in the August 14, 1947, issue of Organiser, the organ of the
Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), the fountainhead of the Sangh Parivar.
The national perspective and related practical socio-political engagements of the Sangh Parivar
and the various political arms it has created from time to time, including the Bharatiya Janata
Party (BJP), is driven by the above formulation, stated in categoric terms on the eve of Indian
independence. The developments of August 5, 2019, in the Indian Parliament, abrogating the
special status granted to the State of Jammu and Kashmir under Article 370 of the Indian
Constitution and the series of unprecedented political and security measures that preceded and
followed this, such as the arrest of mainstream political leaders of the State including two former
Chief Ministers, the near-total blockade of civilian movement in the Kashmir Valley, the
2
complete termination of communication facilities and the influx of the Army and paramilitary
forces in large numbers to the region literally placing it under the jackboot, all have once again
brought this perspective of the Sangh Parivar to the fore in intense, forceful and barbaric terms.
Indeed, it is not the first time that this Sangh Parivar standpoint has manifested itself in this form
and bared its fangs at India and its people. Over the past 72 years, the Sangh Parivar and its
political instruments have created several such moments, where the idea of India has been
challenged and violated. At times they have mounted attacks on national symbols and at others
struck at constitutional institutions, including the judiciary and the Election Commission, either
frontally or from within. Such attacks have systematically aggravated during periods when the
political arm of the Sangh Parivar has been able to gain some sort of power in the legislative or
parliamentary structure of the country. The period since 2014, when the BJP under Narendra
Modi gained a majority on its own in the Lok Sabha, has witnessed a “leaps and bounds
amplification” of this trend. But, even by these high standards of aggression, the August 5
abrogation of Article 370 along with Article 35 A must rate as the most violent and obnoxious.
Put simply, this is nothing short of a devastating moment in history primarily for Jammu and
Kashmir and in a larger sense for India as a whole. This move and its ramifications would
grievously impact the political, legal, social and economic areas of both the State and the
country. (See separate story on different aspects including the Articles and the implications of
revoking them.)
For the record, the claim of Home Minister Amit Shah, who is also president of the BJP, who
moved the resolutions on August 5, to revoke the Articles of the Constitution, as well as of
Prime Minister Narendra Modi who, in a televised address to the nation two days later, sought to
justify the move, was that these provisions had promoted jehadi terrorism in Jammu and
Kashmir for several decades and had had a negative impact on the overall growth and
development of the State as well as on its social equity. There are any number of objective
factors and socio-economic indices to show that these arguments have no leg to stand on. But
what the moves of the Modi-Amit Shah government in the first week of August in Parliament and
in Jammu and Kashmir did was to snatch away, in one stroke, the special and democratically
ordained provisions—formulated around the time of Independence—that bound the accession
of the State of Jammu and Kashmir to India.
That the action was against the sole Muslim-majority State in the country also buttressed the
“nationhood perspective” of the Sangh Parivar as delineated at the time of Independence. This
factor needs to be seen in conjunction with the government’s claim that all that it wanted was to
make Jammu and Kashmir on a par with other States in India and thus establish uniform laws
and rules across the country. The fallacy of these arguments gets exposed even more starkly in
the background of the fact that several States in north-eastern India, including BJP-ruled Assam
and Manipur, as also Nagaland, Sikkim, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh, have special
provisions of the Constitution in operation. These special provisions accorded distinctive rights
and powers to land and property to the denizens of these States in exactly the same manner as
Article 370 and Article 35A provided for residents of Jammu and Kashmir. This very
contradistinction belies the claim that one of the major factors behind the move against Jammu
and Kashmir in early August was not the urge to have uniform laws and rules across the
country. This claim was made by many leaders of the ruling dispensation, including Modi and
Amit Shah.
Yet another aspect of the Sangh Parivar’s history of moves against the idea of India needs to be
examined in this context. The Hindutva outfit had carried out many such expeditions to advance
its idea of nationhood and these were all characterised by diversity of slogans, strategy and
3
manoeuvres, but one characteristic had repeatedly come to the fore in these political ploys and
gambits. This was the thrust to undermine the Indian Constitution, especially its provisions that
seek to ensure social equity and communal harmony. The historical background to this is in the
positions stated in more or less absolute terms, right after the formulation of the Indian
Constitution, by Madhav Sadashiv Golwalkar, the second sarsangchalak of the RSS, whose
books Bunch of Thoughts and We, or Our Nationhood Defined, continue to be the primary
guidebooks for leaders and activists of the Sangh Parivar.
As early as November 30, 1949, four days after the deliberations of the Constituent Assembly
concluded on November 26, 1949, with the finalisation of the Indian Constitution, Golwalkar
rejected it, arguing that it contained nothing from Manusmriti, Bharat’s own code of laws. He
later went on to add that “our Constitution too is just a cumbersome and heterogeneous piecing
together of various articles from various Constitutions of Western countries”. He said: “It has
absolutely nothing which can be called our own. Is there a single word of reference and its
guiding principles as to what our national mission is and what our Keynote in life is?”
Later, Golwalkar delineated what he meant by the “national mission” and “Keynote in life” of
Bharatvasis. It manifested itself as rabid attacks against the proclamations of B.R. Ambedkar,
the principal architect of the Indian Constitution, with regard to the equality accorded by the
Constitution to all castes and the categorisation of “Muslims, Christians and Communists as the
internal enemies of the country”. Golwalkar was clear, in his elaborations, that Ambedkar’s idea
of equality among castes was not condoned by Manusmriti and would not be condoned by
Hindus who followed Manusmriti.
If this was how lower-caste Hindus were to be treated, Muslims, Christians and Communists
who did not even belong to the Hindu fold certainly deserved even worse forms of
discrimination.
What happened in the first week of August 2019 in Parliament and in the State of Jammu and
Kashmir are clearly in keeping with this sectarian narrative that Golwalkar advanced several
decades ago.
The developments of early August also iterate that the Hindutva combine would have no qualms
in concocting a mixture of historical falsehoods, factual misrepresentations, propagation of
untruths and half-truths while targeting the idea of India and the Indian Constitution. It is on the
basis of this cultivated devious mixture of falsehoods and misrepresentation that the Sangh
Parivar seeks to propagate its grotesque idea of nationhood and establish it in the country in a
clear assertion of legislative authoritarianism.
In operational terms, this manifests itself as long-drawn-out strategies and stratagems spread
across the political, organisational, governmental and juridical realms. In every one of these, the
manoeuvres adopted have also been multifaceted, ranging from the legal and extralegal to the
outright illegal. In the run-up to the August 5 move, the Union government as well as the
Governor of the State, Satya Pal Malik, came out with a plethora of falsehoods and
misrepresentations, ranging from cooked-up terrorist threats on the border and even to the
Amarnath Yatra. The massive influx of troops was initially justified in this way. At the end of it all
the people of Jammu and Kashmir were presented with a fait accompli marked by violence and
oppression.
These ploys were strikingly similar to the ones that the Sangh Parivar had used in the
preparations to demolish the Babri Masjid in Ayodhya in December 1992. The Sangh Parivar,
4
especially the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, which was spearheading the Ayodhya Ram
Janmabhoomi movement during those days, gave solemn assurances to the Supreme Court
that the kar seva of December 6, 1992, would be restricted to bhajans and kirtans. Kalyan
Singh, then BJP Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, gave similar assurances to the National
Integration Council.
All these assurances were given with formal expressions of adherence to the Constitution. But,
at the end of it all, the Sangh Parivar used its mob to demolish a national symbol.
Then too, the idea was to violently assert the Sangh Parivar’s idea of nationhood, blatantly
violating the assurances founded on the Constitution and given to such a vital body as the
Supreme Court. The history of deceit and “make-believe” has repeated itself, nearly 27 years
later, albeit with different players and vastly different, more devastating, outcomes.
Beyond constitutional bodies such as the Supreme Court, the Sangh Parivar’s devious
stratagems have panned out in the larger political space too. In the early 1990s, when its
political arm suffered repeated electoral reverses it put its core Hindutva agenda issues such as
the abrogation of Article 370, construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya, and the imposition of a
uniform civil code on the back burner with appeals to smaller secular parties such as the Janata
Dal (United) and the Lok Janshakti Party (LJP) to join hands and be part of the National
Democratic Alliance (NDA). These parties have now been completely swallowed by the BJP
and the Sangh Parivar and do not even dare make open their opposition on these vital issues.
Interestingly, there was a time when leaders of these parties, like Nitish Kumar and Ram Vilas
Paswan, made bold to state that not pursuing these Hindutva issues was central to the secular
polity of the country.
Similarly, despite its protestations now, the Mehbooba Mufti-led Peoples Democratic Party
(PDP) was also lured into the political spider web of the BJP when it succumbed to the
temptations of power and formed the PDP-BJP coalition government in 2015. The BJP brought
down that government in June 2018, in the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha election, at a time of
its choice and convenience. Right from that time a narrative that pitched Muslim Kashmir
against Hindu Bharat was being built up by the Sangh Parivar, especially by its cyber warriors in
social media.
This did not rise to aggressive proportions in the election campaign, essentially because the
BJP leadership had other emotive issues such as the Pulwama terror attack to capitalise on.
However, in the post-election situation the Kashmir-India divide has been exploited by the Modi
government. The realpolitik dimension of this exploitation is important as the government is
facing a tough time in relation to the economy. It is the growing opinion in economic circles,
including among national and international experts, that India is literally moving into a deep
economic crisis, which would be marked by all-round human misery, especially among the
poorer classes. Clearly, the Hindutva jingoism inherent in the Article 370 move is also a clever
diversionary tactic.
Thus, the short-term aim of diversion as well as the long-term reorientation of the perspectives
of nationhood is being pursued by the Sangh Parivar as it steadily progresses to the centenary
of the publication of the Hindutva treatise by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar in 2022.
As Mahant Ramchandra Paramhans, the late leader of the Ayodhya Ram Janmabhoomi
movement, used to tell this correspondent in the mid 1990s, the Hindutva agenda was
5
conceived and advanced as a long-term project lasting several decades. It has moved forward,
despite periodic reverses, and gained greater receptivity among the Hindu communities.
Clearly, the idea of India is being challenged and violated repeatedly in this process. Only a
similarly long-drawn-out secular project will be able to bring about an effective counter to this
and protect the idea of India.
COVER STORY
Kashmir under siege
ANANDO BHAKTO
IN SRINAGAR & ANANTNAG
Print edition : T+ T-
A CRPF jawan stands guard on a deserted street during the third day curfew in Srinagar, on
August 7. Photo: NISSAR AHMAD
Former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti at a press meet at her residence on
the night of August 2, hours after the State government issued an advisory asking yatris and
tourists to leave the valley. Photo: Anando Bhakto
Empty shikaras at Dal Lake on August 3. Photo: Anando Bhakto
Kashmir stands choked, resembling a battlefront, with barbed wires, army convoys and snipers
everywhere.
“Death and destruction were fast approaching Srinagar, our smug world had collapsed around
us, the wheels of destiny had turned full circle,” said Karan Singh, son and then heir apparent to
the Maharaja of Kashmir, Hari Singh, recalling the uncertain days of October 1947 when he
received the news that a large number of raiders from the tribal territory of Pakistan’s North-
West Frontier Province had crossed over to launch a “jehad” in the Kashmir Valley.
The raiders added to the enormous complexity of the situation in Kashmir. That was a time
when, amidst a deteriorating law and order situation and growing unrest in Jammu and Kashmir,
India and Pakistan were upping their back-channel diplomacy to create the opportunity for its
accession to their respective dominions. The tribesmen clashed with the Dogra troops stationed
in Muzaffarabad and by the evening of October 23 they had captured Domel. Garhi and Chinari
fell over the next two days. As their main column proceeded towards Uri, and then, along the
Jhelum river towards Baramulla, the entry point to Srinagar, a sinister sense of foreboding filled
the minds of Kashmiris, not sure of what fate awaited them in the course of the three days
between October 24 and October 26.
Seven decades later, between August 1 and August 5, Kashmir was in a similar situation,
alarmed by an unusual build-up of troops and unnerved by a sense of impending doom. To
understand the origin, nature and extent of this anxiety and apprehension, it is important to
recall how the doctrine of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and National Security Adviser Ajit
Doval on Kashmir in the past five years and more, notably in the run-up to the 2019 general
election, altered the political battle lines in Kashmir and attempted to ruffle its social and
religious dynamics, and in effect the very calculus of its struggle.
6
There were three salient features of this doctrine, each with its unique set of immediate
repercussions and long-term impact on the conflict. One, the Narendra Modi-led Central
government systematically undermined the importance of dialogue and refused to mend ties
with the mainstream political players, the Mehbooba Mufti-led Peoples Democratic Party (PDP),
which it dumped as an ally in June 2018, and Farooq and Omar Abdullah’s National Conference
(N.C.). The Centre’s decision to opt for a militaristic policy, with a focus on eliminating the
violent actors from the scene by the use of brute force, precipitated the resurgence of home-
grown militancy. The year 2018 saw the highest head count of militants—between 280 and
300—in a decade. From the unholy attempts to engineer defection from the PDP and prop up a
Sajad Lone-led State government to the unceremonious dissolution of the State Assembly, New
Delhi weakened the structure and scope of mainstream politics.
Second, the Centre cracked down on the pro-resistance leaders. Yasin Malik was incarcerated
and his Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF) was banned. All Parties Hurriyat Conference
chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq was placed under house arrest; he was among the leaders
whom the National Investigation Agency (NIA) raided. The immovable assets of several top
Hurriyat leaders were attached. The incarceration of the pro-resistance leaders meant that they
were no longer able to provide leadership to the alienated youths in the Valley’s hamlets; the
leadership slipped from their hands into the latter, shifting the focus of their struggle, as was
manifest in the emergence of jehadi terror outfits such as the Islamic State of Jammu and
Kashmir, the Lashkar-e-Islam, and the (now slain) Zeenat-ul-Islam-led Al Badr. These are
different from traditional militant outfits in that they view Kashmir as a part of the larger Islamist
struggle.
Three, the banning of the socio-religious and political organisation, the Jamaat-e-Islami, even as
the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) was given a free run in adjoining Jammu, incensed
the youths in the Valley who interpreted the decision as an unveiled attempt to establish the
supremacy of Hindutva over all other political and ideological schools of thought.
Fear of the unknown

Given the volatility in the Kashmir Valley, in particular in its hinterland, the troop build-up was set
to trigger unprecedented fear and panic. People were wildly speculating not only about the
Centre’s next move in Kashmir, reminded as they were of the RSS and the Bharatiya Janata
Party’s (BJP) persistent animosity over Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, but also how
Kashmir would react to it. The troop deployment started soon after Ajit Doval’s three-day visit to
the Valley ended on July 26. As per informed sources, he had met senior security and
intelligence grid officers and reviewed the law and order situation in the State. By August 1, as
many as 28,000 troops of the Central Armed Police Force (CAPF) were deployed in the Valley,
in addition to the 10,000 troops that were deployed during the preceding week. The State
administration said it was a regular exercise, done in order to replace the existing companies of
the security forces. But speculation ran high that there was an underlying design to abrogate
Article 35A that defines permanent residents of the State and bars outsiders from purchasing
and owning immovable property. Mehbooba Mufti warned the Centre against such a move,
saying, “Touching Article 35A will be like touching a dynamite, it will burn not just the hand but
also the entire body will turn to ashes.” Around the same time, on August 1, a delegation led by
Omar Abdullah met Modi in New Delhi and requested him not to take any step that would be
detrimental to the interests of the State.
Kashmiris prepare for hard times
7
On August 2, soon after Chinar Corps Commander Lt General K.J.S. Dhillon and Director
General of Police Dilbagh Singh held a joint press briefing in Srinagar and accused Pakistan of
disrupting peace in Kashmir, an advisory was issued by the Principal Secretary to the
Government of Jammu and Kashmir, Shaleen Kabra, asking Amarnath yatris and tourists to
leave Kashmir. The advisory read: “Keeping in view the latest intelligence inputs of terror
threats, with specific targeting of the Amarnath Yatra, and given the prevailing security situation
in the Kashmir Valley, in the interest of safety and security of the tourists and Amarnath Yatris, it
is advised that they may curtail their stay in the valley immediately and take necessary
measures to return as soon as possible.”
Reacting to the advisory, Omar Abdullah said, “Although this unprecedented order would seem
to suggest a genuine fear of a massive terror strike directed at Amarnath ji yatris or/and tourists,
this will do nothing to dampen the sense of fear and foreboding that prevails in the Valley at the
moment.” The news spread like wildfire and in no time Srinagar and other parts of the Valley
had long queues of people standing in petrol pumps and grocery and medical stores, stocking
essential commodities in preparation for an emergency situation that now looked inevitable.
Leaders suspect foul play

That night, Mehbooba Mufti called an emergency press briefing, well past 9 p.m. She had
sensed the Centre was all set to finally implement the long-standing RSS project with respect to
Kashmir and this reflected in both her words and demeanour. Pointing out that folding one’s
hands was forbidden in Islam, she said she would still do so while appealing to the Centre not to
tinker with the State’s special status. “Kashmir rejected Pakistan and believed in India’s
secularism when she decided to accede to it. Special provisions were granted to us in keeping
with our unique identity,” she reminded the Centre. She asked Modi, “Where is the Vajpayee
model based on Kashmiriyat that you had promised to emulate?” The former Chief Minister,
along with a host of senior PDP leaders, then proceeded to Farooq Abdullah’s residence and
from there to Sajad Lone’s house. An all-party delegation, including her, Lone and the
bureaucrat-turned-politician Shah Feisal, reached Raj Bhavan (Farooq Abdullah kept his
distance, citing ill health) at around 10 p.m. Governor Satya Pal Malik, who met them at short
notice, assured them that there was no plan to abrogate Article 370 and 35A. Malik assured the
same to Omar and Farooq Abdullah, who met him the next day after Omar returned to Srinagar
from New Delhi.
On August 3, government advisories mysteriously appeared in the public domain one after the
other. As people came to know that non-Kashmiri students had been asked to vacate hostels at
the National Institute of Technology and the Government Polytechnic College, and that all
district officers, sub-divisional magistrates and other sectoral officers and medical officers had
been directed not to leave their respective stations under any circumstances, people were
gripped by the fear of the unknown. Many condemned the brazen segregation of citizens on
religious and ideological lines, as the government evacuated non-Kashmiris to safe havens
outside the State but made no effort to assuage the deepening anxieties of the “State subjects”.
There was unanimity that there could be no starker display of the “otherisation” of a population
and stripping it of its legitimate right to live without the fear of physical and psychological agony.
Tourism sector condemns ‘Economic blockade’

At the Dal lake, the police raided houseboats and made sure the tourists left at once. Farooq, a
shikara rower, was crestfallen. “After the 2016 agitation, we had a healthy inflow of tourists for
the first time. But the government would not let us flourish. There can be no justification for
engineering this uncertainty and thrusting a virtual economic blockade on us,” he told Frontline.
8
Bilal, another rower, gave figures. “In the 12 hours since the advisory was issued, 80 per cent of
the tourists have left.”
Khalique Karai and Taj Mohammad, who own the houseboats New Jehangir and Shah Palace
respectively, said some of their guests had preferred to stay back but on the evening of August
2, the police came and forced them to pack the bags. “The losses are in lakhs,” said Karai. Taj
Mohammad saw no hope of the tourists returning in the coming year, in particular foreign
tourists. Omar Abdullah, too, said that the advisory would have a far-reaching ramification on
Kashmir’s economy, with foreign nationals not mustering the courage to visit the Valley in the
foreseeable future.
As night befell, masons and labourers, an estimated five lakh of whom live in Kashmir, were
seen walking towards the outskirts of Srinagar in droves, from where they planned to reach
Banihal and then Jammu. There was despondency cast all over their faces because they were
leaving the place that had earned them their livelihood with little hope of coming back.
Local scribes explore Af-Pak angle

On the same day, as the long twilight faded into darkness, a group of journalists assembled at a
coffee outlet at Sonwar, in the heart of Srinagar city. As they unwound themselves, assumptions
of what New Delhi might do next dominated their conversation. Nobody expected the State’s
special status to go. Most felt that West Pakistani refugees could be given the right to vote in
State elections. Some thought the developments were nothing more than a red herring,
invented to shift attention from the economic crisis staring at India.
There was the common refrain that India’s relegation to a virtual non-entity at the Af-Pak border
and its exclusion from the Taliban peace talks had irked it to an extent that it was ready for a
border flare-up to mount pressure on Pakistan and the United States. This view was shared by
senior editors who helm the top local English dailies. Notwithstanding the nature of the
impending threat, they prepared for the worst. Fahad Shah, whose The Kashmir Walla is
published every Monday, had sent the copies to print by Saturday, August 3, to avoid any
hassle. The cover page of his English weekly flashed: “Alarm Bells in Kashmir, What is
Coming?” The editorial inside raised a pertinent question: “Think of Kashmiris, not just Kashmir.”
On August 4, as this reporter travelled along the Srinagar-Anantnag highway, India’s

disproportionate might over the civilians and combatants in Kashmir was being paraded in
public; speeding Army convoys had taken over vast tracts of land, save only the mountains and
the azure sky. There were no civilians to be seen, except at the kiosks in Bijbehara, where
menfolk hurriedly bought meat and vegetables.
In Khanabal, senior N.C. leader Bashir Ahmad Veeri told Frontline that he suspected New Delhi
would scrap Article 370 and 35A. “The understanding given to the leadership of NC is that there
is no threat to Jammu and Kashmir’s special status. The matter is also sub judice. But looking at
the history of the Government of India since 1953, when the then Prime Minister of Jammu &
Kashmir Sheikh Abdullah was deposed from office and jailed, there cannot be any sense of
reassurance,” Veeri said. He highlighted how the BJP’s raucous pursuit of majoritarian politics
and its continued provocations with respect to Kashmir made for a dangerous trajectory on the
ground. “Let’s not hide what people are thinking at the moment. If the plan of the Government o
India is to deprive us of whatever little remains of our autonomy, we perhaps made a mistake in
rejecting the two-nation theory and embracing a secular India. People are saying we should
have joined Pakistan; it is a Muslim country, we’d have been safe.”
9
In Bijbehara, Sajad Mufti, cousin of Mehbooba Mufti, told this reporter that political uncertainty
would give a boost to militancy in the region and make the mainstream irrelevant. “The way New
Delhi has kept the mainstream leaders in the dark, it is bound to discredit them and erode
people’s faith in their leadership. This, coupled with the people’s legitimate fear that the BJP
may capture power in the State, is likely to crystallise into mass mobilisation or even a broader
insurrection that will push Kashmir three decades back.”
Off-the-record conversations with senior N.C. and PDP leaders in Anantnag and Srinagar
further underscored the point that the larger objective of the RSS-BJP was to alter the
demographics in the Valley by flooding settlers and migrants from across the country and
undermine Jammu and Kashmir’s identity as a Muslim-majority State. They feared this would
script an unprecedented political revolt and eventually “there would be no one to hold the
tricolor”, as Mehbooba Mufti warned two years ago, in July 2017.
Cut off from the world

By the evening of August 4, the Army was taking over the roads leading to the Srinagar airport;
there was word that satellite phone numbers were being distributed to police stations and at
administrative blocks, and curfew passes were being hastily issued. An all-party meeting at
Farooq Abdullah’s residence had culminated in the historic Gupkar Declaration earlier in the
day. It had unanimously resolved that “modification, abrogation of Article 35A, 370,
unconstitutional delimitation or trifurcation of the State would be an aggression against the
people of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh”. Before midnight, Mehbooba Mufti, Omar Abdullah and
Sajad Lone had been placed under house arrest. The mobile phones and Internet connection
were taken down and landline facilities, too, were suspended.
On August 5, the “siege” of Srinagar was complete. The deserted streets had all the elements of
a battlefield—barbed wires and convoys. There were snipers everywhere. At the crossing. On
the pavement. Outside closed shops. Atop flyovers. The silent houses gave no hint of their
occupants. Bewildered canines howled. This reporter had to walk four kilometres before he got
a cab to reach the airport. The Indian state had ended Jammu and Kashmir’s special status,
repressing its dissenting voices by marked coercion, indistinguishable from the ways of an
occupying force.
COVER STORY
INTERVIEW: MOHAMMAD YOUSUF TARIGAMI
‘The RSS wants to change the demographics of the State’
ANANDO BHAKTO
Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami. Photo: Anando Bhakto
Interview with Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami, CPI(M) MLA.

AS the Kashmir Valley descended into an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty following the
State government’s advisory asking Amarnath pilgrims and tourists to leave the Valley at the
earliest, mainstream political leaders of Jammu and Kashmir suspected New Delhi might
unilaterally abrogate the State’s special status. Four-time Kulgam MLA Mohammad Yousuf
Tarigami of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) spoke to Frontline on August 3, two days
before the revocation of Articles 370 and 35A, at his Gupkar residence in Srinagar. He feared
that tinkering with these Articles would not only amount to weakening the political bond between
10
Jammu and Kashmir and India but also embolden the Central government to act more
authoritatively and erode India’s federal structure. Excerpts from the interview.
There is uncertainty and panic in Kashmir following the government advisory asking Amarnath
yatris and tourists to return home at the earliest. The troop build-up has added to the people’s
sense of foreboding. How do you view these developments?
First of all, it is unfortunate that our State has been going through a long process of uncertainty
and cycles of violence over the past three decades, more so since 2016. There were claims by
the Government of India in Parliament and outside that the security situation had improved, and
we were told that after a long break a large number of yatris were arriving in the Valley. Then
there were rumours making the rounds that the government was contemplating doing away with
Article 35A or initiating the exercise of delimitation. In the recent past, they announced the
deployment of 10,000 troops and soon after clarified that they merely intended to replace
existing companies. Then, 25,000 additional personnel were deployed, putting the entire
security grid on alert.
All of a sudden, a press conference by the security chiefs and the core commander and other
officers was held yesterday [August 2] and they informed us that Pakistan was trying to
destabilise the yatra and emphasised that they had the situation under control. But soon after,
there was an advisory from the Home Secretary, of an unprecedented nature in my opinion,
asking the yatris to cut short their yatra and the visitors and tourists to cut short their stay. One
does not know why.
It has created panic not only in Srinagar but also in remote areas such as Gurez, Tangdhar,
Rajouri and Poonch. Is this part of the cycle of rumours planted by vested interests? The
answer is “no”. It is a deliberate exercise by the authorities, by the government. I have seen the
most difficult of times, in the 1990s, when militancy was at its peak, but the yatra was never ever
stopped; with the support of common people, the yatra was conducted.
Then came the advisory for the students of the NIT and the Polytechnic College, asking them to
vacate the hostels and return to their respective States. It appears as though somebody is at
war with the people here. Repeal of Articles 370 and 35A and delimitation and trifurcation of the
State is an agenda of the RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh]-BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party]
combine. One ought to recall that during a recent visit by Home Minister Amit Shah and the
former Home Minister and now Defence Minister Rajnath Singh, the two addressed a press
briefing in Samba and declared that the Kashmir conflict would now be resolved. How can a 70-
year-old problem, one that is quite complex, be resolved in no time? How do they plan to
resolve it when they don’t take Parliament into confidence and don’t utter a single word in the
face of the deepening crisis that followed the suspension of the yatra and the advisory asking
students and tourists to go back?
There are rumours about delimitation, possible trifurcation of the State, and abrogation
of its special status. Will any of these measures, if undertaken by the Government of
India, be in the spirit of the Constitution?
All these components are links in the same chain. One must consider that the special
constitutional provisions guaranteed to the State emerged out of a unique situation, when
Pakistan sent raiders to Kashmir amid competitive claims made by the two neighbouring
countries [India and Pakistan] and a border State [Kashmir] having a huge Muslim population
having to choose between them. In that situation, Pakistan tried forcibly annexing the State, and
Kashmiris resisted that attempt and entered into a political bond with the Union of India and
11
asked for certain guarantees. These guarantees are enumerated in the Articles 35A and 370
and are the basis of Jammu and Kashmir’s political bond with India.
Will abrogation of the special constitutional provisions guaranteed to Jammu and

Kashmir invalidate the political bond it had entered into with India?
I must clearly and openly admit that this [tinkering with the State’s special status] would amount
to undermining the relationship. Pakistan has been claiming time and again that this [Jammu
and Kashmir’s accession to India] is not acceptable to them. When the BJP-RSS talks about
abrogating Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, they are virtually obliging the forces who have
been seeking an opportunity to undermine Jammu and Kashmir’s relationship with Indian Union.
I must remind you that when GST [goods and services tax] was introduced in the State, Arun
Jaitley [then Union Finance Minister] said that with the financial integration of Jammu and
Kashmir, half of Syama Prasad Mookerjee’s dreams were fulfilled. He said that what remained
to be done was the political integration, which would be undertaken by the leadership of the BJP
at an appropriate time. So what they are doing today is in tune with the same policy that
Mookerjee and the Praja Parishad [a political party in Jammu and Kashmir in the 1950s and
1960s] pursued in the early 1950s.
What is the RSS’ larger objective with respect to Kashmir?

The RSS advocates that whatever is left of the so-called special status for Jammu and Kashmir
must be removed. They feel that Articles 370 and 35A are an undue favour to the people of
Jammu and Kashmir. Historically, it is not. Take, for example, Article 370. Maharaja Hari Singh
entered into an agreement with the Government of India and signed the Instrument of
Accession under certain conditions. Karan Singh [son of Hari Singh, former Sadr-e-Riyasat of
Jammu and Kashmir and Congress leader] is witness to it. The RSS is virtually ignoring that
historical fact.
How do you explain the RSS’ fascination for the abrogation of Article 35A? Is there an
underlying design to change the demographics of the State by allowing people from across the
country to settle in the State in large numbers?
Certainly. Their aim is to do away with these constitutional provisions and thereby undermine
the separate Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, which provides certain rights to the Jammu
and Kashmir Assembly. All of that has to be removed, and for what? To change the
demographics of the State. That’s exactly what they intend to do.
What kind of reaction do you anticipate if the Government of India does away with the special
status?
See, I must tell you frankly that we who stood for this relationship of Jammu and Kashmir with
the Indian Union despite all the pressures, be it extremism or militancy, want the special status
to be respected. But what is the message for us now? That we don’t matter. That we have no
place. That is what Pakistan has been telling the people of the State. That this is a “Hindu
nation” and we made a mistake by agreeing to join it.
Did Sheikh Abdullah not have a similar realisation shortly before he was deposed as the
Prime Minister of the State and started contemplating an independent Jammu and
Kashmir?
Sheikh Abdullah realised that through his experience but tried to give this relationship one more
chance to survive. The rest is history. Today, in my opinion, abrogation of the State’s special
12
status will put a stop to whatever efforts are being made by different streams of politics in
Jammu and Kashmir and in the rest of the country to strengthen unity between the State and
the Indian Union.
Did you have deliberations with the leaders of other mainstream political parties? Has a joint
strategy been chalked out to deal with any eventuality, including the unilateral abrogation of
Jammu and Kashmir’s special status by New Delhi?
I recently met Omar Abdullah, Farooq Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti, Ghulam Hassan Mir, Hakeem
Yaseen and others. I have talked to the Congress leadership as well and some leaders of the
Left parties. Our understanding is that the troop build-up is not courtesy some security threat or
a mere law and order situation.
We will express our opinion. We will appeal to Parliament to make a sensible choice while
taking any decision vis-a-vis the country. It is not a one-party affair. It is the question of the
future of the country’s interests vis-a-vis Kashmir and the interests of Kashmir vis-a-vis the rest
of India, and wisdom is required. We do hope that narrow sectarian interests and partisan
interests will not prevail over the larger interest, which is the relationship between the Indian
Union and Jammu and Kashmir. Weakening this relationship will have serious consequences
for the federal structure of India. Don’t forget that this regime is more authoritarian and stands
for more centralisation of power. Once they succeed in Kashmir, the impact will be felt in the
rest of the country as well in the near future. That is my concern.
COVER STORY
SUBCONTINENTAL GEOPOLITICS
India-Pakistan: Regional equations
JOHN CHERIAN
Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan (left) chairs a National Security Committee meeting with
armed forces chiefs and other government officials in Islamabad on August 7. Pakistan
announced that it was expelling the Indian High Commissioner and suspending bilateral trade
with India after New Delhi stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its special autonomy. Photo: AFP
Imran Khan with U.S. President Donald Trump at the start of their meeting in Washington, D.C.,
on July 22. Photo: JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS
Imran Khan manages to bring up the Kashmir issue during his visit to Washington, but the
Trump administration reiterates that it will play a robust role in Kashmir only if India gives the
green light.
The visit of Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan to the United States in late July was viewed as
a diplomatic success by the government in Islamabad. “He came, he saw, he conquered”, a
banner headline in a leading Pakistan newspaper read. On his return to Islamabad, Imran Khan
compared the results of his trip to Washington to that of Pakistan’s cricket World Cup victory
under his captaincy. Pakistan, he said, had successfully “reset relations” with the U.S. on the
basis of equality. Imran Khan was given credit for persuading U.S. President Donald Trump to
mention the “K” (Kashmir) word. For the first time in many years, a U.S. President offered to
mediate on the Kashmir issue.
13
The euphoria generated by Imran Khan’s visit has since worn off. The Pakistani political and
military establishment face a reality check after India unilaterally altered the status quo in
Kashmir. The Trump administration did not even mildly criticise the Indian move, making it clear
where Washington’s priorities lay in the Indian subcontinent.
When he was in the opposition, Imran Khan used to frequently rail against the “unequal”
relationship between Pakistan and the U.S. and was particularly harsh in his criticism of U.S.
military actions in the tribal areas of Pakistan. But now he is under the tutelage of the military
establishment, which had played a big part in getting him elected to the Prime Minister’s post.
The new government in Islamabad, which had to seek funds from the International Monetary
Fund (IMF) to revive the economy, has been trying to repair relations with Washington. The
Trump administration has reciprocated, keen as it is to remove the bulk of U.S. troops from
Afghanistan in an expeditious manner.
It has been reported in the U.S. media that Republican Senator Lindsay Graham and the Saudi
Crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman, both of them having a lot of clout in the White House,
played a big role in preparing the groundwork for Imran Khan’s visit to the U.S. They convinced
Trump that Pakistan would be able to get all the Afghan Taliban factions to agree to a peace
deal. President Trump, while welcoming Imran Khan in Washington, was effusive in his praise,
describing him as “a great leader” and Pakistan as “a great country”. Only last year, he had
tweeted that Pakistan had “given us nothing but deceit” and had given “safe haven” to armed
fighters from Afghanistan. Imran Khan had angrily retorted to Trump’s comments then by saying
that Pakistan had suffered more than 75,000 casualties and lost more than $123 billion in the
U.S.-sponsored war on terror. He said that the U.S.’ total aid to Pakistan during the period
amounted to $20 billion.
Imran Khan was accompanied on his trip to Washington by the Army chief, General Qamar
Javed Bajwa, and the Intelligence chief, Lieutenant-General Faiz Hameed. The U.S. wants the
Pakistani security establishment to further tighten the screws on organisations such as the
Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Haqqani network. Importantly,
Imran Khan, in a speech delivered during his visit, revealed that Pakistan no longer adhered to
the doctrine of “strategic depth” in Afghanistan. Under the doctrine, Pakistan uses Afghanistan
as “an instrument of strategic security” against India. The Pakistani security establishment used
to claim that Afghanistan fell within its zone of influence and viewed the growing role of India
there with open animosity.
A statement from the White House acknowledged that “Pakistan had made efforts to facilitate
Afghanistan peace talks, and we are going to ask them to do more”. From Trump’s recent
statements it is clear that in return for Pakistan’s cooperation, his government is willing to take
many of Pakistan’s concerns on board, including that of Kashmir, at least for the time being.
During Imran Khan’s visit, Trump indicated that his administration would be more than willing to
resume security aid, expand bilateral trade and even mediate on the Kashmir issue in exchange
for Islamabad’s cooperation in bringing the war in Afghanistan to a negotiated end.
Trump told the media in Washington during Imran Khan’s visit that Indian Prime Minister
Narendra Modi had asked him to mediate in the Kashmir dispute when he met the latter on the
sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka in July. “I was with Prime Minister Modi two weeks ago
and we talked about this subject [Kashmir]. And he actually said, would you like to be a
mediator or arbitrator?” Trump said.
14
Trump also mentioned that Pakistan “is helping us a lot now on Afghanistan”. Pakistan, he said,
would be able to save millions of lives in Afghanistan because of the influence it had and “help
us to extricate ourselves from Afghanistan”. Trump said that unlike in the past, the new leader of
Pakistan “respects American leadership”. Trump has not restored the $1.3 billion aid package
for Pakistan he had cut soon after taking over although he has given broad hints of restoring it if
Pakistan continues with its close cooperation with the U.S. in Afghanistan.
A week after Imran Khan’s visit, Washington announced its decision to sanction $125 million
worth of logistical and technical support for Pakistan’s U.S-supplied F-16 jets. India’s External
Affairs Ministry protested to the Trump administration, expressing “grave concern” over the
announcement of military assistance to Pakistan. Indian officials said that the concerns
expressed to Washington signalled New Delhi’s worries about “the signs of growing military
cooperation and resumption of military supplies” by the U.S. to Pakistan.
The Trump administration had cut $300 million military aid to Pakistan in September 2018.
Pakistani officials said that they did not discuss the matter of financial aid during Imran Khan’s
visit. They claimed that increasing “trade not aid” was part of the agenda for discussion.
Successive Indian governments have so far strictly considered the Kashmir dispute a “bilateral
issue” to be resolved through talks between the two countries while Pakistan has always been
demanding international mediation. The Kashmir dispute is one of the oldest unresolved
international disputes, dating from the birth of the United Nations. Although Modi has refused to
comment on Trump’s offer to mediate on the dispute, the Indian Foreign Ministry has rejected
the claim by Trump. Both Trump and Modi have a history of making unverified and less than
truthful statements.
In the first week of August, Trump repeated the offer to mediate on Kashmir but added that the
decision would be up to the leaders of the two countries. He said that the ball was now in India’s
court. “It is really up to Narendra Modi,” he said. Trump, in his inimitable style, described Imran
Khan and Modi as “fantastic” people. “If they wanted me, I would certainly intervene,” he said.
India’s External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar told U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on the
sidelines of a meeting of the Asian Security Forum, held in Bangkok in the first week of August,
that any discussion on the disputed region of Kashmir would only be a bilateral one, between
Islamabad and New Delhi.
Senior State Department officials clarified that Trump’s mediation offer on Kashmir should be
viewed in the context of the U.S.’ desire to improve relations between India and Pakistan. “We
recognise that Kashmir has been a bilateral issue but there are opportunities as Pakistan takes
steps that build confidence in its own efforts to counter terrorism (and) ultimately towards a
constructive dialogue. We stand ready to assist if asked by the two parties to do so,” a senior
State Department official said after Trump’s comments about mediation on Kashmir.
All the same, it is after a long time that a sitting U.S. President has offered publicly to be a
peacebroker on Kashmir. The U.S. and the United Kingdom had once got India briefly on board
as they tried to broker a Kashmir peace plan in 1962. The U.S. got Jawaharlal Nehru to agree to
hold talks with Pakistan after the military defeat India suffered at the hands of China in 1962.
Nehru had a brief military dalliance with the U.S., when Washington rushed in military aid to a
panic-stricken Congress government. However, the brief Western-mediated talks collapsed in
1963 and India lapsed into its default hard-line position on Kashmir.
15
The Barack Obama administration, at the beginning of its term, appointed Richard Holbrooke as
its special representative to the region. Holbrooke believed that stability in Pakistan was key to
resolving the situation in both Afghanistan and Kashmir. He believed that political stability in
Pakistan could only be achieved by solving the Afghanistan and Kashmir problems. Holbrooke
wanted Washington to put more pressure on New Delhi to resolve the Kashmir dispute. New
Delhi had taken a strong stand against the hyphenation of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Kashmir
(Af-Pak-Kashmir) by the State Department. Obama, who was planning his military surge to the
East to challenge China, needed India as an ally. The Indian Foreign Ministry warned the U.S.
that the strategic ties between the two countries would suffer if Holbrooke was allowed to
include Kashmir in his portfolio. Holbrooke’s proposals on Kashmir were first put on the back
burner and then eventually discarded. Obama ordered a huge military surge in Afghanistan
hoping to defeat the Taliban militarily. The Kashmir issue receded to the background much to
New Delhi’s relief. Even when widespread protests broke out in Kashmir and the Indian security
forces used excessive force resulting in hundreds of casualties, the Obama administration
remained quiet.
Imran Khan may be trying to revive the Holbrooke doctrine hoping that Trump will play along at
least for the time being. Since the time of George W. Bush, successive U.S. Presidents have
believed that India is a rising global power whose support is essential for Washington as it
confronts new and old enemies globally. The Trump administration has reiterated that it will play
a robust role in Kashmir only if India gives the green light.
AF/Pak/Kashmir connection
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government’s decision to ride roughshod over the political
rights that a previous Indian government had solemnly granted to Kashmiris is being partly
viewed as a response to the Trump administration’s embrace of Pakistan and bringing the
Kashmir issue to the forefront. It may also not be a coincidence that firing along the Line of
Control has intensified considerably since Imran Khan’s visit to Washington and the beginning
of the Afghan peace talks in Doha. The Indian government, by its actions, is showing to the
world that there is in fact an Af/Pak/Kashmir connection.
The U.S. special envoy to Af/Pak, Zalmay Khalilzad, was in New Delhi, on August 6, the day
India abrogated the special status given to Kashmir. He was the senior-most U.S. official to visit
India after the dramatic developments in Kashmir. Khalilzad met the External Affairs Minister.
According to Indian officials, “useful discussions” were held and the U.S. envoy was briefed
about the decision made on Kashmir emphasising that it was an “internal affair”. Khalilzad had
questioned whether the trifurcation of Kashmir would be beneficial for the cause of peace and
tranquillity in the region. The diplomat briefed Indian officials about the progress made in the
talks with the Taliban. According to reports, he suggested that India explore the possibility of
establishing contacts with the Taliban. The Indian side raised the issue of proximity of the
Taliban to the Pakistani military establishment and the dangers it posed to the country’s
security.
Islamabad’s isolation became even more apparent after the Afghan Taliban issued a statement
cautioning the government against linking the Afghan issue with Kashmir. “Linking the issue of
Kashmir with that of Afghanistan by some parties will not aid in improving the crisis at hand
because the issue of Afghanistan is not related, nor should Afghanistan be turned into a theatre
of competition between other countries,” the Taliban statement said. If Pakistan is seen to be
intervening in the internal affairs of Afghanistan again, it faces the real risk of being suspended
by the Paris-based Financial Action Task Force (FATF), which monitors terrorism financing. The
FATF is voting in October to decide to remove Pakistan from its “grey list”. An adverse vote will
16
be devastating for Pakistan’s economy as it will close avenues to the international financial
markets at a time when the country is in desperate need of loans to keep the economy afloat.
COVER STORY
INTERVIEW: M.K. RAINA
Removal of Article 370: I have never felt this kind of alienation, says theatre personality
M.K. Raina
ZIYA US SALAM
Pilgrims crossing a mountain trail during their journey to the Amarnath cave on the Baltal route,
125 km north-east of Srinagar, on July 1. Photo: THE HINDU
M.K. Raina. Photo: Sandeep Saxena
Interview with M.K. Raina, veteran theatre actor, director and film-maker.
Theatre doyen and activist M.K. Raina, who hails from Kashmir, strongly believes that the
bifurcation of the State and the revocation of sections of Article 370 and 35(a) will only
compound the problems faced by the people in Jammu and Kashmir. Talking to Frontline a day
after the Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Bill was moved in Parliament, Raina said it was
“a very dangerous development”. He added: “The country won freedom through non-violent
ways. Today we have departed from that path.” Excerpts from the interview:
As a veteran artist and activist hailing from Kashmir, how do you see the latest
developments?
Thirty years is too long a time for this turmoil. I go there, I work there, I have lost everything
there, but it [Kashmir] is my home, I still want to go there. My pain with this decision is you
cannot reduce a State to a Union Territory, a State that has a textual, performative tradition of
5,000 years. The relationship between the [Kashmir] Valley and Ladakh goes back 1,500 years,
through art, craft and culture. The way it [the bifurcation] has been done is so shabby. Nothing
will be solved. Come Friday, it will be prayer time. We will shoot those boys, they will kill our
soldiers. I have seen the corpses of our soldiers with my own eyes. It used to break my heart.
Violence is not the solution. This country won freedom through non-violent ways. Today we
have departed from that path. This particular path [the bifurcation] will make it more
complicated. I do not think it will be able to solve much, or anything, in Kashmir.
But Home Minister Amit Shah has gone on record saying that it will bring peace and
development in the State.
I laugh at it. I cannot say anything more. Isn’t the Home Minister the one who brought 35,000
soldiers to the State before the announcement? He needs to humanise his statements. He
might have positive intentions, but it does not solve any problem. He might talk of development,
roads and so on, but that is no substitute for human beings and self-pride. If it were so, we
would all have been in Mumbai. There are young lives involved, their future is at stake. This
whole precedent of demoting a State to a Union Territory is so ridiculous. They talk of
disturbance in the State as an excuse. If that be so, what about Andhra Pradesh or
Chhattisgarh? There is a violent row going on with naxals there. Are you going to demote them
also? Is this the way ahead? It is a very dangerous development. As a Kashmiri, honestly, I
17
have never felt this kind of alienation. I had to leave the State in 1990. Today, I feel I have been
robbed of my own State.
Does it not also go against the Instrument of Accession?

I do not know those legalities. I am not a lawyer. All I can say is that the people of Kashmir
stood for India as a bulwark against Pakistan and [Muhammad Ali] Jinnah.
I talk from the point of view taken by Sheikh Abdullah, who opted for a united secular
India instead of the theocratic state of Pakistan. Does this development betray that faith?
[Kashmir was] the only Muslim-majority State which embraced India’s secular state at the time
of Independence. When the Indian soldiers went there, they were welcomed everywhere. When
Jinnah came to arouse sectarian sentiments, he was booted out by the locals. I cannot
understand why people do not read history. History is not linear. It is a kind of zigzag line which
has its own curves…. Many things have happened in history. If you have a nuclear bomb, you
can go and bomb any place. But in our country, our subcontinent, it is not possible. You bomb
Karachi, and Mumbai will be affected. You bomb Lahore, and Amritsar will be affected.
Everything is interrelated.
At the same time, does it not compromise India’s position internationally?

Of course it does. China has already started talking. Pakistan is talking in terms of going to the
United Nations. The Arab countries, too [are talking]…. Finally, it will be talked about in the
international fora. Look at the international press, see what they are writing.
Will it make life easier for a young Kashmiri studying or working in Delhi, Mumbai or
Bengaluru?
No, far from making it easier for Kashmiris, I think it is the sickness of Indian society [on
display]. They think it is a cricket match that they have won. The same mentality was on display
in 1984 when Sikhs were massacred. We have seen this happening. It is a dehumanising trend.
There are people with whom I have worked for 18 years. They are in Kashmir today and there is
no way of getting to know about them. The humanitarian angle is lost. It happened in the
previous regime also.
But then this party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, which was talking in terms of insaniyat,
Kashmiriyat and jamhooriyat [humanity, the culture of Kashmir and democracy], has forgotten
about all that. [Atal Bihari] Vajpayee sahib talked of that. Even our current Prime Minister talked
about it in Parliament.
Is it not the ultimate betrayal of the Kashmiri people who had entrusted India with their future?
The government did not take them into its confidence about their own future.
It is like when they [the people of Kashmir] were sold to Raja Gulab Singh [of Jammu, in 1846].
They did not know they had been bought for a few lakh rupees. They did not know that they had
been robbed of their statehood, their identity in fact. Kashmir has a great tradition right from the
ancient days, of Sanskrit, Persian, Buddhism and what have you. It is a crucible. Kashmir was
at the crossroads of many, many cultures and faiths. Ideas developed there. If you take out the
Sanskrit tradition of Kashmir, only 25 per cent remains of the rest of India. That is Kashmir’s
contribution to literature, language, poetry and historiography.
And we also have the tradition of Sultan Zainul Abidin.
18
Yes, that is another tradition. Today, I feel Kashmiri leadership deteriorated from thereon. In a
way, the contemporary Kashmiri leadership is also responsible for the mess. They are stuck on
one thing.
Diplomacy and politics are a game of patience. You had these windows open, certain
ventilators. But they were never capitalised on. I look at the youth. They have no future ahead of
them. The boys who come from Kashmir to study here [in Delhi]—you will not believe how they
muster the funds to finance their studies. There is widespread poverty. There is no business
there, no industry. They are dependent on tourism for funds. Now the tourists have also gone
away. The Amarnath yatra is quite a money-spinner. It was extended this year. But that is not
the tradition. The tradition is only for 15 days.
Amarnath yatra
This year, just before the announcement of the bifurcation in Parliament, the Central
government asked the Amarnath pilgrims to go back, citing terror threats. But now it appears to
have been to push their agenda through. Maybe they had threats. I am not disputing that. This
is not the first time the threat has been issued, but the yatra has always gone on. It is a great
tradition. Who mans it? All the Muslims man it. The yatris who are unable to walk, the Muslim
boys take them on their shoulders to the cave and bring them back. It is not an ordinary
tradition. It is a rare tradition. It is symbolic of what Kashmir stands for.
One final question. There have been televised images and print media photographs of Kashmiri
Pandits celebrating the government’s decision. It seems like everybody wants to go back, buy
property there, settle down.
I am sorry, I am not part of that. I cannot say anything about those Pandits, or those images.
The media are also responsible. I see many photographs floating around, manipulated to give
legitimacy to a certain narrative. What will they do after the celebrations? Can they go back?
They have lived for 30 years over here. What is left if they go back?
Can they go back?

I have my own doubts. Even if you go back, you will be looked upon as an outsider. They will
see that you came as an invader this time. Ultimately, you have to live with people. For how
long can you rely upon security personnel? Will the camaraderie of earlier days be there? There
is a Kashmiri tradition under which a Hindu’s life was tied with that of a Muslim. A Muslim was
responsible for giving the Hindu his first haircut, and for his cremation too. No legal change can
ensure those things.
Theatre doyen and activist M.K. Raina, who hails from Kashmir, strongly believes that the
bifurcation of the State and the revocation of sections of Article 370 and 35(a) will only
compound the problems faced by the people in Jammu and Kashmir. Talking to Frontline a day
after the Jammu and Kashmir (Reorganisation) Bill was moved in Parliament, Raina said it was
“a very dangerous development”. He added: “The country won freedom through non-violent
ways. Today we have departed from that path.” Excerpts from the interview:
As a veteran artist and activist hailing from Kashmir, how do you see the latest
developments?
Thirty years is too long a time for this turmoil. I go there, I work there, I have lost everything
there, but it [Kashmir] is my home, I still want to go there. My pain with this decision is you
cannot reduce a State to a Union Territory, a State that has a textual, performative tradition of
5,000 years. The relationship between the [Kashmir] Valley and Ladakh goes back 1,500 years,
19
through art, craft and culture. The way it [the bifurcation] has been done is so shabby. Nothing
will be solved. Come Friday, it will be prayer time. We will shoot those boys, they will kill our
soldiers. I have seen the corpses of our soldiers with my own eyes. It used to break my heart.
Violence is not the solution. This country won freedom through non-violent ways. Today we
have departed from that path. This particular path [the bifurcation] will make it more
complicated. I do not think it will be able to solve much, or anything, in Kashmir.
But Home Minister Amit Shah has gone on record saying that it will bring peace and
development in the State.
I laugh at it. I cannot say anything more. Isn’t the Home Minister the one who brought 35,000
soldiers to the State before the announcement? He needs to humanise his statements. He
might have positive intentions, but it does not solve any problem. He might talk of development,
roads and so on, but that is no substitute for human beings and self-pride. If it were so, we
would all have been in Mumbai. There are young lives involved, their future is at stake. This
whole precedent of demoting a State to a Union Territory is so ridiculous. They talk of
disturbance in the State as an excuse. If that be so, what about Andhra Pradesh or
Chhattisgarh? There is a violent row going on with naxals there. Are you going to demote them
also? Is this the way ahead? It is a very dangerous development. As a Kashmiri, honestly, I
have never felt this kind of alienation. I had to leave the State in 1990. Today, I feel I have been
robbed of my own State.
Does it not also go against the Instrument of Accession?

I do not know those legalities. I am not a lawyer. All I can say is that the people of Kashmir
stood for India as a bulwark against Pakistan and [Muhammad Ali] Jinnah.
I talk from the point of view taken by Sheikh Abdullah, who opted for a united secular
India instead of the theocratic state of Pakistan. Does this development betray that faith?
[Kashmir was] the only Muslim-majority State which embraced India’s secular state at the time
of Independence. When the Indian soldiers went there, they were welcomed everywhere. When
Jinnah came to arouse sectarian sentiments, he was booted out by the locals. I cannot
understand why people do not read history. History is not linear. It is a kind of zigzag line which
has its own curves…. Many things have happened in history. If you have a nuclear bomb, you
can go and bomb any place. But in our country, our subcontinent, it is not possible. You bomb
Karachi, and Mumbai will be affected. You bomb Lahore, and Amritsar will be affected.
Everything is interrelated.
At the same time, does it not compromise India’s position internationally?

Of course it does. China has already started talking. Pakistan is talking in terms of going to the
United Nations. The Arab countries, too [are talking]…. Finally, it will be talked about in the
international fora. Look at the international press, see what they are writing.
Will it make life easier for a young Kashmiri studying or working in Delhi, Mumbai or
Bengaluru?
No, far from making it easier for Kashmiris, I think it is the sickness of Indian society [on
display]. They think it is a cricket match that they have won. The same mentality was on display
in 1984 when Sikhs were massacred. We have seen this happening. It is a dehumanising trend.
There are people with whom I have worked for 18 years. They are in Kashmir today and there is
no way of getting to know about them. The humanitarian angle is lost. It happened in the
previous regime also.
20
But then this party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, which was talking in terms of insaniyat,
Kashmiriyat and jamhooriyat [humanity, the culture of Kashmir and democracy], has forgotten
about all that. [Atal Bihari] Vajpayee sahib talked of that. Even our current Prime Minister talked
about it in Parliament.
Is it not the ultimate betrayal of the Kashmiri people who had entrusted India with their
future? The government did not take them into its confidence about their own future.
It is like when they [the people of Kashmir] were sold to Raja Gulab Singh [of Jammu, in 1846].
They did not know they had been bought for a few lakh rupees. They did not know that they had
been robbed of their statehood, their identity in fact. Kashmir has a great tradition right from the
ancient days, of Sanskrit, Persian, Buddhism and what have you. It is a crucible. Kashmir was
at the crossroads of many, many cultures and faiths. Ideas developed there. If you take out the
Sanskrit tradition of Kashmir, only 25 per cent remains of the rest of India. That is Kashmir’s
contribution to literature, language, poetry and historiography.
And we also have the tradition of Sultan Zainul Abidin.

Yes, that is another tradition. Today, I feel Kashmiri leadership deteriorated from thereon. In a
way, the contemporary Kashmiri leadership is also responsible for the mess. They are stuck on
one thing.
Diplomacy and politics are a game of patience. You had these windows open, certain
ventilators. But they were never capitalised on. I look at the youth. They have no future ahead of
them. The boys who come from Kashmir to study here [in Delhi]—you will not believe how they
muster the funds to finance their studies. There is widespread poverty. There is no business
there, no industry. They are dependent on tourism for funds. Now the tourists have also gone
away. The Amarnath yatra is quite a money-spinner. It was extended this year. But that is not
the tradition. The tradition is only for 15 days.
Amarnath yatra
This year, just before the announcement of the bifurcation in Parliament, the Central
government asked the Amarnath pilgrims to go back, citing terror threats. But now it appears to
have been to push their agenda through. Maybe they had threats. I am not disputing that. This
is not the first time the threat has been issued, but the yatra has always gone on. It is a great
tradition. Who mans it? All the Muslims man it. The yatris who are unable to walk, the Muslim
boys take them on their shoulders to the cave and bring them back. It is not an ordinary
tradition. It is a rare tradition. It is symbolic of what Kashmir stands for.
One final question. There have been televised images and print media photographs of
Kashmiri Pandits celebrating the government’s decision. It seems like everybody wants
to go back, buy property there, settle down.
I am sorry, I am not part of that. I cannot say anything about those Pandits, or those images.
The media are also responsible. I see many photographs floating around, manipulated to give
legitimacy to a certain narrative. What will they do after the celebrations? Can they go back?
They have lived for 30 years over here. What is left if they go back?
Can they go back?

I have my own doubts. Even if you go back, you will be looked upon as an outsider. They will
see that you came as an invader this time. Ultimately, you have to live with people. For how
long can you rely upon security personnel? Will the camaraderie of earlier days be there? There
is a Kashmiri tradition under which a Hindu’s life was tied with that of a Muslim. A Muslim was
21
responsible for giving the Hindu his first haircut, and for his cremation too. No legal change can
ensure those things.
COVER STORY
TOWARDS HINDU RASHTRA
RSS' agenda on Kashmir in action
PURNIMA S. TRIPATHI
Print edition : August 30, 2019
The BJP uses its brute parliamentary majority to fulfil the RSS’ long-pending demand to annul
Jammu and Kashmir’s special status and take the first step towards the Sangh Parivar’s dream
of establishing a Hindu Rashtra.
The queasy feeling that the second Narendra Modi government would vigorously usher the
country into the claustrophobic framework of a Hindu Rashtra, as envisaged by the Rashtriya
Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), came true on August 5 when the government pushed ahead with
the annulment of the special status of Jammu and Kashmir and robbed it of Statehood.
The first RSS resolution on Jammu and Kashmir was passed at a meeting of its Kendriya
Karyakari Mandal in 1952, in which it condemned the “Pak-American Pact” (a reference to the
agreement between the United States and Pakistan on military assistance) and said that the
“open aggression in Kashmir” was still on.
The following year, the first political offspring of the RSS, the Bharatiya Jana Sangh, ran a
massive campaign across the country calling for abrogation of Article 370. The party was
founded by Syama Prasad Mookerjee, who owed allegiance to the RSS ideology. It was during
this campaign that Mookerjee travelled to Jammu and Kashmir in May 1953, defying the
Government of India’s rule that required one to obtain a permit before entering the State.
Once he entered the State, he was arrested and was in prison for over a month, where he died
of a heart attack in June.
In 1964, the RSS’ highest decision-making body, the Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha, passed a
resolution titled “Bharat’s Kashmir Policy”, which said: “Article 370, which was incorporated in
our Constitution as a temporary provision on Kashmir, must be immediately repealed and the
State brought in line with the other States.”
The same demand was repeated by the Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal of the RSS in 1982
after the Jammu and Kashmir government enacted a law inviting Muslims who had migrated to
Pakistan during Partition to return and acquire Indian citizenship.
The RSS maintained that the Jammu and Kashmir government was misusing Article 370 to fan
communal and separatist feelings in the State and demanded the Article’s abrogation.
The same demands were repeated at various other RSS forums in 1984, 1986 and 1993.
In 1995, the RSS, for the first time, demanded a separate autonomous council for the Jammu
region on the grounds that the State government was neglecting the area. In 1996, the
organisation’s Akhil Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal passed a resolution demanding abrogation of
Article 370, saying it was temporary in nature and had become completely defunct.
22
In 2000, when there was a BJP government at the Centre led by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the
Jammu and Kashmir Assembly passed a resolution for autonomy. The RSS’ Akhil Bharatiya
Karyakari Mandal then passed a resolution condemning the move, saying that things would not
have come to such a pass had Article 370 been repealed in time.
Demand for Jammu state

In the year 2002, the RSS, for the first time, raised the demand for a separate Jammu State. In
2010, the Akhil Bharatiya Pratinidhi Sabha passed yet another resolution on Article 370, saying:
“Article 370, which was included in our Constitution as a ‘temporary and transitional provision’,
instead of being abrogated, continues to be a tool in the hands of the separatist and
secessionist elements.”
But this was the last resolution on this issue. Since 2014, when the first Modi-led government
assumed power, the RSS did not pass any resolution.
On August 5, 2019, when the Rajya Sabha passed the Bill stripping the State of special status
and Statehood, RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat issued a press release congratulating the
government on taking this “courageous step”, saying it was necessary not only for the State of
Jammu and Kashmir but for the entire country. He exhorted everyone to rise above political
differences and support the government.
Abrogation of Article 370 has been a part of the BJP’s election manifesto since its inception in
April 1980. For the BJP, its ideological umbilical cord with the RSS has meant that its road map
is defined by the causes espoused by the Sangh.
In the political arena, the demand for abrogation of Article 370 was first voiced by the Praja
Parishad Party in Jammu, which was founded by Prem Nath Dogra, who was the RSS’ Jammu
in-charge, in association with the Hindu Mahasabha’s Balraj Madhok, who also owed allegiance
to the Sangh ideology.
The Praja Parishad Party, which claimed to represent the Hindu population of the State, had
alleged atrocities by the Sheikh Abdullah government and demanded that the Government of
India abrogate Article 370 so that the entire State could be seamlessly integrated with India, like
other princely states.
The party’s demand was articulated in Delhi by Syama Prasad Mookerjee, who had been
elected to Parliament in the first election in 1952 as a Bharatiya Jana Sangh candidate.
Incidentally, Mookerjee had been a Minister in the first Cabinet of Jawaharlal Nehru, but soon
parted ways with him owing to ideological differences, one of the issues being Article 370.
Mookerjee had vehemently argued, pleaded with and cajoled Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah to
heed the voice of the people of Jammu, to no effect.
He wrote 10 letters to Nehru and Sheikh Abdullah between January 9, 1953, and February 23,
1953, drawing their attention to the ongoing agitation by the Hindus in Jammu region and the
State government’s “repression”. Most of these letters went either unanswered or
unacknowledged.
In his first letter to Nehru, written on January 9, 1953, Mookerjee appealed to him to understand
the sentiments of the people of Jammu, as voiced by the Praja Parishad-led movement and
23
said: “Repression will be no answer to the fundamental question which the people of Jammu are
asking today—have they not the inherent right to demand that they be governed by the same
Constitution as has been made applicable to the rest of India? If the people of Kashmir Valley
think otherwise, should Jammu also suffer because of such unwillingness to merge completely
with India? Ek Nishan, Ek Vidhan Ek Pradhan—one flag, one Constitution, one President—
represents a highly patriotic and emotional slogan with which the people are carrying on their
struggle. You or Sheikh Abdullah cannot answer this question by imprisonment or bullets.”
Incidentally, it was Mookerjee who gave the emotive slogan, still used by the BJP: “Ek desh me
do vidhan, ek desh me do nishan, ek desh me do pradhan, nahin chalega, nahin chalega.”
When his efforts to get the issue resolved through dialogue failed, he decided to go to Jammu
and Kashmir and see things for himself, defying the government’s requirement of obtaining a
permit to visit the State. It was there that he was arrested and subsequently died. Hence, the
issue of Article 370 had become sacrosanct for the BJP.
Even during the Vajpayee regime, efforts were made to find a way out but it did not yield results.
Vajpayee had once confessed that they could not do it because “bahumat nahin tha” (we did not
have a majority).
Now that the Modi government enjoys a brute majority in Parliament, it was only a matter of time
that it would repay its debt to its ideological parent. But what should now worry everyone is
whether the RSS’ core agenda of a Hindu Rashtra is what the Modi government is striving at.
BJP leaders have always been sceptical of the word “secular” and the way it was included in the
Constitution through an amendment by Indira Gandhi. The ruthlessness with which the Modi-
Shah duo has gone about demolishing the Nehru-Gandhi legacy raises questions on what they
have in store.
COVER STORY
WORLD RESPONSE
Kashmir: World watches, cautiously
JOHN CHERIAN
Pakistan comes up with a strong reaction, but the rest of the world has been cautious and
muted in its response.
As expected, the international community has not reacted favourably to the government’s
decision to unilaterally revoke the “special status” that was accorded to the State of Jammu and
Kashmir in the Indian Constitution. The Kashmir dispute is incidentally the oldest unresolved
international dispute pending before the United Nations. The international community has so far
refused to recognise India’s sovereignty over Jammu and Kashmir or, for that matter, Pakistan’s
claim to the part of Kashmir under its control.
But the immediate reactions from the international community were comparatively muted, with
calls for restraint in the region. The United States State Department spokesperson, speaking on
August 5, only urged India to engage in discussions with those affected by the decision. She
went out of her way to emphasise that New Delhi considered its actions relating to Kashmir an
internal issue, though she also added: “We are concerned about reports of detentions and urge
respect for individual rights and discussions with those in affected communities.” President
24
Donald Trump, who had recently offered once again to mediate in the dispute, has not yet
spoken on the issue.
Pakistan’s reaction was the strongest. It wasted no time in reiterating that India’s “unilateral
step” would alter the “disputed status as enshrined in U.N. [United Nations] Security Council
resolutions” and that as “a party to the international dispute”, it would exercise “all possible
options to counter [India’s] illegal steps”. The Pakistani government downgraded diplomatic ties,
expelled the Indian High Commissioner, and stopped bilateral trade. It has indicated that it will
once again close its air space for Indian aircraft and suspended the Samjhauta Express train.
Prime Minister Imran Khan warned of possible war. He told a special session of the National
Assembly on August 6: “With an approach of this nature, incidents like Pulwama are bound to
happen.” He cautioned that a war in the region between the two nuclear armed states would
have devastating consequences for the world. “This is not nuclear blackmail—this is what will
happen if you logically follow the chain of events that have been triggered,” he said. He also
said that he had asked President Trump to get involved in the Kashmir dispute because of the
Indian government’s failure to respond to his repeated attempts to resume bilateral talks.
China’s reaction
The Chinese Foreign Ministry objected to the decision to make Ladakh a Union Territory and
said that this undermined China’s territorial sovereignty. The disputed area of Aksai Chin lies
partly within the Ladakh administrative area. “China is always opposed to the inclusion of the
Chinese territory in the western sector of the China-India border into its administrative
jurisdiction,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson said. She said that India “was
continuing to undermine China’s territorial sovereignty by unilaterally changing its domestic law”.
The spokesperson stressed that India’s actions were “unacceptable” and that China was
“seriously concerned about the current situation”. She said that China’s position on the Kashmir
issue had been “clear and consistent” and it had stuck to the international consensus that “it is
an issue left from the past” that should be peacefully resolved through dialogue and
consultation. “The relevant sides need to exercise restraint and act prudently. In particular, they
should refrain from actions that will unilaterally change the status quo and escalate tensions.”
But if there was any solace for Pakistan in China’s stance, the leader of the opposition, Shahbaz
Sharif, pointed out that Pakistan’s close friends, including China, had not openly backed the
country after India’s move, which has drastically altered the ground realities in South Asia.
Sharif advised the government “not to exhaust all its resources” in trying to establish peace in
Afghanistan. He described President Trump’s offer to mediate on Kashmir a “trap card” and not
a “trump card” as the Pakistan government has been claiming. Reza Rabbani, the Chairman of
the Senate and a senior opposition leader, urged the government to move away from the U.S.
and said there was a “nexus” between Washington, Tel Aviv and New Delhi. The opposition has
also been critical of Imran Khan’s statement ahead of the general election in India that a Modi
victory could turn out to be beneficial for bilateral relations.
Pakistan has announced that it will raise the Kashmir autonomy issue in the Security Council. In
1948, the Security Council called for a plebiscite in Kashmir, and Prime Minister Jawaharlal
Nehru also promised to hold one. The promise was not kept, and Kashmir became a flashpoint.
Despite the U.S. being a staunch military ally of Pakistan at the time, the Indian state brazened
it out in international fora with the Soviet Union’s invaluable support.
India and Pakistan have fought four wars and the mood in Pakistan is now angry. The country’s
Science and Technology Minister, Fawad Chaudhry, described India as a “fascist” country and
25
said that Islamabad was not ruling out another war over the disputed territory. “Pakistan should
not let Kashmir become another Palestine,” he said. “We have to choose between dishonour
and war. However, very few Pakistanis actually want another war. With both the countries now
having nuclear weapons, a full-blown war is unthinkable despite the rhetoric from both sides of
the border. On August 8, Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi said in a statement that
Islamabad “was not looking at a military option”. But he also said that the country reserved the
right to respond in case of any aggression.
Vested interests
U.S. commentators and reports in the media have not failed to notice that India’s sudden move
came immediately after President Trump’s offer to mediate and the partial resumption of U.S.
military aid to Pakistan. The Trump administration has denied reports appearing in the Indian
media that External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar had alerted his U.S. counterpart, Mike
Pompeo, about the decision to revoke Kashmir’s special status. In a later statement, the U.S.
State Department said that India’s decision on Kashmir could increase instability in the region.
The Indian government seems to be quite confident that the Trump administration will not
openly criticise the move. The right-wing government in New Delhi has signed up to be a
military ally of Washington and play the role of a strategic counterweight to Beijing. New Delhi is
on the verge of signing the third and last “foundational” defence agreement with the U.S., which
will provide the framework for joint India-U.S. military operations. India has already agreed to
allow the U.S. to use military bases in the country.
The U.S. is emerging as India’s biggest arms supplier. The Trump administration now calls the
Asia Pacific region “Indo-Pacific”. India’s tilt to the West will be even more evident if it does not
allow the Chinese telecom giant Huawei to bid for 5G contracts in the country. And as the world
knows, the Trump administration (and earlier U.S. regimes for that matter) cares little for human
rights. The U.S., for instance, had opposed a U.N. inquiry into the war crimes committed by
Israel in Gaza during its brutal 2014 bombing of Gaza, in which 2,100 Palestinians, most of
them children, were killed. India, along with West European countries, abstained in the vote on
the inquiry. As in the case of Israel and other U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, a different
yardstick is applied to India nowadays when it comes to issues of self-determination and human
rights.
India seems to be taking a page out of Israeli’s book. What Israel has done in the West Bank
and Gaza is being replicated in the Kashmir Valley. The next logical step will be to implement
“settler-colonial” projects on the lines of what Israelis have done in the occupied territories.
Many observers of the region predict that it is only a matter of time before “Hindu only” enclaves
are set up in the Valley, closely mimicking Jewish colonies on the occupied West Bank. Indian
security forces have been receiving training from Israel in “anti-terror” operations. Israel and
India would like the world to believe that the struggle for statehood in Palestine and self-
determination in Kashmir is part of the global scourge of “Islamic terrorism”.
Muslim countries quiet

Imran Khan has made personal appeals to Islamic countries for support. He personally talked to
the Turkish President, Recep Erdogan, and the Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir
Mohammed. Both of them are known to be outspoken in their views but have so far not made
any statement on Kashmir, though their governments have expressed concern. Pakistan’s Arab
allies like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have not reacted officially, so far.
The UAE’s ambassador to India, Ahmad al Banna, has said that the decision on Kashmir is an
“internal matter”. The Saudi Crown Prince, Muhammad bin Salman, has an excellent
26
relationship with Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whom he calls “a brother”. The Saudis and the
Emiratis have already dumped the Palestinian cause. Kashmir, too, receded from their radar
quite some time ago.
Iran, which shares a border with Pakistan, has also been quiet, preoccupied as it is with its
ongoing confrontation with the Americans. However, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, has in the past compared the situation in Kashmir with that in Yemen and Bahrain.
He said in 2017 that Kashmiris required the “support of all Muslim nations”. The Organisation of
Islamic Cooperation (OIC) Contact Group on Kashmir, which was formed in 1994 to coordinate
the OIC’s policy on Kashmir, has condemned the decision on Article 370. Azerbaijan, Saudi
Arabia, Niger, Pakistan and Turkey are its members. The OIC, a grouping of 57 Islamic
countries, is expected to take a strong stance against India on the issue, but the Indian
government considers it a toothless and ineffective grouping.
The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), an international human rights NGO headed by 60
prominent jurists and lawyers, issued a statement saying that the revocation of the autonomy
and special status of the State of Jammu and Kashmir “violates the right of the representation
and participation guaranteed to the people” under the Indian Constitution and international law.
The ICJ said that the Indian government’s move also was a “blow to the rule of law and human
rights in the State and India”. The ICJ statement accused the Indian government of pushing
through the new changes “in contravention of domestic and international standards”. The ICJ,
however, expressed the hope that the Indian judiciary would closely look into the government’s
bid “to eviscerate Article 370 of the Indian Constitution”.
The ICJ noted that the Indian government had rushed through with the amendments at a time
when the State of Jammu and Kashmir was under the direct rule of the Central government.
The statement also referred to the two reports by the United Nations Commissioner for Human
Rights (UNHCR) highlighting grave violations of human rights by security forces in the Valley:
“The ICJ condemns the legislative steps taken with respect to Jammu and Kashmir, and calls on
the Indian government to implement in full the U.N. High Commissioner’s recommendations.”
The UNHCR’s report had urged the Indian government to “fully respect the right of self-
determination of the people of Kashmir as protected under international law”.
In a statement on August 8, U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres called on all parties to the
dispute to refrain from taking steps “that could affect the status of Jammu and Kashmir”. The
statement clarified that the U.N.’s position on Kashmir was based on its Charter and the
relevant Security Council resolutions on the issue. Guterres also appealed to India and Pakistan
to “show maximum restraint” while looking for means to resolve the 70-year-old dispute.
COVER STORY
INTERVIEW: SITARAM YECHURY
Abrogation of Article 370: Tyranny of the majority, says Yechury
T.K. RAJALAKSHMI
Interview with Sitaram Yechury, CPI(M) general secretary.

On August 7, five Left parties took out a joint protest to Parliament House in defence of Article
370. In an interview to Frontline, Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Sitaram
27
Yechury spoke about the manner in which the Indian Constitution was subverted and
democracy and federalism were undermined. Excerpts:
Why have the Left parties opposed the abrogation of Article 370?
Apart from the fact that the abrogation has reneged on the promises made to the people of
Kashmir at the time of the accession of Jammu and Kashmir into the Indian Union, the manner
in which the abrogation was done is in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and federalism.
Article 3 of the Constitution says that any change to the boundaries of a State will require the
prior approval of the State legislature. Now, by subterfuge and by saying that the State is under
Central rule, the government has “presumed” that the Governor is equivalent to the legislature.
In the process, it has reduced the number of States in India from 29 to 28. The government has
literally trifurcated the area but kept Jammu and Kashmir together as a single administrative
entity. This is a violation of the spirit of the Constitution as the will of the elected representatives
was not considered.
It is important to understand the background of Article 370. The Dogra king of Jammu and
Kashmir was unwilling to join the Indian Union and was thinking of an independent country.
When the Pakistani raiders wanted to forcibly annex Jammu and Kashmir following Partition,
Sheikh Abdullah, who was leading the people’s struggle against feudal oppression, pushed for
the joining of Jammu and Kashmir with India. Apart from Left-ruled States, Jammu and Kashmir
was the only other State where land reforms were implemented. Sheikh Abdullah wanted the
State to join India as democracy and secularism were promised to it. It was on that basis that
Article 370 was drawn up after Independence and the Instrument of Accession signed. These
were solemn promises made by the Indian Union. Now, with one stroke all these assurances
have gone away. It is the unilateral manner in which it was done that the Left parties oppose.
What are the implications of the abrogation? The government feels that it will address
the twin issues of terrorism and development.
The reason attributed for the abrogation is that Article 370 has contributed to the growth of
terrorism and unrest. But the truth is that over the years Article 370 had been eroded
substantially. Now, 94 of the 97 subjects in the Central List are applicable to the State. The so-
called autonomy was eroded constantly. Democracy was constantly violated, governments were
toppled, defections engineered and pliant governments installed over the years. The democratic
content was underminedseverely. The undermining of democracy and autonomy led to a degree
of alienation. This was used to the hilt by Pakistan by supporting these elements and
cumulatively, the alienation manifested itself in the “azaadi” slogans. The root cause is not
Article 370 but the undermining of it and that of democracy that led to widespread alienation.
The strange part is that it was recognised by the Modi 1 government when the Home Minister
led the all-party delegation and the communique that was issued said that in order to strengthen
the bonds with the people of Kashmir, it was needed to immediately undertake confidence-
building measures and initiate a process of political dialogue with all stakeholders. This was the
communique’s wording. For the first three years they did nothing. This is part of their Hindutva
position, their ideological position. They see a Muslim-majority State and in the name of
integrating the State with the rest of India, they wanted to abrogate Article 370. They view this
as a matter of territorial integrity and not as an integration of people whose confidence has to be
earned. They were in government in the State as well. They withdrew support, they dismissed
the government, dissolved the House, imposed Central rule and then used it to legitimise the
abolition of Article 370.
Economic development can only happen if there is normalcy and stability. It is not because of
Article 370 that normalcy and stability was affected. It is the erosion of that Article, the
28
assurances given under that Article and the erosion of autonomy that over the past three
decades created the situation in the Valley. No development can take place where there is a
virtual military occupation. The manner in which the abrogation was engineered first by moving
45,000 extra troops into the State, cancelling the Amarnath yatra, asking tourists to go back,
arresting all political leaders in the State, imposing curfew, telling people to stock up for three to
four months food and other essential requirements, all this contributed to uncertainty and panic.
Therefore, the question of development does not arise.
The BJP-RSS has never been apologetic about its position on Article 370. But the
manner in which it was abrogated is described as unprecedented, something that even
the A.B. Vajpayee government did not attempt.
The abolition of 370 was always their objective in line with their understanding to integrate
Jammu and Kashmir with India but not the people of the State. Ironically, it was Vajpayee who
spoke of insaniyat, jhamooriyat and Kashmiriyat—humanism, democracy and the Kashmiri
ethos. Now Kashmiriyat is completely subsumed; jhamooriyat, that is democracy, has virtually
been demolished in the way federalism has been attacked, and humanism, or insaniyat, is
completely absent in the way they have dealt with it.
Some of the regional parties and even a section of the otherwise vocal opposition
surprisingly supported the government’s resolution.
It is unfortunate that what has been done with Jammu and Kashmir can happen in any State in
India, which the BJP may find not in agreement with them. Any opposition-ruled State can be
brought under Central rule and, through Parliament, can be divided and those portions declared
as Union Territories. This is a move towards a unitary structure, and this is what the ideology of
Hindutva seeks. The homogenisation of India as opposed to the fundamental features of our
Constitution, that is, federalism. So the regional parties, some of them, have unfortunately by
supporting this cut the branch on which they are sitting. The compulsions for doing so are well
known. How the BJP government can pressure the States, deny Central help and assistance to
them is well known. Why the regional parties voted the way they did, they alone can answer.
We have seen in the recent past where all kinds of anti-democratic developments have taken
place. For example, the use of the practice of horse-trading to dismiss the Karnataka
government and then to use it elsewhere to form the government or to dismiss another elected
government. Their methods are well known.
During this parliamentary session, the opposition charged that the government was
rushing through Bills.
What happened in this session is dangerous. When I was there, the process was such that soon
after elections, a short session would be held where new members took oath and then any other
urgent business would be taken up. Then the session got adjourned and Parliamentary
Committees were formed. After their formation in the next session, the legislative business that
came before Parliament was referred to these committees for scrutiny and for eliciting the
opinions of stakeholders to get inputs to fine-tune the legislation. This time, 30 Bills have been
passed without a single one being properly examined or scrutinised. Some of them have
dangerous implications, like the amendment to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the
National Investigation Agency where individuals can be treated and declared as terrorists and
where the normal rules of jurisprudence have been turned on their heads.
The normal maxim is: You are innocent until proven guilty; now with the amendments, one is
guilty until one proves one’s innocence. It is up to the individual to prove that he or she is not a
terrorist. Many Bills that have been legislated are a direct attack on the rights of the States, on
federalism. What is happening now is the legalisation of a “security” state. See what has
29
happened to the labour codes. Most of the labour laws precede the Constitution. They were won
by big struggles of the working class where even under British rule the government had to
accede to labour laws. Privatisation on the one hand, doing away with labour laws on the other,
and the establishment of a security state—all in all a lethal cocktail of an attack on democratic
rights and civil liberties. Any matter of this sort, Article 370 for instance, would have been
preceded by consultations and discussions. No all-party meetings were called on all of these
issues, which have major ramifications for democratic rights and civil liberties. No meetings
were held, nor efforts made, to bring the political process together. All of this is unprecedented.
In Parliament, I used to use a term “tyranny of the majority”. This is what we are seeing today.
An argument is being made that the formation of a Union Territory will automatically help
deal with terrorism.
The root cause for the alienation is that the assurances given for autonomy were not met.
Unless that is addressed, the tendencies that the government claims to be concerned about will
not be taken care of. The feeding of terrorism has to be dealt with in an entirely different
manner. On the issue of fighting terrorism, there is absolutely no difference of opinion as far as
the Left is concerned. Terrorism is anti-national from wherever it emanates, but this sort of
development, like the abrogation of Article 370 and the manner in which it was done, will only
feed fundamentalists of all varieties.
The CPI(M) has consistently made the point that the solemn assurances that enabled the
Instrument of Accession to be signed must be honoured. We have always respected the
position of autonomy as under Article 370. In fact, it was Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao
who said that autonomy up to the sky will be given to Jammu and Kashmir but the opposite
happened. The Left’s position has been on the basis of principle. Unemployment is at its highest
in the past five decades. Ironically, instead of tackling urgently the tumbling economy, the large-
scale closures, particularly in the automobile sector, and the laying off of jobs and dealing with
the livelihoods of crores of people, the intention of the government is to carry forward the
fascistic agenda of the RSS.
COVER STORY
FOR POLITICAL GAIN
History of betrayals in Kashmir
MRIDU RAI
In abrogating the provisions of Article 370, the Centre has disinterred a corpse in order to bury it
again. Only a widely uninformed Indian civil society can rejoice in such an exercise in futility and
not see the cynical search for political gains that is its aim.
The vast majority of views offered in various forms of the media over the last few days, whether
in favour or against, have evoked the dramatic nature of what was done on August 5, 2019,
when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) announced its decision not only to revoke Articles 370
and 35A of the Indian Constitution but also to reshape the former State of Jammu and Kashmir
by partitioning it and downgrading the two new components. Although the fact that the current
BJP government actually went ahead with the measure that took most people in India and
elsewhere by surprise, perhaps the writing had been on the wall.
If the general election in May 2014 had brought the BJP to power at the Centre with an
unexpectedly commanding majority, the year ended with another record-making victory in State
elections. The party had, for the first time, made an inroad into the elected power structure of
30
Jammu and Kashmir and formed a coalition government with the Kashmir-based Peoples
Democratic Party (PDP). Since 2014, then, Kashmir has been at perihelion with the Hindu
Rashtra or at least the ambition of bringing one into being. It has been feeling more directly than
before the heat of the rhetoric and agendas the BJP and its affiliated organisations such as the
Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS) and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) deploy. In this
project Kashmiri Muslims are made to serve as contrapuntal symbols—of terrorist violence,
illegitimate religious impulses, sedition—for contriving a mythical Hindu nation. This evocatory
purpose that Kashmiris serve is so essential to Hindutva’s discursive politics that it was perhaps
inevitable that it would not only continue to be exploited but would be ratcheted up. Reducing
the “Kashmir problem” into easily digestible capsules, the BJP’s rhetoric has long focussed on
the abrogation of Article 370, which is projected as a blasphemy against the cult of national
integration.
But countless scholarly works have shown that Article 370 had already been neutered over the
course of roughly two decades after its inclusion in the Indian Constitution on October 17, 1949.
While Maharaja Hari Singh’s signing of the Instrument of Accession on October 26, 1947, had
brought Jammu and Kashmir into India, its terms restricted New Delhi’s jurisdiction over the
former princely state to matters of foreign affairs, defence, currency and communications. This
“statutory autonomy” was later inserted into India’s Constitution as Article 370. But the
autonomy covenanted in the latter was unremittingly abraded beginning in 1953. Until it was
unceremoniously revoked on August 5, 2019, its main role was that of a red flag that provoked,
on the one hand, the anger of Kashmiris who had seen betrayal in its nullity and, on the other,
the ire of Hindu right-wing nationalists who saw in it the “appeasement” of Kashmiris, read as
Muslims, separatists and traitors.
Client Kashmiri politicians, prepared to do New Delhi’s bidding, had played their part in whittling
down Article 370. Unrepresentative politicians in the region were propped up and legitimated
externally by the Centre so long as they did not speak back to it. In 1947, Sheikh Mohammed
Abdullah, who had sharpened his political skills in the anti-Dogra movement of the 1930s, was
reputedly the most respected leader in the Valley (not so much in the other regions). In Kashmir,
Abdullah—speaking for his countrymen—had found the Muslim League’s Pakistan idea
insufficiently accommodating of Kashmiri distinctiveness within Muslim commonality. The
Congress’, especially Jawaharlal Nehru’s, sympathy and indirect support for the popular
movement against Maharaja Hari Singh led by Sheikh Abdullah was manifest. But it turned out
that Abdullah was too much of an autonomist for either the League’s or the Congress’ tastes.
He had stood with Delhi as the invading tribes from Pakistan were repelled in 1947; in Indian
eyes this was a definitive Kashmiri rejection of the Pakistan option. However, at no point had
Abdullah conceded the Maharaja’s accession to be anything but provisional, the final outcome
to be decided by a plebiscite, which had been promised by Louis Mountbatten and confirmed by
Nehru following the accession. The Delhi Agreement he signed with Nehru in July 1952 ratified
Kashmir’s autonomy and restricted the Indian Union’s jurisdiction to the same limited terms as
those in the Instrument of Accession.
In 1952, not only did the plebiscite remain elusive, but the pro-Dogra Praja Parishad, a party
mostly of ex-state officials and large landlords threatened by Abdullah’s socialist rhetoric, was
agitating in Jammu, supported by the Maharaja acting in collusion with Hindu right-wing groups
such as the RSS. The Bharatiya Jana Sangh, founded by Shyama Prasad Mookerjee in 1951,
joined the movement. These groups demanded, among other things, the abrogation of Article
370 and the full integration of Jammu and Kashmir with India. Provoked, the Sheikh
rearticulated independence as one of the possible options open to the State’s people voting in a
31
plebiscite. Nehru’s government arrested Abdullah in August 1953. He remained in jails and exile
on and off until 1975.
Abdullah’s ouster was achieved with the complicity of his erstwhile associates in the National
Conference. Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed, who replaced Abdullah, had been a trusted senior
colleague but proved unable to resist the lure of power held out by New Delhi in return for his
malleability. Bakshi fulfilled his part of the bargain and his government obtained the State
Assembly’s “concurrence” to a Presidential Order issued in 1954 that extended the Indian
government’s right to legislate on all matters on the Union List, not just the three subjects to
which that prerogative had hitherto been restricted. In February 1954, he announced that
Kashmir had “irrevocably acceded to India more than six years ago and today we are fulfilling
the formalities of our unbreakable bonds with India”. This officially closed the
referendum/plebiscite option.
A further series of presidential orders after 1954 extended most laws of the Indian republic to
the State, and there is virtually no institution—such as the Central administrative agencies,
economic enterprises and banks—that does not reach into Kashmir. Ominously, in 1964-65,
Articles of the Indian Constitution authorising the Central government to dismiss elected State
governments and appropriate the latter’s legislative powers were extended to Kashmir. And the
Governor would be appointed by New Delhi rather than, as previously, by the State’s legislature.
The BJP-run government, then, in abrogating Article 370 has disinterred a corpse in order to
bury it again. Only a widely uninformed Indian civil society can rejoice in such an exercise in
futility and not see the cynical search for political gains that is its aim.
Article 35A was a live wire

If Article 370 was a dead letter, Article 35A remained a live wire. In fact, the real prize in the
coup conducted on August 5 may arguably have been the removal of this particular Article.
Article 35A of the Indian Constitution, added through a Presidential Order in 1954, reserved
certain entitlements within the State to “permanent residents”, namely the rights to acquire
immovable property, to vote in elections, and eligibility for certain government positions and
scholarships. It not only allowed the State’s legislature to define who permanent residents were
but also guaranteed these special provisions for them. The Hindu Right—and indeed Prime
Minister Narendra Modi in his address to the nation on August 8—has described Article 35A,
along with Article 370, as fodder for Kashmiri Muslim separatism.
Ironically, however, these were (except voting rights), beneficences the Dogra Maharaja Hari
Singh had granted in 1927 following agitations spearheaded by his more privileged Hindu
subjects, especially groups of Kashmiri Pandits organised by the Yuvak Sabha and the Sanatan
Dharma Sabha and Dogras represented by the Dogra Sabha. Their concern had been to stem
the steady accumulation of wealth (including land) by and recruitment to the administration’s
higher rungs of growing numbers of “outsiders”. Kashmiri Pandit groups had rallied under the
slogan of “Kashmir for Kashmiris”. Once the Maharaja had redefined the category of “State
subject” to the satisfaction of the agitating Pandits, however, they were confronted with a new
and, numerically speaking, even more potent rival. Kashmiri Muslims had begun to mobilise for
their own rights and from a standpoint as legitimate as that of their Hindu co-regionalists. But
Muslim demands for special concessions to overcome their educational “backwardness” and for
representation in State services in proportion to their numbers were now decried by the same
Pandit groups as “communal”. At any rate, the special privileges granted in 1927 travelled into
the Constitution in the form of Article 35A.
32
But until recently, it was non-Pandit Hindu supremacists who had demanded the withdrawal of
such reservation for permanent residents. National integration being the highest goal, the only
way to achieve it, in their view, was by allowing patriotic (Hindu) Indians to make the State—
especially the Valley—their home. On August 27, 2017, at its annual national convention held in
Jammu, Panun Kashmir (Our own Kashmir), a reactionary organisation of migrant Pandits
founded in 1991, also demanded, besides its long-standing plea to rescind Article 370, the
revocation of Article 35A. This was an unexpected move since Pandits had campaigned so
vigorously for the special provisions enshrined in it in the early part of the 20th century.
Another demand made at the same meeting was an old one—mooted since 1991—for a
Centrally administered Union Territory to be carved out in the Valley as their separate
homeland. One would have thought that such a homeland would have been best guaranteed
precisely by Article 35A. An explanation for this turnaround may lie in the altered outlook of
many Pandit refugees. Large numbers of them have come to view their community’s return to
Kashmir an unrealistic prospect so long as the insurgency continues. Therefore, the protections
Article 35A provided have become irrelevant to them. Allowing large numbers of Hindus to
acquire land, employment and other incentives to settle in the State may be the next best thing.
Being seen as willingly sacrificing their privileges as permanent residents in the interests of full
national integration would be a worthwhile bargain in return for the saffron brotherhood’s help in
realising their dream of a homeland in the Valley with the wider Hindu Rashtra protecting it.
‘New era of peace’

In his speech on August 8, Modi assured Indians and Kashmiris that the new measures bringing
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh under the direct governance of New Delhi would usher in a
new era of peace, prosperity, progress and good governance. The record of the BJP in the
former State of Jammu and Kashmir, when it was in power there as part of the coalition
government with the PDP, prompts scepticism. When announcing the BJP’s decision, on June
19, 2018, to pull out of the coalition in the State, bringing down its elected government, the
party’s general secretary, Ram Madhav, claimed that remaining in the alliance had become
“untenable”. The BJP, he maintained, had joined the coalition solely with the aim of “restoring
peace” and “encouraging fast development” in the province. Despite the Centre providing every
assistance in the implementation of these goals, the State government had not only failed to
“achieve the intended objectives” but “terrorism and radicalisation [wa]s on the rise in the State”.
While ostensibly inculpating the State government collectively, by withdrawing the BJP from the
alliance Madhav was manifestly blaming its Kashmiri half constituted by the PDP for
misgovernment and escalating violence in the State. If this were true, its own inaction as a
coalition partner in the face of such dire developments must be held up for scrutiny. And it is
only by a deliberate mangling of facts that the BJP can deny that it had freely used the Indian
Army, then led by General Bipin Rawat, to mete out summary violence in Kashmir, which in turn
fostered Kashmiri alienation and restiveness.
On February 15, 2017, Gen. Rawat declared that “those who obstruct our operations during
encounters and are not supportive” would “be treated as overground workers of terrorists”. He
went on to place the onus on “the local population” to ensure their “local boys” desisted from
“acts of terrorism”. Failing this, he said, the Army would “treat them as anti-national elements
and go helter-skelter for them”. Whereas the Indian Army has taken pride in being a disciplined
force, the threat of going “helter-skelter” suggested instead the mindset of a rogue militia.
Coming from the chief of one of the world’s largest armies, they became not just words of war
but also portents of a reign of terror in which no distinction would be made between civilian
protesters and armed combatants.
33
The degree of permissiveness in its rules of engagement that the Army had seized soon
became clear. There followed, among other developments, the ignominy of Major Leetul
Gogoi’s action of using Farooq Ahmad Dar as a human shield, for which he was praised and
rewarded. Not only did the Prime Minister not check Rawat’s aggressiveness at any time, but in
May 2017, the then Defence Minister, Arun Jaitley, on a visit to the State seemed to provide
absolution for such “innovation”. The civilian head of the war ministry stated that in a “war-like
zone” the Army should not “have to consult Members of Parliament”.
At the moment, Kashmir is under clampdown, but that will have to be lifted some day. When it
is, it is inconceivable that Kashmiris will not be on the streets protesting what was done to them.
It is worrying to think how the large numbers of troops airlifted to the Valley over the past few
weeks, adding to the already large presence of armed forces there, will treat such dissent.
Invoking the words of Agha Shahid Ali, one cannot but ask whether they will “make a desolation
and call it peace”?
Mridu Rai is Professor of History at Presidency University, Kolkata. She is the author of Hindu
Rulers, Muslim Subjects: Islam, Rights and the History of Kashmir.
COVER STORY
ABROGATION OF ARTICLE 370 UNCONSTITUTIONAL
Kashmir: Murder of insaniyat
A.G. NOORANI
The amendment of the provisions of Article 370 is constitutionally invalid; it flies in the face of
pledges made by India to the Kashmiri people and the international community and breaks the
bond that bound Kashmir to the Union.
“And I say with all respect to our Constitution that it just does not matter what your Constitution
says; if the people of Kashmir do not want it, it will not go there. Because what is the
alternative? The alternative is compulsion and coercion— presuming, of course, that the people
of Kashmir do not want it. Are we going to coerce and compel them and thereby justify the very
charges that are brought by some misguided people outside this country against us?
“Do not think that you are dealing with a part of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar or Gujarat. You are dealing
with an area, historically and geographically and in all manner of things, with a certain
background. If we bring our local ideas and local prejudices everywhere, we will never
consolidate. We have to be men of vision and there has to be a broad-minded acceptance of
facts in order to integrate really. And real integration comes of the mind and the heart and not of
some clause which you may impose on other people.”
— Jawaharlal Nehru in the Lok Sabha on June 26, 1952.
The President’s Order under Article 370, made on August 5, 2019, the Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganisation Bill, and the two resolutions by Parliament were conceived in malice and
executed in deceit. They reduce Kashmir to India’s colony.
Union Home Minister Amit Shah’s Statement of Objects and Reasons on the Bill refers to
Ladakh’s demand for Union Territory status and concludes: “The Union Territory of Ladakh will
34
be without a legislature.” The Union Territory will include Kargil as well, though Ladakh has long
been on inimical terms with Kargil. There will be another Union Territory comprising Jammu and
Kashmir.
It contains a revealing gem: “Further, keeping in view the prevailing internal security situation,
fuelled by cross-border terrorism in the existing State of Jammu and Kashmir, a separate Union
Territory for Jammu and Kashmir is being created. The Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
will be with a legislature.” Have you ever heard of a state robbing its regions of autonomy
because they had suffered terrorist attacks? But, of course, this is a sham. The nearly 40-page
Bill must have taken weeks to prepare. It scraps the Constitution of the State of Jammu and
Kashmir adopted by its elected Constituent Assembly and imposes on it constitutional
provisions on which the views of Kashmiris were not sought.
Article 370 was abused to scrap Jammu and Kashmir’s Constitution by a law made by India’s
Parliament. The Bill goes further. Significantly, it promises a fresh delimitation of constituencies.
The Hindustan Times of August 6 has two reports. One by Vijdan Mohammad Kawoosa and the
other by Smriti Kak Ramachandran, which expose the motive behind the whole game. The
Bharatiya Janata Party aspires to increase the number of seats in Jammu and, thus, its strength
in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly so as to woo some in the Valley and form a BJP
government.
The BJP seeks to fulfil its old demands: repeal of Article 370, a uniform civil code, and Ayodhya.
The last, through the courts; the second, by legislation; and the first through Parliament. Nehru
had foreseen the trouble we are now in. On January 1, 1952, he said in a speech in Calcutta:
“There can be no greater vindication than this of our secular policies, our Constitution, that we
have drawn the people of Kashmir towards us. But just imagine what would have happened in
Kashmir if the Jana Sangh or any other communal party had been at the helm of affairs. The
people of Kashmir say that they are fed up with this communalism. Why should they live in a
country where the Jana Sangh and the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh [RSS] are constantly
beleaguering them? They will go elsewhere and they will not stay with us.” (Selected Works of
Jawaharlal Nehru, Volume 17, page 78.)
An old demand: trifurcation

Trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir was mooted by Jammuites 70 years ago, as the Home
Secretary, H.V.R. Iyengar, warned Prime Minister Nehru in a letter of April 17, 1949. Karan
Singh supported it then (as B.K. Nehru mentioned, at length, in his memoirs, Nice Guys Finish
Second, page 589), as he does now. A closet Hindu fundamentalist, he aspired to rule Jammu.
The RSS’ spokesman, M.G. Vaidya, thought “it would help contain virulence in the Valley” (The
Times of India, September 4, 2000) and make it easier to convert it into a huge concentration
camp.
Farooq Abdullah warned that trifurcation would split Jammu evenly; three of its (old) six districts
have a Muslim majority: Doda, Poonch and Rajouri. The other three are Udhampur, Jammu and
Kathua. A tehsil in Udhampur, Gool Gulab Garh, and three in Rajouri will join the Valley. Farooq
Abdullah warned that India would be left with two and a half districts. A Greater Kashmir would
be presented on a silver platter to Pakistan. Nehru warned Vallabhbhai Patel of this danger and
wrote to his friend B.C. Roy, Chief Minister of West Bengal, on June 29, 1953, on the RSS-
backed Praja Parishad’s agitation for trifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir. “If Hindu communalists
could organise a movement in Jammu, why should not Muslim communalists function in
Kashmir? The position now is that if there was a plebiscite, a great majority of Muslims in
Kashmir would go against us. In fact there has been some petty violence also.
35
“So, this movement of the Praja Parishad, which aims at a closer integration of Kashmir State
with India, has had the opposite effect. It is true that so far as Jammu province is concerned, it
has demonstrated that a majority of Hindus there want closer integration. Nobody ever doubted
that and, whatever happens, Jammu cannot leave India. There need be no apprehension about
that. The whole difficulty has been about the Valley of Kashmir and we are on the point of losing
it because of the Praja Parishad movement. Psychologically we have lost it and it would be
difficult to get back to the old position…. In the ultimate analysis, we gain Kashmir if we gain the
goodwill of the people there. We cannot keep it at the point of the bayonet if it is clear that the
people do not want us. For the first time public cries are raised in Kashmir that the Indian Army
should get out” (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Volume 22, pages 203-205).
The eruption of militancy did not dampen the RSS’ zeal. On June 29-30, 2002, its Akhil
Bharatiya Karyakari Mandal (ABKM) baithak at Kurukshetra passed a resolution that said: “(i)
The people of Jammu think that the solution of their problems lies in the separate statehood for
Jammu region. This has been demonstrated by the agitation spearheaded by the Jammu-
Kashmir National Front and other organisations. The ABKM offers its support to their demand.
To brand this demand for a separate statehood for Jammu region, which includes the Muslim-
majority districts of Poonch, Rajouri and Doda, as communal is either crass ignorance or
motivated prejudice. (ii) The ABKM supports the demand for UT status for Ladakh region. (iii)
ABKM offers all its support to the forces in the Kashmir Valley that are for full integration with
Bharat [Reorganisation of the J&K State, Problem & the Solution].”
The Modi regime’s Bill is only a step towards that goal. Before long, Jammu will be separated
from Kashmir as a State proper. This is what Modi’s radio broadcast of August 8 meant.
In the entire exercise, vile passions have triumphed over elementary concern with the law. The
President’s Order is patently unconstitutional. It is made avowedly “with the concurrence of the
Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir”. But no such government has existed there for
over a year, evidently to facilitate this constitutional skulduggery through a stooge, Governor
Satya Pal Malik.
President’s Order unconstitutional

Article 370 itself defines the “Government of the State” in an Explanation which reads thus:
“Explanation.—For the purposes of this Article, the Government of the State means the person
for the time being recognised by the President as the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir acting
on the advice of the Council of Ministers for the time being in office under the Maharaja’s
Proclamation dated fifth day of March, 1948.” The Maharaja gave way to the Sadar-e-Riyasat
and he to the Governor. Thus the Governor cannot act under Article 370 singly as “the
Government of the State”. The object of the provision is to buttress the State’s autonomy. The
Centre’s appointee cannot give his concurrence to the Centre.
There is a precedent directly on this very point. It is a ruling by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka,
reported by Puneeth Nagaraj in The Hindu of December 6, 2012. It concerned the Divineguma
Bill. Divineguma means “uplifting lives”, and the legislation was for a poverty alleviation scheme
through community-level organisations. What was problematic about it was that it put the
Minister of Economic Development, Basil Rajapaksa (younger brother of the then President), in
charge, giving him wide discretionary powers and funds, overriding the powers devolved to the
provinces.
36
The report said: “The Bill was challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 154G(3) of
the Constitution. The Supreme Court sent it back to the government saying it had to be ratified
by the Provincial Councils. There has never been a Provincial Council in Northern Sri Lanka
(not counting the short-lived North-Eastern Provincial Council), and the province is run by
Colombo through the Governor. It was the Governor who ratified the Divineguma Bill on behalf
of Northern Province. This was immediately challenged by the Tamil National Alliance before
the Supreme Court through two petitions. On November 1, the Supreme Court held that the
Governor cannot ratify the Bill in place of the Provincial Council.”
The President’s Order falls in the very same test, and with it, the Bill. There is another aspect to
it: Article 1 of the Constitution of India. The order supersedes all previous Orders made under
Article 370, including the Order inserting Article 35A in the Constitution. Part III of the
Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir contains elaborate provisions for the same purpose.
The Order of 2019 does not abrogate Article 370 as the RSS and the BJP have always
demanded. No Member of Parliament noticed this. Home Minister G.L. Nanda mentioned it in
the Lok Sabha on December 4, 1964. “It is through this tunnel [Article 370] that a good deal of
traffic has already passed and more will.” To reduce it to a shell. The Modi regime has gone
further. It has also scrapped the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Article 370 itself does not
permit that. It begins by saying that Article 235 will not apply to Kashmir. Article 370 limits the
President’s power to apply to the State only items in the Union and Concurrent Lists, after
consultation with the State if they are already comprised in the Instrument of Accession, namely,
those comprised in defence, foreign affairs and communications. But if they go beyond those,
the concurrence of the State’s Constituent Assembly is necessary. However until it was
“convened”, the government of the State could give concurrence, but that would be subject to
ratification by the Constituent Assembly [(Article 370 (2)].
Clause (3) is relevant. It says: “Notwithstanding anything in the forgoing provisions of this
Article, the President may, by public notification, declare that this Article shall cease to be
operative or shall be operative only with such exceptions and modifications and from such date
as he may specify:
“Provided that the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly of the State referred to in
Clause (2) shall be necessary before the President issues such a notification.”
Article 368 on Parliament’s power to amend India’s Constitution does not apply to Jammu and
Kashmir unless the amendment is applied to the State by the President under Article 370.
Once the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir was “convened”, to use the exact word
in Article 370, the State government lost its interim power to accord its concurrence. When this
body dispersed on January 26, 1957, after adopting the State’s Constitution, there vanished
also the President’s powers under Article 370 to add more legislative powers to the Centre in
respect of Jammu and Kashmir or extend to the State any other provision of the Constitution of
India.
Conscious of this, the President of the Kashmir Constituent Assembly, G.M. Sadiq, formally
dissolved it on January 26, 1957, pursuant to its formal resolution on dissolution passed on
November 17, 1956. India’s Constituent Assembly simply dispersed without any such formality.
Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly consciously decided on November 17, 1956, that “it shall stand
dissolved on the 26th January 1957”. No more powers to the Centre can be added thereafter
and no more extensions of the Constitution of India, either.
37
Article 370 refers to Jammu and Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly twice, thus recognising its
right to have its own Constitution. That cannot be nullified by an executive Order by the
President at the instance of the Central government, even if it claims to have been made with
the consent of Governor Satya Pal Malik.
It is a matter of common sense that Article 370 cannot be used, rather misused, until eternity. It
had to end once Jammu and Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly decided finally on the Constitution
and relatedly the Union’s powers. President Rajendra Prasad, himself a distinguished lawyer,
pointed out to Prime Minister Nehru in a Note dated September 6, 1952 (for the full text, see
A.G. Noorani, Article 370, OUP, pages 205-210). He said specifically: “This clause is of a
peculiar and exceptional nature inasmuch as it authorises amendments of Constitution by an
executive act of the Government of India as distinguished from Parliament.... While it
safeguards in Clause (2) the right of the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir to revise
or annul any action taken by the Government of that State in giving concurrence under Clause
1(b)(ii) and the second proviso to Clause 1(d) of Article 370, it excludes altogether the
Parliament of India from having any say regarding the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir.
“Abrogation of that Article would result in the whole Constitution becoming applicable to the
State of Jammu and Kashmir without any exception or modification. But the Article itself has
been very peculiarly worded, for paragraph (c) of Clause (i) of that Article expressly applies the
provisions of Article 1 and of that Article to the State. In fact, it is because of this application of
Article 1 to the State that the State is included within the territories of the Union. The abrogation
of Article 370 abrogates along with it application of Article 1 to the State, with the result that the
State ceases to be part of the territory of India….
“Extensive power is conferred on the President to apply the Constitution to the State with such
exceptions and modifications as may be specified in the notification, and the question at once
arises whether such an extensive power is exercisable from time to time or is exhausted by a
single exercise thereof. Judging by the language employed and by the very exceptional nature
of the power conferred, I have little doubt myself that the intention is that the power is to be
exercised only once, for then alone would it be possible to determine with precision which
particular provisions should be excepted and which modified. The fact that the President is also
required to specify the date from which the notification is to take effect also tends to confirm this
view. Although the phrase ‘exceptions and modifications’ is used, there can be no doubt that
what is involved is really an amendment by executive order of the Constitution in relation to the
State of Jammu and Kashmir. Parliament could never have intended that such an extraordinary
power of amending the Constitution by executive order was to be enjoyed without any limitation
as to the number of times on which it could be exercised or as to the period within which it was
exercisable or as to the scope and extent of the modifications and exceptions that could be
made. It cannot be seriously maintained that for all time to come the application of our
Constitution to Jammu and Kashmir would derive its authority from Article 370, to the complete
exclusion of Parliament. The marginal note to Article 370 itself describes the nature of the
Article as ‘Temporary Provisions with respect to the State of Jammu and Kashmir’.... The
correct view appears to be that recourse is to be had to this clause only when the Constituent
Assembly of the State has been fully framed.”
N. Gopalaswamy’s exposition
N. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar sponsored Article 370 in India’s Constituent Assembly. His
exposition is authoritative, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly declared. He said on October
17, 1949: “Part of the State is still in the hands of rebels and enemies. We are entangled with
38
the United Nations in regard to Jammu and Kashmir and it is not possible to say now when we
shall be free from this entanglement. That can take place only when the Kashmir problem is
satisfactorily settled.
“Again, the Government of India have committed themselves to the people of Kashmir in certain
respects. They have committed themselves to the position that an opportunity would be given to
the people of the State to decide for themselves whether they will remain with the Republic or
wish to go out of it. We are also committed to ascertaining this will of the people by means of a
plebiscite provided that peaceful and normal conditions are restored and the impartiality of the
plebiscite could be guaranteed. We have also agreed that the will of the people, through the
instrument of a Constituent Assembly, will determine the Constitution of the State as well as the
sphere of Union jurisdiction over the State. ...
“In some of the clauses of this Article we have provided for the concurrence of the Government
of the State. The Government of the State feel that in view of the commitments already entered
into between the State and the Centre, they cannot be regarded as final authorities for the
giving of this concurrence, though they are prepared to give it in the interim periods but if they
do give this concurrence, this clause provides that concurrence should be placed before the
Constituent Assembly when it meets and the Constituent Assembly may take whatever
decisions it likes on those matters....
“The provision is made that when the Constituent Assembly of the State has met and taken its
decision both in the Constitution for the State and on the range of federal jurisdiction over the
State, the President may on the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly issue an order
that this Article 306A shall either cease to be operative, or shall be operative only subject to
such exceptions and modifications as may be specified by him. But before he issues any order
of that kind, the recommendation of the Constituent Assembly will be a condition precedent….
“When it has come to a decision on the different matters, it will make a recommendation to the
President who will either abrogate Article 306A or direct that it shall apply with such
modifications and exceptions as the Constituent Assembly may recommend.”
This, read with Rajendra Prasad’s Note, establishes that Kashmir’s Constituent Assembly had
to determine the final position and then ask the President to notify that Article 370 shall cease to
be operative. This explains its “temporary” character.
A Union Home Minister, a Prime Minister and a President, all more intelligent than Amit Shah,
referred pointedly to Article 1 of India’s Constitution establishing a “Union of States”, which
applies to Jammu and Kashmir by virtue of Article 370(1)(C). On March 1, 1993, S.B. Chavan
pointed out that Article 370 is “the only link” India has with Kashmir (The Statesman, March 2,
1993). As Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao said on June 12, 1996: “Abrogation of this Article
is just not possible, unless you want to part with the State.”
Though the BJP regime has, in breach of its solemn promises, not abrogated Article 370 by
enacting the Order and the Bill, it has parted with the Kashmiris’ confidence politically, with its
repercussions constitutionally.
Legislative skulduggery emerges in Clause 2(d) of the Order. It amends Article 370(3) to say
that the expression “Constituent Assembly of the State” referred to in Clause (3) of Article 370
“shall read ‘Legislative Assembly of the State’”. This is shocking.
39
A Constituent Assembly is a body wielding constituent powers as a sovereign body. It itself
establishes a Legislative Assembly with limited powers it defines. Jammu and Kashmir’s
Constituent Assembly ceased to exist on January 26, 1957. The Assembly it created in Jammu
and Kashmir’s Constitution survives still (Article 46). How can you endow it with constituent
powers to accord its concurrence to the Centre to destroy the State’s autonomy?
Thus, the entire Order is afflicted with defects and is a nullity. So, in consequence is the entire
Act which is based on it. The State of Jammu and Kashmir has had an identity, a persona, since
1846, domestically and internationally. It has been reduced to a colony by the Order and the
Act. Article 370 permitted the Centre to extend legislative powers and constitutional provisions
to Kashmir. It does not permit the Centre, even in its hollowed form, to amend the State’s
Constitution. The Act does just that. It has no power (Section 4) to make Jammu and Kashmir a
Union Territory. The State’s Constitution is not formally repealed; a new one is imposed by the
Act. It has detailed provisions. Uniquely among the princely states, one of the biggest among
them will have a Constitution in whose drafting it had no say. Amendments to the State’s
Constitution are made freely, explicitly, by some babu in the Central Secretariat.
Clause 134(1) says: “There shall be an Administrator appointed under Article 239 of the
Constitution of India in the territory of Jammu and Kashmir and shall be designated as
Lieutenant Governor of the said Union Territory”. What followed is a detailed Constitution for this
godforsaken State of Jammu and Kashmir.
The Centre can appoint some Kiran Bedi as Lt Governor. The Legislative Assembly will have no
powers in respect of “public order” and the “police”. Parliament will have unlimited powers on
Jammu and Kashmir and so will the Central government—unchecked by the State List or the
Concurrent List.
Kashmir’s Legislative Assembly is not emasculated. It is castrated. Financial Bills cannot be

moved in the Assembly without the prior approval of the Lt Governor (Section 36). It will have
less power than the provinces of British India under the Government of India Act, 1935.
Fear of revolt
Part V (Section 59 to 64) deals with delimitation of constituencies. An Act of 103 Sections,
containing a host of minutiae, could not have been drafted in the short period in which the
Centre and the Governor were pouring out one assurance after another. Justice S.R. Tendulkar,
a fearless judge of the Bombay High Court, once remarked: “The dark hours of the night are
used for perpetration of dark deeds, not for execution of lawful orders.” Morarji Desai, as Chief
Minister, put an end to orders requisitioning flats which were executed at night. The build-up of
armed forces, the ban on all forms of communication and on movement of people suggest that
the Centre feared a popular revolt on its repressive laws. If not immediately, at some time or the
other revolt they will.
Amit Shah said on August 5 that if the Union Territory model worked well, the government would
consider giving Jammu and Kashmir the status of a State again and “no constitutional
amendment would be required”. In colonial times, the British offered similar assurances to their
vanquished British subjects. Modi affirmed this in his radio broadcast on August 8. Not only has
the most elementary respect for political morality been thrown to the winds but so is concern for
legality. Amit Shah’s two so-called “statutory resolutions” of August 5 made one laugh. One
reads thus: “In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (3) of Article 370 read with Clause
(1) of Article 370 of the Constitution of India, the President, on the recommendation of the
40
Parliament, is pleased to declare that, as from 5th August 2019, all clauses of the said Article
370 shall cease to be operative except Clause (1) thereof which shall read as under, namely:
“All provisions of this Constitution, as amended from time to time, without any modifications or
exceptions, shall apply to the State of Jammu and Kashmir notwithstanding anything contrary
contained in Article 152 or Article 308 or any other Article of this Constitution or any other
provision of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir or any law, document, judgment,
ordinance, order, bye-law, rule, regulation, notification, custom or usage having the force of law
in the territory of India, or any other instrument, treaty or agreement as envisaged under Article
366 or otherwise.” Kashmir’s Administrative Services are abolished. The Indian Administrative
Services alone will govern.
Illegality in the other is even more scandalous: “That the President of India has referred the
Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, to this House under the proviso to Article 3 of
the Constitution of India for its views as this House is vested with the powers of the State
Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir, as per proclamation of the President of India dated 19th
December 2018. This House resolves to express the view to accept the Jammu and Kashmir
Reorganisation Bill, 2019.”
One illegality is mounted on another. Article 3, on the formation of new States and alteration of
States’ boundaries, was applied to Jammu and Kashmir with this revealing additional provision:
“Provided further that no Bill for increasing or diminishing the area of the State of Jammu and
Kashmir or altering the name or boundary of the State shall be introduced in Parliament without
the consent of the Legislature of the State.”
This was in addition to a safeguard promised to all the other States; namely, the President had
to refer the Bill to the affected State’s Legislature and the Bill could be introduced in Parliament
only after the President’s recommendation. In regard to Jammu and Kashmir, its consent was
necessary; for all others consultation was all that was required.
What the second resolution does is to discard even the requirement of consultation. “That the
President of India has referred the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, to this House
under the proviso to Article 3 of the Constitution of India for its views as this House is vested
with the powers of the State Legislature of Jammu and Kashmir, as per proclamation of the
Preisdent of India dated 19th December 2018. This House resolved to express the view to
accept the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019.”
This is a solemn fraud. The provisos to Article 3 are designed to respect the federal principle.
This resolution turns it on its head. It holds that since Parliament is vested with the powers of
Kashmir’s Legislature when it is under President’s Rule, it can give its consent to the President
as if it was the State Assembly itself: “This House [of Parliament] resolved to express the view
to accept the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill.”
To sum up: 1 (a) The Order under Article 370 is made with the concurrence of the Centre’s
appointee, the Governor, on the pretext that he is the State government. After 1951 even the
State government had lost its interim power to accord consent. It now belonged to the State’s
Constituent Assembly. (b) It makes the State’s Legislative Assembly the Constituent Assembly,
dissolved in 1957, with retrospective effect. 2. The Bill reduces an ancient State of Jammu and
Kashmir to the status of a Union Territory. Forget “the basic structure” of the Constitution.
41
3. The resolutions cap all this by substituting Parliament for the State Legislature and
empowering Parliament to give consent to itself.
So much for the law. These three measures together inflict on the people of Kashmir a
humiliation more degrading than the one inflicted on August 8, 1953, by the ouster of Sheikh
Abdullah from the office of Premier of Jammu and Kashmir. It deepens the divide between India
and Kashmir and between Kashmir and Jammu and Ladakh. As in the case of the crime of
1953, these measures have won popular jingoistic approval today but are certain to arouse
deep regrets later. “They now ring the bells, but they will soon wring their hands,” Sir Robert
Walpole famously said on the declaration of war with Spain in 1739.
Ignored, will of the people

One cardinal factor which successive Union governments since Nehru have deliberately ignored
is the people of Kashmir. They were opposed to the State’s accession to India from the very
beginning. The raiders from Pakistan forced Sheikh Saheb’s hands.
To Nehru’s knowledge he proposed to a British Minister, Patrick Gordon-Walker, accession to

both countries. The minutes of the meeting of the Defence Committee of the Cabinet on
October 25, 1947, before the accession tell the tale. Nehru, the accessionist, said: “The
question was whether temporary accession would help the people in general to side with India
or whether it would only act as an irritant.” Why? Because they were opposed to accession
then, as they are now. That is why on October 26 the hardliner Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, former
Dewan of Jammu and Kashmir, opined “immediate accession might create further opposition”.
On May 14, 1948, Indira Gandhi wrote to her father from Srinagar: “They say that only Sheikh
Saheb is confident of winning the plebiscite…” (Sonia Gandhi (ed.), Two Alone, Two Together,
Penguin, New Delhi, 2004, pages 512-18). Five years later, even Sheikh Abdullah had
abandoned hope as President Rajendra Prasad reported to Prime Minister Nehru on July 14,
1953.
In a letter to Nehru on May 1, 1956, Jayaprakash Narayan reported: “95 per cent of Kashmir
Muslims do not wish to be or remain with India.” Nehru had foreseen the danger that the Sangh
Parivar posed. At a rally in Calcutta on New Year’s Day 1952, Nehru warned: “If tomorrow
Sheikh Abdullah wanted Kashmir to join Pakistan, neither I nor all the forces of India would be
able to stop it because if the leader decides, it will happen. So what the Jana Sangh and the
Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh are doing is to play into the hands of Pakistan…. Just imagine
what would have happened in Kashmir if the Jana Sangh or any other communal party had
been at the helm of affairs. The people of Kashmir say that they are fed up with this
communalism. Why should they live in a country where the Jana Sangh and the Rashtriya
Swayamsewak Sangh are constantly beleaguering them? They will go elsewhere and they will
not stay with us” (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru, Volume 17, pages 77-78).
What is the way forward?

In 2019, secession is ruled out; not so an accord acceptable to all the three parties—India,
Pakistan and the people of Kashmir.
One fears that New Delhi will go further still. On July 20, 2019, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh
said in threatening words that “resolution of Kashmir issue is bound to happen and no power on
earth can stop it. If not through talks.” We know how. Plans for crackdown were in place. As
Tacitus, the historian of ancient Rome, said: “They created desolation and call it peace.” The
people of Kashmir will not submit to it. Rise they will.
42
Kashmir’s leadership is now on trial as never before. It must go beyond the Gupkar Declaration.
A small committee comprising Dr Farooq Abdullah, Omar Abdullah, Mehbooba Mufti and Shah
Faesal should prepare a Manifesto of the United Movement of Kashmir and take to the streets,
after renouncing all forms of violence, and assert their right to freedom of speech and freedom
to move in peaceful procession. It must put forth a constructive agenda of action.
No self-respecting Kashmiri can possibly agree to stand for elections to any Assembly of the
Union Territory. Gandhi asked Congressmen to boycott elections under the colonial
Government of India Act, 1919. They took to satyagraha. The time has come to abandon
shutdowns and the like. A united front alone can impress nationally and internationally. The
Simla Pact speaks of “a final settlement of Jammu and Kashmir”. To break up the State is to
wreck the pact.
Remember, Article 370 is no mere provision enacted by the Constituent Assembly of India. It
gives effect to a solemn compact negotiated for five long months between the Government of
India and the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. History will never forgive all those who have
wrecked it calculatedly since 1954.
The first street protests erupted on August 9. Wait for what follows.
COVER STORY
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX OF KASHMIR
Kashmir's Development statistics: Nailing a lie
T.K. RAJALAKSHMI
Government data on the HDI of Jammu and Kashmir do not support the Centre’s justification for
scrapping Article 370. The State is not very backward; rather, it has shown marked progress in
various development indices and ranks higher than several other States.
In calling for the dissolution of Article 370 and other measures relating to Jammu and Kashmir,
Union Home Minister Amit Shah, Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad and Bharatiya
Janata Party (BJP) national general secretary and Rajya Sabha member Bhupendra Yadav
were emphatic that one of the reasons why the Article had to be scrapped and the State
reorganised as two Union Territories was the need to address issues such as development and
militancy. Ravi Shankar Prasad said that the government was bringing an entire “system for
J&K’s development, employment and planning”. He said the government would give the benefits
of reservation, education and jobs to deserving children. In his speech delivered in Parliament,
Amit Shah said that because of Article 370, the people of the Kashmir Valley were living in
“qurbat” (Urdu for poverty), and did not get the benefits of reservation. There was injustice
against women and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, he said. Bhupendra
Yadav stated in the Upper House that the expectations of the people of Jammu and Kashmir
had gone up and it was their (the BJP-led National Democratic Alliance government’s)
responsibility to fulfil them. “Who will think of J&K’s development, of investment?” he asked
rhetorically. He added: “Who will make avagaman [traffic] possible in J&K?”
The fact is that available government data do not substantiate the claims of the ruling party.
43
According to the Economic Survey (2018-19), the Subnational Human Development Index
developed by the United Nations Development Programme for States in India in the period
between 1990 and 2017 showed a marked improvement for all the States in the Indian Union.
Kerala, Goa, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab were the top four in the list while Bihar, Uttar
Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh were in the bottom of the rankings. The State of undivided
Jammu and Kashmir, that is before it was reduced to two Union Territories under the Jammu
and Kashmir Reorganisation Bill, 2019, was neither in the top four nor among the worse off
States. The evidence of the State being backward or lagging in development as claimed by Amit
Shah simply does not exist if the basic indices of human development are considered and
compared with other States. The data expose the lie that the BJP-NDA government has used
for the abrogation of Article 370 and the nullification of the subsidiary provision of Article 35A.
In fact, not only has Jammu and Kashmir kept pace with the other States in improvement in
human development indices (HDI), some of the indicators pertaining to literacy rates, marriage
and fertility, child sex ratios and school attendance rates for girls over six years of age are
relatively better than those for Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Jharkhand. Some of Jammu and
Kashmir’s indices are even better than those found in the new States carved out of larger
States, such as Jharkhand from Bihar, Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh or Uttarakhand from
Uttar Pradesh, in the very first tenure of the NDA under Atal Bihari Vajpayee. A simple analysis
of government data from the National Family Health Surveys (NFHS), the Sample Registration
System (SRS) and Human Development Reports suggest that bifurcation does not necessarily
lead to equitable development. Territorial bifurcation does not imply that people have been
alleviated from poverty.
The HDI is an average of the subnational values of three dimensions, mainly education, health
and standard of living. Education is measured through “mean years of schooling of adults aged
25 plus” and “expected years of schooling of children aged six”; health is measured by “life
expectancy at birth”; and general standard of living by “gross national income per capita”.
According to these indices, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh remained at the bottom of the rank for the
last 27 years; north-eastern States (Nagaland, Meghalaya and Manipur) slipped down in their
ranking, while Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka registered a significant
upward climb in their HDI ranking.
Jammu and Kashmir ranked 11th

The HDI for Jammu and Kashmir showed an improvement from its 1990 status. It was ranked
11 among 25 States (highest scores ordered as rank 1), scoring better than Rajasthan,
Arunachal Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha, Tripura, Assam, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh,
Nagaland, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and even Gujarat, which was ranked 14. The NITI Aayog
developed a sustainable development goal (SDG) index classifying States and Union Territories
into four categories of “achiever, front runner, performer and aspirant” depending on their
scores. The SDG is based on a set of 17 global goals and 169 targets to be achieved by 2030,
aimed at addressing global challenges.
Kerala, Himachal Pradesh and Tamil Nadu occupied the first three positions and were front-
runner States while Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Assam were ranked lowest in the aspirant
category. Jammu and Kashmir was placed in the “performer” category of 23 States alongside
Gujarat, Goa, Maharashtra and Punjab. It was ranked 17 out of 23 States, ahead of Madhya
Pradesh, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland, Odisha and Jharkhand. It was also ranked
much better than Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and Assam, which were in the “aspirant” category of
States, ranked much below the performer and front-runner States.
44
One of the much-touted success stories of the NDA government has been its achievement in
getting bank accounts opened for women under programmes to expand their financial inclusion
and gender equality. However, even before the NDA assumed power, government data reveal
that significant progress was made in Jammu and Kashmir in the past one decade. States were
ranked on the basis of the extent of financial inclusion for women and household autonomy. The
NFHS-4 (2015-16), which collected data on women with bank accounts, found that at the all-
India level, the percentage of women with bank accounts increased from 15.5 per cent in 2005-
06 to 53 per cent in 2015-16. In Jammu and Kashmir, the percentage of women with bank
accounts increased from 22 per cent to 60 per cent, which, if anything, compares well with the
all-India average and appears to be better than the increases in Bihar, Haryana, Andhra
Pradesh, Telangana, Odisha, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and even Karnataka. In
fact, the figure for Jammu and Kashmir was at the same level as that of Gujarat, whose model
of development has been held as a beacon by the BJP, worthy of emulation by other States.
Similarly, the percentage of women using mobile phones at 54 per cent in 2015-16 is much
higher than comparable figures for Jharkhand (35 per cent), Uttar Pradesh (37 per cent) and
Chhattisgarh (31 per cent) and on a par with Uttarakhand (55 per cent).
Child Sex Ratio

According to the NFHS-4, the percentage of currently married women (in the age group of 15-59
years) participating in the overall household decision-making process increased across the
country. Jammu and Kashmir ranked better than most other States, including Gujarat, Haryana,
Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, Assam, Chhattisgarh and some of
the States in the north-eastern region. Its ranking was on a par with Tripura, Uttarakhand and
Telangana. Similarly, it did not rank badly in terms of health infrastructure, according to the
norms of the Indian Public Health Standards (IPHS). According to the Rural Health Statistics,
NFHS-4, Census SRS Bulletin on the 2014-16 maternal mortality ratio (MMR), Andhra Pradesh
and Tamil Nadu were among the States with high-performing primary health centres conforming
to the IPHS norms indicating a high level of antenatal care, while Haryana and Uttar Pradesh
(both ruled by the BJP at present) ranked poorly in meeting such norms, reflecting very high
MMR. A comparison of the health indicators between NFHS-4 (2015-16) and NFHS-3 (2005-06)
shows a marked improvement in Jammu and Kashmir in the decline in child and infant mortality
rates, or IMR, (including under 5 mortality rates), as well as in MMRs. Compared with Jammu
and Kashmir, where the IMR rates were 32 and 38 (for under five) for every 1,000 births, the
figure for Gujarat was 34 and 43 deaths per 1,000 live births respectively.
Moreover, the literacy rates in Jammu and Kashmir improved for both men and women, with a
10.5 per cent increase in the percentage of women who had studied beyond class 10. Similarly,
the school attendance for female children above six years of age went up from 57.5 per cent in
2005-06 to 65.5 per cent in 2015-16. School attendance rates for children improved
progressively, better than in Uttar Pradesh. While the adult sex ratio showed a decline from 976
to 972 in the 10-year period, the sex ratio at birth in Jammu and Kashmir improved substantially
(921 female births for every 1,000 male children in 2015-16 compared with 902 in 2005-06),
higher than the developed State of Gujarat (906, the figure being the same for both NFHS-3 and
NFHS-4). The fertility rate (number of children per woman) in Jammu and Kashmir went down to
2.0, lower than the recommended fertility rate of 2.4 children per woman. There was an almost
50 per cent decline in the percentage of women getting married before the age of 18 years.
Some 8.7 per cent of the women were reported as getting married under the age of 18
compared with the much developed State of Gujarat, where nearly 24.9 per cent of the women
continued to get married before the age of 18. The use of family planning methods was also
higher in Jammu and Kashmir (57 per cent) compared with Gujarat (46.9 per cent).
45
What do the other development indicators reveal about Jammu and Kashmir? The NFHS data
showed a marked increase in the percentage of households with electricity (from 93 per cent to
97 per cent), sanitation (24.5 per cent to 52.5 per cent), using clean fuel for cooking (38 to 58
per cent) and improved sources of drinking water (81 to 89 per cent). The rates of households
using improved methods of sanitation in the State were better than that of Chhattisgarh, Uttar
Pradesh and Jharkhand. If we look at data on rural road infrastructure, Jammu and Kashmir
was definitely not among the better off States, but certainly not the worse off either.
The Basic Road Statistics of India, compiled by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
gave poor ratings for all the north-eastern and hilly States for terrain-related reasons. Jammu
and Kashmir was ranked 22nd out of 28 States while Haryana, Jharkand and Uttarakhand were
ranked 19th, 20th and 21st respectively with marginal differences among all the four States. At
least seven States, including Goa, were worse off than Jammu and Kashmir in terms or rural
roads infrastructure.
The claim that Jammu and Kashmir has been the recipient of excessive Central funding has
been refuted by the noted economist Arun Kumar. In a recent article titled “Does development of
J&K lag behind that of other States of India?” he says that the State was not the biggest
recipient of funds from the Centre. In fact, what it received was slightly more than the per capita
average given to special category States but much less than what was given to special category
States such as Arunachal Pradesh and Sikkim where the per capita assistance was Rs.55,254
and Rs.51,128 respectively. Jammu and Kashmir received Rs.15,580 per person, slightly more
than the national average of Rs.14,080 a person.
The presence of Article 370 was not an impediment in the overall development of the State as
claimed by the government. All government data and surveys indicate a marked improvement in
almost all human development indices in the State. By the same argument, there has to be
some explanation as to why States in the general category have lagged behind in HDI with
some of them showing a decline in child sex ratios, an indicator of gender discrimination in
society. A close analysis of the government data suggests that the development of Jammu and
Kashmir and the welfare of its people were not reasons for the drastic measure to abrogate
Article 370 and reduce the State to Union Territories.
COVER STORY
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Amit Shah’s ‘history’
A.G. NOORANI
The Sangh Parivar’s pathological hatred for Nehru drives it to distort his record. If Kashmir is a
part of India, it is almost entirely because of Nehru.
The Sangh Parivar’s hatred of Jawaharlal Nehru is perfectly understandable. At the Partition of
India he stood by Gandhi and bravely fought back the rising surge of hate fostered by the
Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS). The RSS supremo M.S. Golwalkar’s plans to
exterminate Muslims were detected, as the Chief Secretary of Uttar Pradesh, Rajeshwar Dayal,
revealed in his memoirs, A Life in Our Time. Had he been arrested, as Dayal suggested,
Gandhi’s life would have been spared. The BJP and the RSS still feel very uneasy about
Gandhi. L.K. Advani got installed in the Hall of Parliament the portrait of one whom a judge of
the Supreme Court, Justice J. L. Kapur, held guilty of being member of a conspiracy to kill
46
Gandhi—V.D. Savarkar, author of the Parivar’s bible, Hindutva. Gandhi’s portrait there faces
that of his assassin.
This writer gauged the depth of the BJP’s hatred of Nehru in 1989 when he met Jaswant Singh,
a friend some of us thought was a liberal. He asked me for the word in Urdu for an idol breaker.
It is butshikan. He proceeded to tell me, for the first time, that we must demolish three “idols”—
planning and non-alignment. He did not mention the third. It was, obviously, secularism. In
Mumbai, he lamented before a gathering of businessman that in India, three Gs are treated with
scorn—Gai, Ganga and Gita. He had never stated this falsehood before.
Hatred of Nehru has been fuelled by falsehoods of history. But truth was never a Parivar virtue.
To cite an instance, Advani brazenly contradicts himself on the Jana Sangh’s transformation
into the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in one and the same book, My Country, My Life (2008).
On page 38 he writes that the Jana Sangh “later became the Bharatiya Janata Party” in 1980.
But on page 311 he writes: “…while affirming our proud link with both the Bharatiya Jana Sangh
and the Janata Party, connoted that we were now a new party with a new ‘identity’” (emphasis
added, throughout).
This is a brazen falsehood. The BJP soon developed an item in its credo, “Gandhian socialism”.
A.B. Vajpayee spoke the truth: “When did we leave the Jana Sangh?”
This earned it the wrath of the RSS, which wanted a revival of the Jana Sangh. Vajpayee and
Advani knew that the Sangh’s name was mud in the country. It needed the destructive slogan of
Ayodhya—which Rajiv Gandhi generously provided in 1986—for the BJP to rise from two seats
in the Lok Sabha in 1984 to 85 in 1989.
If these people could utter lies on a matter like this, one should not expect anything better on
Nehru’s record. If Kashmir is a part of India, it is almost entirely because of Nehru. He had the
foresight to forge an understanding with its tallest leader, Sheikh Mohammed Abdullah, in the
1930s. The BJP’s ancestor, the Jana Sangh, was interested only in Jammu. Its proxy the Praja
Parishad. As far back as May 1947, he wrote a detailed memorandum to Viceroy Mountbatten
staking a claim to Jammu and Kashmir ahead of the Partition of India.
On January 1, 1952, Nehru uttered a bitter truth which still rankles in the minds of the BJP. Its
behaviour in recent months has vindicated Nehru. He said: “You can see that there can be no
greater vindication than this of our secular policies, our Constitution, that we have drawn the
people of Kashmir towards us. But just imagine what would have happened in Kashmir if the
Jana Sangh or any other communal party had been at the helm of affairs. The people of
Kashmir say that they are fed up with this communalism. Why should they live in a country
where the Jana Sangh and the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh are constantly beleaguering
them? They will go elsewhere and they will not stay with us” (S. Gopal [Ed.], Selected Works of
Jawaharlal Nehru, Vol. 17, page 78).
BJP’s main charges

Patel was also privy to the pledge on plebiscite, as, indeed, was his Cabinet colleague Syama
Prasad Mookerjee. One does not expect the historical truth from a man like Narendra Modi and
his Man Friday, Amit Shah. What Amit Shah, now Union Home Minister, said in a speech in the
Lok Sabha on June 28, 2019, deserves note because it recites all the BJP’s main charges
against Nehru. No Cabinet Minister is able to open his mouth on any subject without praising
Modi to the skies. How long this political obscenity lasts remains to be seen.
47
1. Partition. Let us begin with this first charge. The entire Congress, Patel included, was privy to
it. The Congress of 2019 is not the Congress of 1947 or 1944. The formula which Gandhi
offered to Muhammad Ali Jinnah in 1944 envisaged the partition of India after a plebiscite of
“contiguous Muslim majority districts”.
But the greatest splitter was Mookerjee, the Jana Sangh’s founder: He was a collaborator with
the British, teaching the Governor how to defeat the Quit India movement. Jinnah could not
have spent three hours talking to him unless partition was a topic.
The Cabinet Mission’s Plan of May 16, 1946, was the last chance of preserving India’s unity. It
envisaged a united federal India. Jinnah accepted it. The Congress did not. Mookerjee hated it;
he wanted Partition. This is what he wrote to Patel on May 11, 1947: “I hope there is no
possibility of the Muslim League accepting the Cabinet Mission Scheme at the last stage. If Mr.
Jinnah is compelled to do so by the force of events, please do not allow the question of partition
of Bengal to be dished. Even if a loose Centre as contemplated under the Cabinet Mission
Scheme is established, we shall have no safety whatsoever in Bengal. We demand the creation
of two provinces out of the present boundaries of Bengal—Pakistan or no Pakistan” (Durga Das
[Ed.], Sardar Patel’s Correspondence, Vol. 4, page 40).
Thus, even if there was no partition of India, Bengal must be partitioned on religious lines. Its
impact on the nature of the federation and on the affected provinces, East Bengal, Sind, Punjab,
North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Balochistan can well be imagined.
There always existed a section of Hindu politicians that preferred Partition. Lala Lajpat Rai said
as much in 1924. Why did Mookerjee join a Cabinet in 1947 whose leaders had accepted the
partition of India? He did so with the same ease with which he had joined Fazlul Haq’s Cabinet
in Bengal. He wanted Jammu and Kashmir also to be partitioned on communal basis. He was a
partitionist to the core. Yet, Amit Shah said: “Who has done the Partition? We did not do that.
Who gave consent for Partition? Today also we tell that the nation should not be divided based
on religion. It was a historical mistake. Its height is like the Himalaya and depth is like the ocean.
But we did not do that mistake. Mistake was done by you, your party has done and you can’t run
from that history” (the reader will please pardon any mistakes in translation from the Hindi text).
2. The Ceasefire in Kashmir. Amit Shah said: “Jawaharlal Nehru was Prime Minister who called
for ceasefire. That part is now in Pakistan. You are teaching us history, making allegations, and
doing press conference, we are not taking this and that into confidence. Without taking into
confidence the Home Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the Nation, Jawaharlal Nehru took
the decision; if taken into confidence, today Pakistan-occupied Kashmir would have been in
India’s possession.”
This is utterly false. Volume 1 of Patel’s correspondence belies the charge that Patel was not
taken into confidence. In that event he was man enough to resign from the Cabinet.
The record was set out in full by a professional military historian, S.N. Prasad, based on
interviews and official records. He was Director, Historical Section of the Ministry of Defence.
History of Operations in Jammu & Kashmir (1947-48) was published in 1987 by the History
section of the Defence Ministry. Its analysis is set out here in extenso.
“The enemy had in December 1948 two infantry divisions of the regular Pakistan Army, and one
infantry division of the so-called ‘Azad Kashmir Army’ fighting in the theatre. These comprised
fourteen infantry brigades; or 23 infantry battalions of the Pakistan Army and 40 infantry
48
battalions of ‘Azad Kashmir’, besides 19,000 Scouts and irregulars. Against this, the Indian
Army had in J&K only two infantry divisions, comprising twelve infantry brigades; a total of some
50 infantry battalions of the regular army and the Indian States Forces, plus 12 battalions of the
J&K Militia (some with only two companies) and 2 battalions of the East Punjab Militia.
“Even if the above statement of comparative strength is taken as approximately correct, it is

clear that Indian forces were definitely outnumbered by the enemy in J&K, and only the superior
valour and skill, and perhaps firepower, together with the invaluable help from the tiny Air Force,
enabled the Indian Army to maintain its superiority on the battlefields. There can be no doubt,
however, that any major offensive required more Indian troops in J&K….
“The position regarding further Indian reinforcements for J&K was none too comfortable. Infantry
was the basic requirement in the mountainous terrain, and infantry units of the Indian Army were
fairly fully occupied elsewhere. About the end of 1948, there were 127 infantry battalions of the
Indian Army, including Parachute and Gorkha battalions and State Forces units serving with the
Indian Army, but excluding garrison battalions and companies. Of these 127, some fifty
battalions were already in J&K. Twenty-nine battalions were in East Punjab, guarding the vital
sector of the Indo-Pakistan frontier. Nineteen battalions were stationed in the Hyderabad area,
where the Razakars still posed a potential threat to law and order and the Military Governor
required strong forces at hand to complete his task of pacifying the area. There were thus only
twenty-nine battalions, available for internal security, to guard the thousands of kilometres of
frontier, and to act as the general reserve.
“By scraping the barrel, more forces could certainly be despatched to J&K. But this would have
accentuated the supply problem, as the entire force in J&K had to be maintained by a single rail-
head, and a single road. This road was long and weak, and had numerous narrow bridges with
which few liberties could be taken.
“While logistics put a definite limit to the size of the forces that India could maintain in J&K,
Pakistan suffered from no such limitation. There were numerous roads from Pakistan bases to
the J&K border, and from there the actual frontline was generally accessible by short tracks or
roads. So, there was no maintenance problem for whatever reinforcements Pakistan could send
to her forces in J&K to block any Indian advance.
“Indian forces, therefore, had to operate in J&K under a definite and severe handicap. The
enemy could not be beaten decisively by local action within the boundaries of J&K. For decisive
victory, it was necessary to bring Pakistan to battle on the broad plains of the Punjab itself; the
battle of J&K, in the last analysis, had to be fought and won at Lahore and Sialkot, as events
brought home in 1965. So, if the whole of J&K had to be liberated from the enemy, a general
war against Pakistan was necessary. There can be hardly any doubt that Pakistan could be
decisively defeated in a general war in 1948-49, although both the Indian and the Pakistan
armies were in the throes of Partition and reorganisation then” (pages 373-375).
India secured the Valley, Jammu and Ladakh. In 1948-49, it could not afford “a general war”.
U.N. Security Council

3. Reference to the United Nations Security Council. Given the military situation, a ceasefire
was imperative. Had India not acted, Pakistan would have gone there first citing India as a
respondent. The issue first came up on December 8, 1947, at Lahore, when Mountbatten and
Nehru went there to meet Liaquat Ali Khan. They discussed a draft agreement; Liaquat Ali Khan
agreed to a reference to the U.N. Mountbatten began to persuade Nehru to agree to this.
49
Discussions were resumed in New Delhi on December 21 and 22, 1947. For long, Nehru was
“bitterly opposed” to a reference to the U.N. He agreed to it by December 22. The draft was
approved by Gandhi, who deleted the option of independence (S. Gopal, Nehru, Vol. 2, page
22).
In view of later criticism, it is important to note how and why things went wrong. “I [Mountbatten]
informed him [Nehru] of my view that one of the main reasons why India’s case had gone so
badly at the Security Council was because the Indian delegation was completely outclassed by
the Pakistan delegation. Not only was Mr Gopalaswami Ayyangar completely the wrong type to
send, not being a good social mixer and having a harsh, inaudible voice, there was nobody to
compare with Mr. Mohammed Ali for doing background work behind the scenes. I told Pandit
Nehru that my choice of the delegation would have been Sir C.P. Ramaswami Aiyar as leader,
with Mr H.M. Patel and possibly General Bucher. I suggested that if it was intended to continue
discussions at Lake Success after an adjournment, this team, rather than the present one,
should be sent. Pandit Nehru said that he would think this suggestion over.”
Another delegate India sent was the pompous, unsociable M.C. Setalvad. This charge does not
figure in Amit Shah’s speech but it does in the BJP’s discourse.
4. Article 370 represents a compact between the State of Jammu aand Kashmir and the Union.
It was negotiated for five months from May 15, 1949 to October 16, 1949. The Union’s team
comprised Nehru and Patel; the Kashmiris’ team included Sheikh Abdullah and Mirza Afzal Beg.
It was adopted by the Constituent Assembly of India on October 17. Nehru was away in the U.S.
Patel led the Union’s team and altered the text along with M. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, as
Patel’s letters dated October 16 and November 3, 1949, reveal.
Ignorant as ever, Amit Shah said: “This treaty [Instrument of Accession] was not only made with
Jammu-Kashmir, it was made with the 630 princely states of the nation. The treaty was made
with 630 princely states, and 370 was not there. Sri Jawaharlal Nehru has negotiated at one
place, and there is 370.”
Instruments of Accession
The Instruments of Accession, signed by all in 1947, adopted the bare federal structure under
the Government of India Act, 1935. It was adapted by India as its provisional Constitution under
the India Independence Act, 1947. All the princely states accepted Part B of India’s new
Constitution; Kashmir alone adopted by another Instrument the Constitution with its Article 370,
which it had negotiated with the Centre for five months, only to be deceived five years later.
Marginal notes are referred to if the text is ambiguous in order to explain it. No marginal note
can ever control the text itself. The marginal note “temporary provisions” does not set any term
for Article 370. That is done by Clause (3), which confers that decision on Kashmir’s Constituent
Assembly alone. With its formal dissolution on January 27, 1957, Article 370 ceased to be
available to the Centre, still less open to abrogation by some upstarts in New Delhi.
But why “temporary”? The sponsor of Article 370 in India’s Constituent Assembly, M.
Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, explained why on October 17, 1949: “Kashmir’s conditions are, as I
have said, special and require special treatment. I shall briefly indicate what the special
conditions are. In the first place, there has been a war going on within the limits of Jammu and
Kashmir State.
50
“There was a ceasefire agreed to at the beginning of this year and that ceasefire is still on. But
the conditions in the State are still unusual and abnormal. They have not settled down. It is,
therefore, necessary that the administration of the State should be geared to these unusual
conditions until normal life is restored as in the case of the other States. Part of the State is still
in the hands of rebels and enemies.
“We are entangled with the United Nations in regard to Jammu and Kashmir and it is not
possible to say now when we shall be free from this entanglement. That can take place only
when the Kashmir problem is satisfactorily settled.
“Again, the Government of India have committed themselves to the people of Kashmir in certain
respects. They have committed themselves to the position that an opportunity would be given to
the people of the State to decide for themselves whether they will remain with the Republic or
wish to go out of it. We are also committed to ascertaining this will of the people by means of a
plebiscite provided that peaceful and normal conditions are restored and the impartiality of the
plebiscite could be guaranteed. We have also agreed that the will of the people, through the
instrument of a Constituent Assembly, will determine the constitution of the State as well as the
sphere of Union jurisdiction over the State.
“At present, the legislature, which was known as the Praja Sabha, in the State is dead. Neither,
that legislature nor a Constituent Assembly, can be convoked or can function until complete
peace comes to prevail in that State. We have, therefore, to deal with the Government of the
State which, as represented in its Council of Ministers, reflects the opinion of the largest political
party in the State. Till a Constituent Assembly comes into being, only an interim arrangement is
possible and not an arrangement which could at once be brought into line with the arrangement
that exists in the case of the other States.
“Now, if you remember the viewpoints that I have mentioned, it is an inevitable conclusion that,
at the present moment, we could establish only an interim system. Article 306A is an attempt to
establish only an interim system. Article 306A is an attempt to establish such a system.”
It will remain “interim” or “temporary” till a plebiscite is held or “when the Kashmir problem is
satisfactorily settled”.
5. Syama Prasad Mookerjee’s death in Kashmir on June 23, 1953. The Jana Sangh stooped to
present forged documents and perjured oral evidence by Nanaji Deshmukh before Justice Y.V.
Chandrachud on the death of Deen Dayal Upadhyaya in 1968. It stoops to the same level on
Mookerjee’s death. Significantly, his acolyte Balraj Madhok made no such charge against Nehru
or Abdullah in his book Portrait of a Martyr (pages 196-97). He was treated by Dr Ali
Mohammed, a physician of high repute. Madhok’s charge is not murder but “criminal negligence
in the treatment” (page 242).
6. Amit Shah simply went haywire: “Today, if Bengal is in India, it was due to the contribution of
Syama Prasadji; otherwise, Bengal would not have been part of India.” Ever heard this gem
before? The 1996 elections in Jammu and Kashmir were made possible with the help of the
surrendered militants.
He mentions Murli Manohar Joshi’s adventure to Lal Chowk, Srinagar, omits Advani’s presence,
and adds that of “Narendra Modiji putting their lives in danger”despite full security. Finally, Amit
Shah concedes that “there is a gulf between the people of Jammu and Kashmir and India. But
51
why confidence was not built, because no efforts were made to build the confidence from the
beginning itself”.
The arrest of Sheikh Abdullah on August 8, 1953, and his detention for 11 years inflicted a scar
that still refuses to heal. The BJP regime’s crackdown on August 5, 2019, will ensure a far more
lasting damage.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/the-nation/article29075244.ece
THE NATION
Book on Karunanidhi in Tamil from Frontline
At the book launch on August 6: N. Ram, Chairman, THG Publishing Private Ltd; K. Veeramani,
president, Dravidar Kazhagam; R.S. Bharathi, DMK organising secretary and Rajya Sabha
member; and R. Vijaya Sankar, Editor, Frontline. Photo: R. Ragu
Frontline launched its maiden Tamil book, “Oru Manidhan, Oru Iyakkam” (A Man, A Movement),
on the life and work of former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
(DMK) president M. Karunanidhi (1924-2018), at a function in Chennai on August 6, the eve of
his first death anniversary.
When the magazine brought out a commemorative issue as a tribute to Karunanidhi after his
demise last year, with the title “A man and a movement”(August 31, 2018), it became a huge hit
with readers for its dispassionate portrayal of a leader who had dominated the State’s political
scene for about six decades.
The issue triggered requests from the general public for the same to be published in Tamil. A
demand for a Tamil book from the stables of an English magazine such as Frontline seemed
quite strange and, initially, was not taken seriously since the magazine had no previous
experience in Tamil publication.
But as the demand for a Tamil version grew stronger, the assignment was taken up. Besides
translations of all the articles in the commemorative Frontline issue, Frontline commissioned
new articles from writers in Tamil and leaders for the book. The writers, translators,
proofreaders and designers worked studiously to ensure that the content was authentic and
engaging.
It took almost 12 months of exhausting work to complete the Tamil book. Dravidar Kazhagam
president K. Veeramani launched it, and the first copy was received by DMK organising
secretary and Rajya Sabha member R.S. Bharathi at the launch function.
In his message greeting the event, DMK president M.K. Stalin pointed out that at a time when
the country’s secular fabric was under strain and democratic principles were facing a serious
threat, the book was “timely and fitting”. This book, from The Hindu Group of Publications, he
said, would convey to future generations how a man could become a movement. “It brings out
Kalaignar’s achievements, work and his multifaceted personality,” his message noted.
Veeramani said the performance of the Dravidian leader both as an administrator and as a
politician was presented objectively in the book, which he said was a historical work. He said
that it was a record of what Karunanidhi had done and how it impacted a society, socially,
economically and culturally. The book, he said, was about a leader who stood for social justice
52
and State autonomy. “This is not just a book but a weapon in the hands of people who fight for
the Dravidian movement’s ideals such as social justice, linguistic rights and State autonomy,” he
said.
N. Ram, Chairman, THG Publishing Private Ltd, presiding over the launch function, recalled his
long association with the late leader. One of the admirable attributes of Karunanidhi, he said,
was that he was accessible to everyone. “His rhetorical skills marked by eloquence and a sense
of history were his major assets.” He had initiated wholesome development plan for the State,
creating infrastructure for industrial, economic and social development. Karunanidhi, he said,
allowed a flourishing political culture to emerge and that made him an effective leader both at
the State and national levels.
R. Vijaya Sankar, Editor, Frontline, said the book allowed the reader to get a true-life sense of a
tall leader who headed the DMK for more than half a century and who spent about eight
decades in public life as an extraordinary writer, poet, playwright and politician. The book, he
said, featured an exclusive tribute by M.K. Stalin to his father and the article that Karunanidhi
himself wrote for Frontline’s special issue celebrating Indian cinema’s centenary, which came
out in October 2013. R.K. Radhakrishnan, Associate Editor, Frontline, proposed a vote of
thanks at the function.
The 192-page book, priced at Rs.200, is available online at
https://publications.the hindugroup.com/bookstore/ It is also available at The Hindu Lounge,

Express Avenue, Chennai.
By Ilangovan Rajasekaran
THE NATION
INX MEDIA CASE
Arrest of P. Chidambaram: Pending questions
V. VENKATESAN
Print edition : September 13, 2019
The Central Bureau of Investigation has arrested and secured the police custody of former
Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram for five days in the INX Media case, but it has a lot to
answer on its own accountability.
“Be you ever so high, the law is above you,” said Lord Denning. This oft-repeated aphorism
underlining the accountability of those wielding power and influence—whether in or out of
office—was vindicated with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arresting and securing the
custody of former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram on August 21.
Chidambaram’s arrest became possible after the Delhi High Court, on August 20, dismissed his
application for anticipatory bail and lifted an interim protection from arrest granted to him earlier
in a corruption case. On August 22, the CBI Special Court in Delhi granted the CBI custody of
Chidambaram for interrogation until August 26, dismissing his plea that custodial interrogation
was not required for investigation in the case. On August 23, the Supreme Court granted
Chidambaram interim protection from arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (E.D.) until August
26.
53
The case pertains to a foreign direct investment (FDI) approval granted by Chidambaram in
2007 when he was the Union Finance Minister in the United Progressive Alliance government
under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Chidambaram had granted his approval to a proposal
submitted by a six-member panel of the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) in favour of
the FDI in a TV channel proposed to be started by INX Media Private Limited. The company had
sought FDI up to 46.216 per cent of the issued equity capital.
The FIPB unit in the Department of Economic Affairs of the Ministry of Finance examined the
proposal, found it to be in order and submitted the case to Chidambaram. The allegation is that
INX Media received FDI of up to Rs.305 crore, in excess of the amount approved by the FIPB. It
is alleged that Chidambaram’s son, Karti Chidambaram, exerted influence on the FIPB by virtue
of his relationship with the Finance Minister and thereby prevented punitive action against the
INX Group. Thus, it is alleged, an undue pecuniary advantage to INX Media was given and, as a
consideration thereof, a substantial amount of money was paid to the companies in which Karti
Chidambaram had sustainable interest directly or indirectly.
The FIPB, chaired by the Secretary, Economic Affairs, consisted of six Secretaries to the
Government of India. It had unanimously recommended the proposal and placed it before the
Finance Minister for his approval, along with several other proposals. In May 2007, the Finance
Minister granted his approval in the normal course of official business.
The CBI recorded the first information report (FIR) on May 15, 2017, against four companies,
Karti Chidambaram and officers of the Ministry of Finance under Section 120B read with Section
420 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act (PCA). The FIR was curiously silent on Chidambaram’s role as the
Finance Minister and did not name him as one of the accused.
The allegation was that INX Media had made downstream investment without obtaining prior
approval of the FIPB and, in order to regularise that investment, had approached Karti
Chidambaram and made a payment of Rs.10 lakh to a company allegedly associated with Karti.
Approver in the case

The CBI’s allegation got buttressed when the co-founder of INX Media, Indrani Mukerjea,
currently lodged in Byculla jail, Mumbai, in her daughter Sheena Bora’s murder case, turned
approver in the prosecution case against the Chidambarams. The CBI Special Judge, Arun
Bhardwaj, pardoned her in the INX case in July following her submission that she had
voluntarily agreed to become an approver in the case. The CBI told the court that it had
accessed some conversations to which Indrani Mukerjea was privy, and therefore, her turning
approver would help solve the case. Indrani Mukerjea, according to reports, also said that she
had met Karti Chidambaram on the advice of the Finance Minister in order to fix the deal and
ease possible objections from the Income Tax Department.
Further allegations are that Indrani Mukerjea and her husband, Peter Mukerjea, paid $5 million
and $4,50,000 to P. Chidambaram in 2007-08 and 2008-09 for settling the issues relating to the
violation of the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) by their companies.
Karti Chidambaram’s company claimed that it had received the said amount towards
“consultancy work” and denied that Karti was ever a shareholder or director of INX Media.
Money laundering involves the offence of concealing, possessing, acquiring or using proceeds
of crime and projecting or claiming them as untainted property. Section 3 of the Prevention of
54
Money Laundering Act (PMLA) mandates that the act of money laundering should be
intentional; therefore, it has to be traced to the point of time when the actual transaction took
place. Offences punishable under Section 120B of the IPC and Section 13 of the PCA were
inserted in the schedule of the PMLA with effect from June 1, 2009, that is, after the period in
which the alleged offences had been committed. It is a settled principle of law that the
provisions of law cannot be applied retrospectively.
In the case of Karti Chidambaram, the Delhi High Court has stayed his arrest in proceedings
under the PMLA.
In the case of P. Chidambaram, Attorney General K.K. Venugopal told the Delhi High Court that
the material on record indicated that Chidambaram was personally involved in the act of money
laundering, that he was also found to be a beneficiary of the proceeds of the crime and that in
order to unearth the money trail, his custodial interrogation was essential.
Arguments in court
The Attorney General highlighted Chidambaram’s non-cooperation in the investigation and said
that in the absence of his custodial interrogation, investigation in the case could not be taken to
its logical conclusion in view of the gravity of the offence. “Chidambaram is giving evasive
replies and is not cooperating in the investigation while he is under the protective umbrella of
interim orders,” he told the High Court. Interrogation conducted under the protection order of the
court was a mere ritual, the High Court was told.
In his last order delivered on August 20, prelude to his retirement, the Delhi High Court judge,
Justice Sunil Gaur, held that Chidambaram could not claim parity with his co-accused, Karti, as
the latter had committed the offence at the behest of his father, and therefore, the advantage of
the stay on Karti Chidambaram’s arrest could not be extended to him.
The Delhi High Court found that about Rs.3 crore had come into the account of M/s Advantage
Strategic Consulting Pvt Ltd (ASCPL) and other concerns during Chidambaram’s tenure as
Finance Minister. “ASCPL and other concerns are beneficially controlled and managed by Karti
Chidambaram,” the High Court noted.
The High Court also noted that the investigation conducted had revealed that ASCPL and other
concerns were not conducting any genuine and bona fide business activities.
The High Court justified the denial of anticipatory bail to Chidambaram on the grounds that he
was a high-profile economic offender. It observed: “Time has come to recommend to Parliament
to suitably amend the law to restrict the provisions of pre-arrest bail and make it inapplicable to
economic offenders of high-profile cases. It is [the] need of the hour. The law must come down
upon economic offenders with a heavy hand. When economic offenders are on pre-arrest bail,
then the investigation conducted is at a superficial level. This not only weakens mega scam
cases, but it actually stiffs the prosecution. This court cannot permit the prosecution in this
sensitive case to end up in smoke like it has happened in some other high-profile cases.”
The High Court added:

“The facts of [the] instant case prima facie reveal that petitioner [P. Chidambaram] is the
kingpin, that is, the key conspirator in this case. Law-enforcing agencies cannot be made
ineffective by putting legal obstacles of offences in question being scheduled or not scheduled,
as these legal pleas are sub-judice before Supreme Court and cannot persuade the High Court
to grant pre-arrest bail, as the gravity of offence committed by Chidambaram is quite evident
55
from case diaries produced by the investigating agencies. The gravity of offence committed by
Chidambaram demands denial of pre-arrest bail to him.
“Economic offences constitute a class part [sic] and need to be visited with a different approach
in matters of bail. Taking note of huge magnitude of conspiracy angle qua petitioner, it would be
premature to jump to a conclusion that provisions of PMLA would not apply to the instant case,
as it cannot be said that the amount involved is below Rs.30 lakh. Rather, money laundering
involved in this INX Media scam and Aircel Maxis deal scandal is of Rs.3,500 crore.”
The Delhi High Court’s reasoning may have had to do with the fact that until 2012, when the
PMLA was amended, the Act applied to crimes, with the exception of serious ones like
terrorism, only when the money involved was Rs.30 lakh or above. The 2012 amendment could
not be retrospectively applied to the Chidambarams.
The High Court also disagreed with Chidambaram’s counsel that not naming him in the FIR was
in his favour and would militate against his custodial interrogation. The High Court held that it
was inconsequential as he had been projected to be the main accused on whose dictates the
offence of this magnitude could be committed. “Simply because he is a sitting Member of
Parliament would not justify grant of pre-arrest bail to him in this sensitive case,” the High Court
reasoned.
“Offenders must be exposed, no matter what their status is. He is a member of [the] legal
fraternity too. But this by itself does not and cannot justify concession of pre-arrest bail to him,”
the High Court added.
The High Court was emphatic that discretion to grant or deny pre-arrest bail could not be
exercised dehors the gravity of offence. “It would be preposterous to say that prosecution of
petitioner is baseless, politically motivated and act of vendetta, as on the basis of material
collected so far, it can be safely said that prima facie case is made out against petitioner,
thereby, justifying denial of pre-arrest bail to him. The magnitude of this case dissuades this
court to grant pre-arrest bail to petitioner,” the High Court concluded. The High Court had
granted P. Chidambaram interim protection from arrest on May 31, 2018, pending a decision on
his plea for anticipatory bail.
Some of the observations of the High Court, however, made observers wonder whether the
judge, instead of confining himself to the merits of the anticipatory bail plea, was tempted to
dwell on the merits of substantive allegations against P. Chidambaram.
The High Court observed thus: “This is a classic case of money laundering. The twin factors
which have weighed to deny pre-arrest bail to him are gravity of offence and evasive replies
given by him to the questions put to him while he was under protective cover extended to him by
this court. The parameters governing pre-arrest bail and regular bail are altogether different.
Gravity of the offence amply justifies denial of pre-arrest bail.”
The CBI Special Judge, Ajay Kumar Kuhar, also reached similar conclusions while granting the
CBI custody of Chidambaram until August 26.
However, both the High Court and the CBI Special Judge did not make clear how P.
Chidambaram could take advantage of the interim protection granted to him earlier by being
“evasive” in the investigation. As an accused, Chidambaram has a constitutional right to silence
even during the custodial interrogation under Article 20(3).
56
Chidambaram’s counsel argued that the grounds often cited for denial of bail, namely, that the
accused would run away or that he would tamper with evidence were not valid in his case. As
none of the offences alleged was punishable with more than seven years’ imprisonment, they
were not “serious” or “grave” as claimed, they pointed out.
According to the CBI, however, the allegations of payment made to the accused in 2007-08 and
2008-09 are specific and categorical. “The trail of this money, if so paid, is to be ascertained. No
doubt, it is a case to a large extent based on documentary evidence, but those documents need
to be traced and their value and their worth for the purpose of the investigation in this case is to
be ascertained,” the CBI told the Special Judge on August 22.
Undue haste?
Whatever the merits of the allegations against Chidambaram, the CBI, by making his arrest on
August 21 a spectacle, shown live on television, with its officers climbing the walls of
Chidambaram’s Delhi residence to find him, when he had appeared at a press conference in the
Congress office just a little while earlier, has only made credible the suspicions that its intentions
in arresting him were political. That the CBI did not wait for the hearing of Chidambaram’s
appeal in the Supreme Court, scheduled for August 23, also made it appear that there was
undue haste on its part.
The unseemly haste also underlined the vendetta politics of the BJP government at the Centre.
In 2010, when Chidambaram was Home Minister, the CBI had arrested Bharatiya Janata Party
leader and current Home Minister Amit Shah in connection with the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake
encounter case. Observers were quick to draw similarities between these two arrests. Amit
Shah, who was then charged with murder besides kidnapping, was granted bail by the Gujarat
High Court on October 29, 2010, and was barred from entering Gujarat for over two years. He
was acquitted of all charges in December 2014 by the CBI Special Court.
The Supreme Court, too, did not cover itself with glory during this episode. Its refusal to grant
urgent listing and hearing of Chidambaram’s appeal against the Delhi High Court’s denial of bail
to him on August 20-21, before the CBI could arrest him, disappointed many senior advocates.
Citing “defects” in his petition, the Supreme Court delayed its listing well after his arrest, thus
making it infructuous. The senior advocates, in their statement, concluded that both rule of law
and democracy were in peril because of the Supreme Court’s denial of anticipatory bail to P.
Chidambaram.
It is no one’s case that the serious allegations against Chidambaram should not be investigated
and taken to their logical conclusion if he is found guilty by a competent court. But the denial of
timely legal remedies to him as an accused makes one wonder whether the CBI is at all keen to
ensure justice in the case. One may be right in inferring that by seeking his arrest and custody
in the manner that it did, the CBI is perhaps fulfilling the goals of its political masters, which
appear to be the harassment of political rivals and the management of headlines in order to
divert people’s attention from the real issues facing the country.
THE NATION
KERALA FLOODS
57
Monsoon in Kerala: When hills tumbled
R. KRISHNAKUMAR
Intense rain and man-made causes such as excessive quarrying and construction activity in
ecologically sensitive areas in the Western Ghats wreak havoc in Kerala, a State that has barely
recovered from the floods of last year.
On August 8, at around 5.30 in the evening, the frightening nature of the calamity that had
gripped Kerala once again within a year became clear. At Puthumala in Wayanad district, a
huge stretch of a hill, over-saturated with rain, broke free and rumbled down, burying an entire
village along its path and a picturesque valley below.
Sixty-three houses on the hillside, buildings, a temple, a mosque, a post office, ,a dispensary at
the base and 17 people were swept away or buried within minutes as the debris flow gained
mass and girth on its way down.
Tonnes of mud, rock, uprooted trees and chunks of buildings were eventually spread over a
large area and along a two-kilometre stretch downhill. Just an island of untouched greenery
remained in the middle of the two mud-red channels that marked one of the two big landslides
which were among the tens of others to hit Kerala this season.
According to local people, quite a few inhabitants of the village had not heeded last-minute
warnings to evacuate to safer areas. But the majority, over 300 people at least, had moved to
other places the previous evening or on the morning of that fateful day when people began to
notice cracks on the ground and the initial signs of landslips.
Several localities near Puthumala experienced similar events on a varying scale in the intense
rain in the region from August 7.
Darkness, heavy rain and wind hampered rescue efforts on several occasions during the crucial
initial hours. The debris flowed like a river in the heavy rain and rescue workers could not move
around because of the mud on the hillside.
Small streams that once flowed down the hill had reportedly dried out and construction and
agricultural activities had made the hillside extremely fragile. The landslide that started near the
crest of the hill soon became a torrent of muddy soil, rocks and boulders. On the other side of
the hill, as rain continued unabated, several people were cut off from the rest of the world.
It was only 12 hours later, as the first bout of rain began to abate, that the outside world knew
about a similar tragedy at Kavalappara, near Bhoodanam about 30 km from the flooded town of
Nilambur, in the neighbouring Malappuram district. At about 8 p.m. on August 8, a hillside
consisting of over 10 acres (one acre is 0.4 hectare) of rain-soaked mud and silt, huge boulders,
trees and branches and buildings came down in a similar fashion there, burying yet another
community. According to initial reports, over 20 families were buried under 50 feet of debris. In
the first 12 days, only 46 bodies were recovered; 13 people were still missing. Searching with
ground-penetrating radars had turned out to be futile because of the mud and stones strewn all
over. Some bodies were recovered 6 to 7 km away several days later in a decomposed state,
raising conflicting claims of identity from relatives. Some could be positively identified only after
DNA tests.
58
An entire area remained inaccessible for days, and would have remained so but for
earthmovers and daring rescue workers, including those from the police, the fire force, the
National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and the Army, who had a difficult task searching for
bodies in the heavy rain underneath tonnes of mud and debris, as distraught relatives and
neighbours continued their hopeless watch in silence.
A tribal colony with nearly 200 inhabitants, who were reluctant to move out, and some
government employees were stranded inside a forest area nearby. Access from Nilambur town
was cut off. And an entire region went without electricity or mobile connectivity in the initial days.
Similar landslides occurred with varying intensity throughout the ecologically fragile regions of
the Western Ghats districts of Kerala in the hours that followed as the State struggled to come
to terms with an evolving pattern of short but highly intense bouts of rain between long, deficient
spells, causing floods and landslides on a large scale.
Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said 80 small and large landslides were reported in eight districts
of Kerala in the two days from August 8 alone, and many were in unexpected areas.
Atmospheric scientists say Kerala received 477 millimetres of rain (as against the normal of 78
mm) between August 7 and 11, an excess of 613 per cent during the period. It was more than
the rainfall in Kerala during the floods in August 2018.
Until August 7, Kerala was among the rain-deficit States in India. But in the next six days, all
districts except the southern-most districts of Thiruvananthapuram and Kollam were hit by very
heavy rain and floods.
The defining images of the floods of 2018 were mostly inundated rivers, brimming dams,
submerged cities and towns and villages, the destruction, loss of lives and the misery that came
as a result, and the rescue efforts, especially by the fisherfolk, in boats in the heart of cities such
as Kochi and Aluva, and the submerged rural settings of Kuttanad. This year, however, it was
the mayhem wrought by landslides in the hills that defined the tragedy that followed the rains.
Groups of fishermen, who gathered at fire stations in and around Kochi and in many other
places which were under water in 2018, returned home after four days, without the need for any
major rescue effort.
Storage levels in dams

Significantly, too, in almost all the major dams in the State except a few in Wayanad and
elsewhere in north Kerala, storage levels were only 30 to 40 per cent of the capacity even after
heavy rain. Last year, however, as the State was hit by excessive rainfall, the shutters of the 35
major dams in the State had to be raised for the first time in history, adding to the flood misery in
downstream areas. All five overflow gates of the Idukki dam, the biggest in the State, were also
opened for the first time in 26 years in 2018.
Except Thiruvananthapuram and Kasaragod, the remaining 12 districts were severely affected
with flooding and landslides. The majority of the total 1,943 landslides studied by the Geological
Survey of India (GSI) in 2018 were in Idukki (1,196), Palakkad (241), Wayanad (139),
Malappuram (129), Thrissur (77) and Pathanamthitta (51) districts.
It is not known how many landslides took place this year, but the most destructive were in the
two adjoining northern districts of Wayanad and Malappuram. Out of the 125 deaths reported
59
from August 8 to 20, nearly 80 were at Kavalappara and Puthumala, the former being the
biggest landslide tragedy in the State, killing 59 people.
Many people remained stranded as landslips and floodwaters marooned places, and daring
rescue efforts continued for days despite the dangerous circumstances and terrain. Six tribal
people, including a pregnant mother and her 11-year-old child, stranded in an island in Attapadi,
for instance, were brought to safety through a ropeway across the flooded Bhavani river;
rescuers also struggled to bring people to safety just before the opening of the Banasurasagar
dam in Wayanad. Remarkable efforts went into retrieving bodies at Kavalappara and other
places hit by landslides. There was heavy rain in the Nilambur region for over a week starting
from August 1 and on the fateful day one of the highest rain spells in the State was recorded
there. Several towns from Alappuzha to Kasaragod experienced heavy flooding.
In Kuttanad, a coastal plain region in Alappuzha district where many areas lie below mean sea
level, nearly two lakh people needed to be evacuated on a war footing during the last floods.
The limited capacity of the Vembanad lake and the Thottappally spillway worsened the flooding
in the region and the Vembanad backwaters. Likewise, several bunds and embankments that
secured the paddy polders and residential areas in Kuttanad from the backwaters were
damaged, leading to alarming flood intrusion into these areas in 2018. Satellite studies had
indicated “a 90 per cent increase in water cover in Kerala” because of the flooding in 2018, with
low-lying areas of Kuttanad and the Kole lands of Thrissur showing a rise in the water level of
five to 10 metres respectively.
A large number of people were moved to relief camps this year too. But the rain and floods were
not severe and the major dams were not full, unlike last year. The floodwaters from three
districts that drained out through Kuttanad could flow comparatively easily into the sea through
two main outlets. Unlike in 2018, the shutters of the Thanneermukkam Bund and the
Thottappally Spillway could be kept open. Moreover, unlike in 2018, when a high tide in the
Arabian Sea delayed the discharge of floodwaters, the sea level was low when the heavy rains
came this time and the floodwaters could drain out with less difficulty. Districts north of Kollam
and Thiruvananthapuram received very high rain and the most intense downpours were
reported from Palakkad, Kozhikode, Malappuram, Wayanad, Kannur and Idukki districts. Cochin
international airport (212 mm rain in 24 hours) was closed like last time and the traffic was
diverted to Thiruvananthapuram. Train services were disrupted. Several small bridges were
washed away in the northern districts.
By August 10, in both Kavalappara and Puthumala, hopes of finding anyone alive under the
debris had ended. Injuries on the bodies indicated that most of them were crushed or dragged
to death in the landslide. On August 17, even after the use of ground-penetrating radar, 19
people were still missing, buried under the debris at Kavalappara.
Ecologically stressed
Significantly, almost all the landslides during 2018 and 2019, including those known under
various names such as “debris flow”, “debris slides”, “slumps” and “creep”, happened in hilly
areas long identified in studies by the Geological Survey of India (GSI), the National Centre for
Earth Science Studies (NCESS) and the Western Ghats Ecology Panel (Gadgil Committee)
report as “fragile and highly sensitive” to ecological stress. Among the nearly 20 regions
identified as “Ecologically Sensitive Localities” in Kerala by the Gadgil Committee, for instance,
were Wayanad, Banasurasagar, Kuttiyadi, Nilambur (near Kavalappara) and Meppadi (near
Puthumala).
60
The GSI had concluded from studies last year that though incessant and excessive rainfall was
the triggering factor for all the landslides that took place in 2018, the causative factors were both
natural and man-made. The landslides occurred because of one or a combination of factors,
according to the GSI study. They included “near vertical slope excavation and removal of lateral
support in landslide areas; ‘toe erosion’ by rivers and streams; unscientific modification of
original slopes for cultivation or construction; defective maintenance of natural drainage systems
(streams), especially of smaller orders; weathered rock mass forming potential wedges and
blocks; and physical characteristic and thickness of loose slope-forming mass.”
After the 2018 floods, government agencies had reported that nearly 14.8 per cent area of the
State was prone to flooding and that the proportion was as high as 50 per cent in some districts;
that 1,500 sq km area of the Western Ghats, especially in Wayanad, Kozhikode, Malappuram,
Idukki and Kottayam districts, faced serious hazards from landslides; more than half of the land
area in Kerala was susceptible to moderate to severe drought; and its highly populated and long
coastline faced imminent threat of rising sea levels and severe erosion, as it was once again
demonstrated during the Ockhi cyclone and the June-July months preceding the floods this
year. In the months after the last floods, fishermen could not venture out to sea for nearly 40
days because of rough-weather warnings.
According to the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) document of the State government,
after the 2018 floods, 209 landslides were reported by various Forest Divisions and 342
landslides were reported in areas under the State Revenue Department. Some of these
landslides were 3 to 4 km in length and 20 to 30 metres in width and they mostly happened in
slopes that were above 22 degrees. The most common among them took place on slopes of 22
to 28 degrees. The majority of the landslide sites were along the fringes of forests, “indicating
that forest fragmentation disrupting slope continuity was a major causal factor”.
An assessment of the nature and extent of the damage this time is yet to be made.
Man-made factors as a cause of landslips and flooding have long been raised by environmental
activists in the State, especially after the 2018 events, and they have continuously flagged the
issues of widespread quarrying, construction activity and harmful agricultural practices in the
fragile stretches of Kerala’s highlands, midlands and coastal areas. The effect of “development”
in the floodplains of rivers was in ample evidence during the floods last year; and the
devastation at Puthumala and Kavalappara has brought out the truth of the dangerous
consequences of unbridled human intervention in the Western Ghats districts.
The Kerala Forest Research Institute (KFRI) has estimated that there are at least 5,924 quarries
in the State, covering an area of 7,156.6 ha, with nearly 1,378 quarries within one km of reserve
forests and 79 quarries with a total area of 85.83 ha within 500 metres of protected forests.
A few months after the floods last year, the Kerala government had conducted a series of
assessments to estimate the damage to and loss and needs of critical sectors. The
assessments estimated the total damage and losses to be around Rs.26,718 crore and total
recovery needs at around Rs.31,000 crore. Yet, within months after the floods,
environmentalists say, the State government took steps to relax the rules on establishing more
quarries (by reducing the required distance limit of quarries from populated areas from 200 m to
50 m); to dilute rules governing the conversion of paddy and wetlands; to allow trees to be cut in
the Cardamom Hill Reserves in Idukki district; and to regularise title deeds of encroachers and
settler farmers alike without distinction.
61
As the first reports of the extreme nature of the rain and devastation in the hill districts of Kerala
began to pour in this year, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan said at one of his daily press
conferences: “If there are environmental problems that increase the intensity of such disasters,
the government will surely identify them and intervene to solve them.”
In the context of warnings about a likely increase in the frequency of extreme weather events, it
received a lot of attention as the State stood perplexed at the enormity of the task of recovering
from yet another catastrophe in a “resilient and sustainable manner”, as it had planned to do
after the big floods last year, and finding the resources for it.
THE NATION
KERALA FLOODS
Kerala floods: The climate factor
DR ABHILASH S.
The increased variability and uncertainty driven by global warming have made monsoon climate
more unpredictable in the future.
Extreme events such as droughts, floods, heat waves, cold waves, devastating thunder clouds,
cloudbursts and intense cyclonic storms have been occurring frequently over the globe in recent
decades. Climate change is realised all over the world and is significantly altering the structure
and functioning of many ecosystems. Significant advances in the scientific understanding of
climate change now make it clear that there has been a change in climate that goes beyond the
range of natural variability.
It is evident from instrument (thermometer)-based observations that the planet’s average

surface temperature has risen about 1.1 0Celsius since the late 19th century, a change driven
largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere by
fossil-fuel burning and deforestation. Most of the warming has occurred in the past 35 years,
with the five warmest years on record taking place since 2010. This speed of warming is more
than 10 times that has occurred on a global scale in the last one million years. There exists a
strong relationship between CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and global temperature.
Measurements of air in ice cores show that for the past 8,00,000 years up until the 20th century,
the atmospheric CO2 concentration has stayed within the range of 170 to 300 parts per million
(ppm); the recent rapid rise to nearly 412 ppm over 200 years is particularly remarkable.
Measurements of different forms of carbon reveal that this increase is because of human
activities.
Impact of climate change

Observational, theoretical and numerical modelling studies demonstrate increasing trends in
temperature, precipitation and extreme events as realised by global warming in response to
anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emission. In a warming world, differential heating
between land and oceans and between polar and tropical regions will affect global circulation
patterns and thereby change the intensity, frequency and seasonality of climate patterns and
distribution of extreme weather events (for example, floods, droughts and storms).
The magnitude of extreme rainfall events is predominantly controlled by the increased

atmospheric moisture content. Future climate will be warmer than the present climate. The
response of this warming climate to precipitation is rather complex. However, the increasing
62
capacity of warming atmosphere to hold more water vapour potentially favours intense rainfall
and hence more heavy rain spells of shorter duration are expected in the future. Long-term
variations in precipitation and temperature are considered common indicators of climate change
over a region. Extreme rainfall events that occur very rapidly over a locality are a consequence
of what meteorologists call the instability of moist atmosphere. Attribution of single extreme
events to anthropogenic climate change still remains a challenging topic. Changing climate
leads to change in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration and timing of extreme
weather events and can result in unprecedented extreme weather over many vulnerable
regions. For instance, the biggest cause of droughts and floods around the world is the shifting
of climate patterns between El Nino and La Nina events. On land, El Nino events lead to
drought (for example, Indian summer monsoon) in many tropical and subtropical areas, while La
Nina events promote wetter conditions in many places, as has happened in recent years. These
short-term and regional variations are expected to become more extreme in a warming climate.
What is happening to our monsoon?

The Indian summer monsoon is part of the Asian summer monsoon, the strongest monsoon
system in the world, and shapes the health and wealth of one-sixth of the world’s population.
Though there exists large inherent variability of 10-20 per cent across the Indian land mass,
monsoon has been considered a stable and robust system in the past. The Indian summer
monsoon is highly sensitive to global warming, and increases in anthropogenic GHG emissions
could further amplify its impact on the distribution of rainfall and temperature. In response to the
warming basic state, monsoon rainfall over the Indian region has been showing erratic
behaviour, especially during the last two decades, over different meteorological subdivisions.
Apart from seasonal extremes, extreme weather and heavy rainfall events are becoming more
frequent over the Indian region. According to the majority of the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change) Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) models,
rainfall over India will become more and more erratic in nature with a plausible decrease in
overall rainfall and increase in extreme weather events. The magnitude of extreme rainfall
events is predominantly controlled by the increased atmospheric moisture content while the
reduction of cumulative seasonal rainfall results from the weakening of the air flow in response
to the reduced sea-land thermal contrast. Under the warming mean basic state, longer dry
spells and shorter sudden heavy spells are increasing during monsoon season almost all over
India.
Realised changes in the climate over Kerala

Studying long-term changes and associated extreme hydrological events over a small region
like Kerala, a southern peninsular Indian State, is challenging because of the large
heterogeneity in the complex terrain bounded by the Arabian Sea on the west and the Western
Ghats on the east. Across the small average width of 100 kilometres in the east-west direction
over the complex terrain of Kerala, there exists lots of heterogeneity in the land surface and land
use, land cover characteristics. Hence, inadequate high-resolution observational network makes
it difficult to quantify realised changes in the climate over Kerala. Based on the altitude, the
terrain is mainly divided into three categories, namely low land, mid land and high land. The
unique annual and seasonal distribution of rainfall across Kerala and along the Western Ghats
region in particular is mainly accountable for the exceptional repository of a variety of flora and
fauna. Kerala is known as “God’s own country” because of this unique climate, land cover and
biodiversity.
Realised changes in the climate over Kerala received more attention during recent times as
evident from back–to-back drought conditions in 2015 and 2016, and then in 2017, hit by the
first-ever cyclonic storm “Ockhi” though the main damage occurred at sea, and followed by the
63
historic flood episodes during the 2018 monsoon season which claimed more than 500 lives.
After a sluggish start of monsoon this year and associated drought conditions, now we are
facing havoc because of extreme rainfall.
Kerala witnessed one of the most distressing droughts in 2016 which posed a severe threat to
both agriculture and hydrology. It is also realised that the frequency of drought years has been
increasing over Kerala in recent decades. Each deficit rainfall year is unique in the sense that its
impact on agriculture, hydrology and socioeconomic sector does vary. Though the southwest
monsoon in 2015 was bad for Kerala, the annual water stress and severity of drought in 2015
did not scale up to the level of 2016. Interestingly, all India summer monsoon rainfall (ISMR)
was deficit in 2015, and Kerala also received deficit rainfall during the summer monsoon
season. Contrary to that, Kerala received deficit summer monsoon rainfall during the 2016
season even when ISMR was normal. This clearly exhibits the large spatial heterogeneity in the
rainfall distribution during the monsoon season across the country and its inherent inter-annual
variability. Agricultural operations over Kerala are mostly rain-fed and around 30 per cent of the
agricultural field is irrigated.
Warmer atmosphere provides high potential for intense storms and similar severe weather
events. Consistent with theoretical expectations, heavy rainfall (which increases the risk of
flooding) and heat waves are generally becoming more frequent all over the globe, and Kerala
is no longer an exception. The impact of climate change on cyclone frequency remains a
subject of ongoing studies. While changes in cyclone frequency remain uncertain, basic
physical understanding and model results suggest that the strongest cyclones (when they
occur) are likely to become more intense and possibly larger in a warmer, moister atmosphere
over the oceans. The north Indian Ocean, including the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal, is
warming at a higher rate (of about 1.1 0C/116 years) compared with other ocean basins such as
the Atlantic Ocean and the Pacific Ocean. As a result, the number of cyclones and their intensity
are expected to increase in future in the Arabian Sea. A warming ocean along with ocean
acidification and hypoxic regions are increasing at a faster rate and that is going to affect fish
abundance at sea and hence the lives and livelihoods of coastal communities.
Some conditions favourable for strong thunderstorms that spawn hails and lightning are
expected to increase with warming, but uncertainty exists in other factors that affect tornado
formation, such as changes in the vertical and horizontal variations of winds. However, such
types of vertically developing deep convective clouds are rare during the southwest monsoon
season over Kerala. There have been many reports of increasing incidence of lightning and
small-scale tornado-like swirling winds and water spout in recent years. During the extreme
rainfall events of the 2019 monsoon season, there have been reports of tornado-like rotating
updraft winds and water spout from some regions. This also signals that, along with rainfall
pattern and distribution, cloud structure is also undergoing drastic changes. In places of shallow
clouds (< 7 km), which are usually found to occur during a monsoon season along the Western
Ghats region, in this season clouds vertically grew up to a height of 12-14 km and produced
lightning and thunder. Owing to this, cloud drops are getting bigger in size. This type of towering
convective clouds extending from 1 to 14 km can hold more water in its vertical depth and act
like an overhead “water tank”. When they discharge as rain, they have huge potential to
produce extremely heavy rain within a short duration. It is therefore important to look into the
presence of such deep convective clouds during the extremely heavy rainfall events of 2018
and 2019.
Similarities and differences in extreme rainfall events over Kerala in 2018 and 2019
64
Compared with the early arrival of monsoon on May 29, 2018, monsoon onset occurred over
Kerala late by about one week, on June 8, 2019, as against the normal onset date of June 1.
Then the presence of the very severe cyclonic storm “Vayu” during June 10-17 drew all
moisture towards it and literally paused the northward propagation of monsoon surge beyond
Kerala. After the dissipation of Vayu, monsoon gained strength and reached central
Maharashtra by June 24 as against the normal onset date of June 10. By July 31, 2019, rainfall
deficit over Kerala loomed around -31.5 per cent. On the other hand, July 31, 2018, ended up
with an excess rainfall of 18 per cent. By August 18, 2018, monsoon rain over Kerala became
large excess by about 42 per cent. On the other hand, by August 18, 2019, rainfall deficit over
Kerala improved from a rain deficit of -32 per cent to 0.9 per cent above average. However,
when we compare the quantum of rainfall during the extremely active spells, the total rainfall
received during August 7-11, 2019, was around 477 millimetres as against the normal of 78 mm
during the period with an excess of 613 per cent during the period. However, during the
extremely heavy spell of August 13-17, 2018, Kerala received 431 mm of rainfall as against its
normal value of 73, and excess rainfall was around 494 per cent. Hence, in terms of the
quantum of rainfall received and departure from normal, the 2019 heavy rainfall event received
more rain compared with the 2018 heavy rain event.
We can now briefly examine what the common features and differences between extreme
rainfall events over Kerala in August 2018 and 2019 are. The lower-level wind and circulation
pattern reveals that the extended monsoon trough which runs from Pakistan to head Bay of
Bengal was active during the period and there was the presence of a monsoon depression in
head Bay of Bengal during both the events. There were typhoons over the Western Pacific
during both the periods. Hence, the presence of a depression over the Bay of Bengal, which
moved north-westwards along the monsoon trough, and the presence of typhoons in the
Western Pacific together helped in strengthening the low-level jet stream off the west coast and
made it to blow perpendicular to the Western Ghats. Hence we can assume that since these
two features were almost similar in both the years, there must be some other factor that might
have contributed to the more intense rain spell during August 7-11, 2019, compared with August
13-17, 2018.
There are some who believe that a warmer Arabian Sea is mostly responsible for this extreme
spell. Let us look into it in detail. Sea Surface Temperature was abnormally high (Positive SST
Anomaly: Red colour) over the Arabian Sea and the Equatorial Indian Ocean during both June
and July of 2019. If this is the reason for the extreme rainfall events over Kerala during August
7-11, 2019, then naturally a question arises as to why June and July had not seen any such
heavy rainfall activity. It is true that warmer SST may lead to the development of intense tropical
cyclones as the energy supply for tropical cyclones is mostly from warmer ocean surface.
However, there exists no one-to-one relationship between SST over ocean and land
precipitation. Rainfall over the Indian land region during the monsoon season is mostly
controlled by the strong south-westerly jet stream known as the Somali jet, which helps in more
evaporation over the ocean surface, and the moisture-laden air is transported to the Indian
subcontinent by the Somali jet.
Hence warmer SST in the Arabian Sea and the Equatorial Indian Ocean may not be the sole
reason for the extreme rainfall event over Kerala. During the 2018 extreme rainfall events, the
Arabian Sea and the Equatorial Indian Ocean were cooler than in 2019, and still we got many
extremely heavy rain spells during the 2018 monsoon season; the quantum of rainfall received
during the entire season was much higher than that received during 2019 when SST in June
and July of 2019 was much higher than that in 2018. Other scientific results also suggest that it
is not the absolute value of SST but its spatial inhomogeneity (in other words, spatial SST
65
gradient) that is actually driving convection (rainfall). Hence, when the entire ocean basin is
warmer than normal, that may not help in producing convection. There is also scientific
evidence to suggest that there exists a critical value of SST, beyond which convection and cloud
formation are found to be decreasing with increasing SST. At the same time, a warmer ocean
supports more evaporation. Hence, it may be assumed that a warmer SST alone is not
responsible for causing intense downpour. But of course, it can be one of several contributing
factors for the extreme rainfall event over Kerala during August 7-11, 2019.
Satellite observations of the cloud top height in terms of cloud top temperature indicate the
presence of vertically developing deep convective clouds during August 7-11, 2019, with Infra-
Red Brightness temperature as low as below 200 Kelvin (the lower the brightness temperature,
the higher the height of the clouds). The cloud ice optical thickness derived from satellites also
confirms the presence of ice in the clouds. Ice inside the cloud will only form when the clouds
grow deeper, above the height of 5 km (close to 0 degree isotherm), and the presence of ice
favours the occurrence of lightning and occasional incidence of small tornadoes under
favourable wind conditions. As discussed earlier, the structure of clouds also seems to have
undergone drastic changes during recent years and these vertically developing deep convective
towers might have contributed to intense rain spells over north Kerala. The spatial distribution of
high resolution rainfall observations during August 7-11, 2019, also confirms intense rainfall of
greater than 600 mm over north Kerala along with lower cloud top temperature and presence of
ice. These pieces of scientific evidence suggest that it is possibly some unusual cloudburst
event that occurred over these places during one of those days of heavy rain. However, such
type of deep convective cloud development remained totally absent during August 13-17, 2018.
As expected, the changes in the rainfall pattern along with structural changes in the cloud
properties are a consequence of climate change induced by global warming. We are now on the
path towards more such short-duration extreme rainfall events with decreasing number of rainy
days and prolonged breaks. That is going to become the new norm for Kerala and India as a
whole, and the same region may experience havoc from floods and droughts sometimes within
a season. Managing a flood while dealing with a drought and vice versa is challenging.
We may have to deal with the frequent incidence of both ends of extreme weather events in
future. Along with changes in the spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall, seasonality is also
found to be changing in recent decades. In recent decades, monthly rainfall distribution over
Kerala has been showing slight reduction in the June rainfall and an increase in the rainfall
during the second half of the southwest monsoon season in August and September.
Accordingly, many corrections are to be done in agriculture, water resources management and
disaster management. In recent decades, ‘the stability of the monsoon system has been found
to be decreasing and the monsoon will become more chaotic in nature with increased year-to-
year (inter-annual) variability along with increased intra-seasonal (within season) variability.
Though, not much change is expected for the seasonal mean monsoon rainfall, the variability on
shorter time-scale manifested as short duration floods or prolonged break spells. The increased
variability and uncertainty driven by global warming have made monsoon climate more
unpredictable in the future.
Dr Abhilash S. is Associate Director, Advanced Centre for Atmospheric Radar Research

(ACARR), Cochin University of Science and Technology.
THE NATION
JAMMU & KASHMIR
66
Kashmir: Simmering state
ANANDO BHAKTO
A combination of political marginalisation of Kashmiris and a perceived insult to their religious

sentiments cements a ruler vs the ruled perception in the Valley.
As night falls heavily on the locked-down city of Srinagar, a few men and women, with children
in tow, hurry past the coils of barbed wire barricades that are the clearest signs of their being
under “occupation”. They gather at an eatery near Rajbagh in the civil line area of Srinagar,
which on any given day used to bustle with people and traffic. This was in the third week of
August. A depressing silence has enveloped the place since August 5, when the National
Democratic Alliance government at the Centre, in a move derided as a “travesty of democratic
norms”, erased the last vestiges of Jammu and Kashmir’s autonomy, which political observers
believe will lead to resurgence of militancy.
Nabilah*, a woman in her late 20s, sinks into an arm chair that faces a wide, veering stretch of
road where silhouettes of snipers prowling obtrusively, can be seen. Her husband keeps a
watch on the children— four–year-old Daieb* and two-year-old Fahad*—who hop around
merrily unaware of what the State has lost. They have not been to school for more than two
weeks and there is little hope of the situation improving anytime soon. But that is not Nabilah’s
only worry. Her children are picking up words that she and her husband had hoped they would
never learn. Among them is “azadi” (freedom).
“We don’t discuss politics, never when Daieb and Fahad are around. But the other day, as they
ran after each other in the lawn, the older one whooped, Musa aaya, azadi laaya [“Musa has
come; he will bring us freedom”]’. I have no idea who introduced them to the language of
resistance,” she sighs, petulantly tossing her head. “You can’t escape it,” her husband
interrupts, “It’s in the air.” (Musa refers to Zakir Musa, chief of Ansar Ghazwat-ul-Hind and the
biggest poster boy of militancy after Burhan Wani, who was killed by security forces in South
Kashmir.)
He could not have been more accurate. Despite an aggressive clampdown, manifest in the
suspension of all means of communication and detention of political leaders, Kashmir is
showing signs of resistance. But the protests are sporadic and are held in such a way as to
avoid loss of life. People everywhere, from the historic Lal Chowk in Srinagar to the heart of
Anantnag, suspect that the government is prepared to deal with resistance with an iron hand.
This precludes a furious uprising reminiscent of the one in the summer of 2016. The option
available to them, as the local people pointed out, was to psychologically manoeuvre New
Delhi—retire into inaction in the face of assault and flare up at the first opportunity to frustrate
the government’s attempt to showcase “normalcy”.
A group of young men at Padshahi Bagh in Srinagar said stone –throwing incidents were
common in their locality. On August 18, about 70 women, one of them claimed, took to the
streets to register their protest. “The media are not telling the truth. The revocation of Article 370
is the biggest assault on our identity. We reject the implausible notion that this will uplift us,” said
a middle-aged man who runs a travel agency. A resident of Habba Kadal said that the boys in
his neighbourhood were targeting the Army bunkers. This reporter saw a crowd of people at
Ram Bagh raise pro-freedom slogans and decry New Delhi for laying siege to the people of
Kashmir. There is word-of--mouth information on spiralling death tolls and pellet injuries—
people claimed that on August 17 a youth died at Qamarwari after he was hit by a tear gas
67
shell. On August 21, there were murmurs that three people were killed during a protest at
Soura, though it is difficult to ascertain these reports given the communication blockade.
The administration seems to have learnt the lessons of the past when the harsh use of force led
to huge casualties. It prepared in advance to contain the rebellion in its infancy. Soon after the
terror strike on the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) convoy in Pulwama on February 14,
raids and detentions, almost always made without regard to procedures, became a constant
feature in interior south Kashmir. The Centre, instead of addressing the antagonism in the
Kashmir Valley, increased the cordon-and-search operations. Several villagers told this reporter
in Anantnag, Bijbehara, Awantipora and Pulwama in March-April that Kashmir was descending
back to the “lawless” days of the 1990s when youths were picked up randomly in nocturnal
raids.
The agencies hounded the pro-resistance camp. On the intervening night of February 22 and
23, nearly 150 people, most of them top office-bearers of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI), including its
emir Abdul Hamid Fayaz, were detained. Mushtaq Ahmad Veeri, vice president of the Jamiat-e-
Ahle-Hadith, was also arrested. The Centre imposed a five-year ban on the JeI on February 28.
As feelings of religious marginalisation began to take root among a section of Kashmiris, the
crackdown on clerics continued. The Jammu and Kashmir administration withdrew the security
cover for the top five pro-resistance leaders, All Parties Hurriyat Conference chairman Mirwaiz
Umar Farooq, Abdul Ghani Bhat, Bilal Lone, Hashim Qureshi and Shabir Shah. On February 26,
the National Investigation Agency (NIA) conducted raids at the residences of Mirwaiz, Naseem
Geelani, son of the Hurriyat leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani, and the Tehreek-e-Hurriyat chairman
Ashraf Sehrai. This systematic erosion of the space for dissent in Kashmir, besides the belittling
of mainstream politicians (Governor Satya Pal Malik obliquely referred to National Conference
and Peoples Democratic Party leaders as “anti-nationals”), has led many political observers to
believe that Kashmir’s fate was decided in June 2018 itself when the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP) withdrew support to the PDP and gave the Governor executive powers.
Hounding of clerics
Nocturnal raids and hounding of clerics continue. Residents of Kursu in Srinagar said that some
religious leaders were detained on the eve of the United Nations Security Council meeting on
Kashmir. It was found, on speaking to people at several mosques in Anantnag, that the security
apparatus had sent a word of caution to moulvis that any attempt at political mobilisation or
criticism of the government action on Kashmir would attract immediate detention. This was
corroborated by the Congress’ Jammu and Kashmir president, Ghulam Ahmad Mir, who is
under house arrest in Jammu. He told Frontline over the phone: “Everywhere, the clerics have
been warned to not utter anything critical of the establishment.”
A man in his early 30s at Iqbal Market in Anantnag gave an idea of how the police were hunting
down suspects. “The police called me on my mobile phone and asked me to show up. I knew
they would detain me. I am a soft target since I had been previously booked under the Public
Safety Act. I escaped from my place and diverted the number of the inspector who had called
me. When he started texting, I changed my SIM.” Reports of late-night detention of youths are
surfacing from all parts of the Valley.
A cross-section of the people in Kashmir shared the apprehension that the region was at the
precipice of an anti-Centre implosion and that the government had hurt its own interest by
breaking the structure of mainstream politics. Many of them fear that mainstream political
players, be it Mehbooba Mufti or Omar Abdullah, will not be able to engage the electorate or
68
urge them to vote in the foreseeable future, though opinion is divided. The common refrain is
that “they couldn’t save us”.
A close look at the facts shows that the combination of political marginalisation of Kashmiris and
a perceived insult to their religious sentiments, which has been a persistent and constant
feature of the Narendra Modi years, has cemented a “ruler versus the ruled” perception in which
Muslim Kashmir is vulnerable to all kinds of subjugation by a predominantly Hindu India in the
name of pursuit of “national interests”. People across Srinagar and Anantnag belied the claims
of the government that large Eid congregations took place in the Valley. According to them, the
Jamia Masjid at Nowhatta, Srinagar, remained closed, and at Danger Pora and Chatapora in
Pulwama, the two main venues for Eid congregations, no gathering was allowed. “How can we
be Indians when even our right to worship is denied in this country?” asked a youth near
Khanabal. “Only our passport says we’re Indian.”
Kashmir remains a “no signal” area despite the government claim that there was an attempt to
restore communication in phases. In Anantnag, the local people complained that they had to go
from the District Commissioner’s office to the Police Control Room, from there to the Deputy
Inspector General’s office and finally to a police post at Khanabal to make telephone calls. A
family in Pampore was expecting its son, who currently lives in Bengaluru, on Eid. He did not
come. The family could not find out about his well being.
Wave of distrust
Political observers feel that this tidal wave of distrust and uncertainty has the potential to
crystallise into a broader insurrection. More so when the average Kashmiri is convinced that
India’s belligerent nationalist politics is aimed at the alteration of Kashmir’s demographics. A top
bureaucrat, whom this reporter met at his Gupkar residence in Srinagar, alluded that New Delhi
had turned everyone into a separatist. People are bound by the resolve for a long-drawn-out
struggle. “It [armed rebellion] would exhibit itself gradually,” he said. He accused the BJP of
“milking Kashmir for electoral dividend”, a sentiment that echoes in the power corridors of
Srinagar.
Acclaimed Kashmiri author and political commentator Mirza Waheed contends that India’s
reliance on the use of force to quell Kashmiri resistance would be futile. “NewDelhi knows well
that it cannot win over the Kashmiri mind, and it is quite clear that India wants to manage
Kashmiri resistance via military means—as it has done over the years. When you effectively put
an entire population in ‘preventive detention’, arrest anyone who is seen as mildly influential
socially, politically, it means one thing and one thing alone: a total suspension of basic
democratic and civic norms. But at the heart of this brutalitarian policy is wilful amnesia.
Kashmiris have witnessed and withstood many sieges, curfews, and, of course, unspeakable
violence, including endemic torture, during the last thirty years,” he told Frontline. He hinted at
an explosion of insurgency, by saying: “Being a Kashmiri under Indian rule will from now on
mean living in a state of permanent humiliation and that is not a dignified way to live.”
Journalists in Anantnag were more forthcoming. They said that as the ruling BJP whipped up
politics of division and hate, redefining India as inward-looking and xenophobic, a “stimulus from
across the border” would send Kashmir sliding back into its insurgency years.
The warning signs are impossible to miss. A security guard from Frisal village in Kulgam said
that the situation in his village was alarming. “The boys are frustrated and anyone can seize on
their sense of unease. If they had access to arms, they would have become militants already.” A
project manager from Pulwama, who works with a local non-governmental organisation, said the
69
impact of the Centre’s “incursion” on Kashmir was still unravelling and it was bound to assume
frightening proportions. “Half of the villagers do not know much about Article 370.
As they realise the extent of our collective loss, the reactions will become starker.” He said
Hizbul Mujahideen militants were seen roaming in the far-flung areas of Pulwama, seeking new
recruits. “They are distributing posters. And there is reception to it. Boys have started
‘disappearing’.”
A senior journalist in Anantnag, who visited Arwani village, the hotbed of militancy, on August
19, presented a grimmer picture of the security situation. “Five to six militants drove past the
unmetalled roads of the picturesque hamlet in two sports utility vehicles. It was difficult to
distinguish the combatants from the Army, given their sense of impunity,” he said. The free
movement of militants has been made possible by the forces’ withdrawal from the interior
terrain.
“The strategy of the Army is to station its men at least two kilometres off the hamlets, to avoid
backlash from civilians. This seems to be working. A youth at Khudwani village told me that he
cannot throw stones since there is no one to target. But at the same time, this has emboldened
the militants to mobilise freely,” the journalist said.
At Srinagar’s ritzy Polo View market, repository of exquisite handicrafts and some of the world’s
most intricate carpets, businessmen said they had suffered individual losses running up to lakhs
of rupees since the “economic blockade” following the government’s clampdown coincided with
the marriage season. Some suspected this could be by design. They scoffed at the Prime
Minister’s argument that Article 370 impeded the extension of key economic provisions to
Jammu and Kashmir. “Goods and services tax was implemented [in the State] despite Article
370. Big business houses such as Oberoi and Taj forayed into the State without any hassles,”
they pointed out.
As the Valley smoulders, the people’s next move will be to intensify the civilian curfew. “We
won’t let them [the Centre] delude that Kashmir is normal,” shopkeepers at the historic Lal
Chowk said, vowing to keep their shutters down. The government had ordered the opening of
schools [for primary section] and public offices from August 19, but parents refused to send their
wards. “Our children cannot be photo-up material for New Delhi,” said one incensed parent
whose two sons study at the Muslim Public High School in Rajbagh, Srinagar. At the
Secretariat, the attendance was skeletal, confirmed a staff member.
For the ordinary citizens, the struggle to make ends meet is compounding. Ashiq Hussain, an
autorickshaw driver in Srinagar, said he was threatened by a mob when he went to the airport to
drop a passenger. “They said they would set my vehicle ablaze.” That is perhaps an
overstatement, but it showed the people’s resolve for a hard combat.
*Names changed to protect their identity.
THE NATION
INTERVIEW: GHULAM AHMAD MIR, JAMMU AND KASHMIR CONGRESS.
‘BJP’s policies have led to a spurt in militancy’
ANANDO BHAKTO
70
Interview with Ghulam Ahmad Mir, president of the Jammu and Kashmir Congress.
Ghulam Ahmad Mir, president of the Jammu and Kashmir Pradesh Congress, feels the Centre’s
authoritarian ways in Kashmir have destroyed years of confidence building done by the previous
United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government at the Centre and created a void that will be
difficult to fill by mainstream leaders. Describing the revocation of Article 370 as the biggest
betrayal of the people of the State, Mir, who is currently under house arrest in Jammu, sees little
hope from the Supreme Court, given the “gradual weakening of institutions under Narendra
Modi’s watch”.
Excerpts from the interview he gave Frontline.

As a Kashmiri politician, what are, according to you, the ramifications of the
government’s action of August 5, when it unilaterally abrogated Jammu and Kashmir’s
special status and made it a Union Territory?
First of all, I don’t believe that there has been a greater constitutional fraud and betrayal of the
masses anywhere in the world, or in any other State in India, than what the current
establishment has done to Jammu and Kashmir and its people. It is unthinkable that a
government can keep an entire population in the dark while making the most important decision
regarding its future. They not only excluded the political representatives of the people in the
decision making, but floated a false narrative about the State’s security situation, about land
mines being discovered on the Amarnath Yatra route. The government made this an excuse for
additional force deployment and asked the yatris and tourists to leave Kashmir. This was an
organised falsehood. They manufactured fear by directing blame at Pakistan for a perceived
threat to the yatra. Not only is the unilateral abrogation of the special status of the State
condemnable; the manner in which it was carried out, cracking down on the people in general,
pushing them inside their houses by imposing restrictions, blocking their communication, is also
deplorable in equal measure. You will not find a parallel to a betrayal of this nature and extent
by any government against its own citizens, paradoxically in the name of assimilating them.
When the clampdown started on August 5, where were you? What kind of restrictions
have you been placed under in the past two weeks?
Initially, on the intervening night of August 3 and 4, they placed me under house arrest. On
August 4, there was a party deliberation in New Delhi on the situation in Kashmir and I was
asked by the party leadership to join it. When I asked the authorities to allow me to fly to New
Delhi, they obliged, although they said I was not at liberty to move around in Srinagar city. I flew
to New Delhi and attended the meeting. On August 7, two days after the government decision
on Kashmir was announced, [senior Congress leader] Ghulam Nabi Azad and I attempted to
visit Srinagar to take stock of the situation. But the authorities blocked us at Srinagar airport,
and after four and a half hours sent us back to New Delhi. On August 11 evening, I arrived in
Jammu to celebrate Eid with my immediate family. On the day of Eid, the authorities told me
that I should not step out of my house. Since we were not able to have any correspondence with
our party workers, on August 17 we called a press conference to intimate them about the
celebrations that had been planned at the party headquarters to mark former Prime Minister
Rajiv Gandhi’s birth anniversary on August 20. But as soon as the press meet was about to
begin, the authorities put us under house arrest.
When did the last correspondence between you and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) or
National Conference (N.C.) leaders take place? What were the exchanges on the prevalent
situation in Kashmir and the nature of resistance to be offered should the Government of India
tinker with the State’s constitutional guarantees?
71
On August 4, at around 11:30 a.m., just as I was about to board my flight from Srinagar airport, I
got a call from [PDP leader] Mehbooba Mufti. She wanted me to attend an all-party meeting that
she had convened. She told me that she had initially wanted that meeting to take place at Hotel
Radisson but the hotel’s management declined her request on the instructions of the State
administration. The meeting eventually took place at her residence and I deputed Taj Mohiuddin
to attend it on behalf of the Congress.
Was there apprehension among the regional leaders that the Centre might unilaterally
end Articles 370 and 35A?
After a meeting at Mehbooba Mufti’s place, leaders of all the parties assembled at [N.C. leader]
Dr Farooq Abdullah’s residence where the Gupkar Declaration was passed. Although no one
explicitly stated that they were afraid the state might act unilaterally on Kashmir, the resolution
clearly establishes that there was a genuine fear regarding it. There were three things in
circulation among us on the basis of inputs that we had. One, the State may be trifurcated,
though nobody thought of bifurcation; two, there could be some amendment to Articles 370 and
35A; and three, the Government of India may undertake some military measure against
Pakistan at the Line of Control. Since that day, however, I have not been able to establish any
contact with the top leadership of the PDP or the N.C.
Do you have any inkling where the top leaders of the State are detained at present?
What I heard was that Mehbooba Mufti was initially detained at Hari Niwas, and then
subsequently in a hut near Chasme Shahi. But we have inputs that she was moved out of there
after she made an attempt to mobilise people locally.
How long do you think the clampdown will continue? What kind of reaction do you foresee when
the restrictions are eased?
See, this is a historic decision. It cannot be denied that a section of the people, be it in Leh or in
Jammu, are applauding the government, but by and large the people of the State are in shock.
What has disappointed them the most is making the State a Union Territory; this sense of
despair is shared by all, be it the educated or the illiterate, Hindu or Muslim, the rich or the
disadvantaged. There is a common refrain that the Centre has ended our identity. Also,
nowhere in the world is a State downgraded. In India, there are Union Territories that are
struggling for statehood. The existing States are lobbying for special privileges. Even Jammu-
based leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party [BJP] have voiced their concerns over the
downgrading of the State and ending the domicile status. If the BJP’s Jammu wing is dismayed
at the Centre’s decision, you can imagine how crestfallen and helpless people who do not
belong to the BJP or endorse its politics will be.
The people in the Kashmir Valley fear that the BJP might use the opportunity to change the
demographics there by infiltrating the region with settlers and migrants.
Of course that is the design of the BJP-Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh. But there is a massive
undercurrent against it. It will not require a Hurriyat or any other leadership to mobilise people to
resist that.
The government has denied reports published in the international media about massive protests
in Kashmir.
Well, the people of Kashmir are scathing of the government’s decision. That is the reason the
Government of India parachuted nearly 50,000 additional troops to what is already one of the
72
most densely militarised zones of the world. Right now, the military practically is guarding every
house in every locality. We have reports that every small and prominent cleric in Kashmir has
been warned not to talk about the abolition of Article 370. The administration did not even allow
congregations on major Eid venues. There is a threat perception among the people that even if
they undertake peaceful protests, they may be gunned down.
Petitions have been filed in the Supreme Court asking it to set aside the Government of
India decision. Are you hopeful of any relief from the apex court?
I have little hope from the Supreme Court. Narendra Modi’s five-year regime has tirelessly
worked to weaken the country’s institutions. They have either installed their own people to head
the institutions or found out about the weaknesses of those who head them, thus constraining
their capacity to work independently. The institutions have shed their independence and are
increasingly at Modi’s beck and call.
Will the latest repression in Kashmir lead to a spurt in militancy?

Well, the BJP’s policies have already led to a spurt in militancy. The advances made by the
UPA government have been neutralised by the current regime. We invested in confidence
building and our welfare programmes were received well by the people in Kashmir who
withdrew support to the militants. There was a willing participation in elections; the turnout
crossed the 65 per cent mark, which was a major achievement. But now the BJP has created a
void, one that has divided the people of the State into two groups, those who support the
Government of India decision and those who do not. It will be difficult to persuade the people of
Kashmir now to be a part of the political processes. Going by the rule book will not work; we will
have to invent a new discourse.
Will there be a mass rejection of electoral exercises?

Not necessarily, but one cannot predict anything at the moment. The need of the hour is to
immediately end the communication blockade and allow the political class to work freely and
peacefully.
THE NATION
ESSAY
Courts & politics
A.G. NOORANI
A recent judgment by an English court against British arms exports to Saudi Arabia on the
grounds that the government had not assessed the risk of their use in violation of human rights
is in striking contrast to the Indian Supreme Court’s stance on Kashmir.
The sensational judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal in England on June 20, 2019, on the
unlawfulness of British arms exports to Saudi Arabia deserves close study in India. About 40 per
cent of all British weapons exports go to Saudi Arabia. They include fighter jets and precision-
guided bombs. Thousands of jobs depend on these exports.
The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) contended that the risk the equipment would be
used to violate human rights and international law in Yemen was too high for export licence to
be granted. British law states that weapons exports should not be approved if there is a risk that
the equipment could be used for human rights abuses. In their ruling, the Appeal Court judges
explicitly said that the British government had not assessed that risk “and made no attempt to
73
do so”. They ruled that this process was “unlawful”. The decision will trigger only a review of
certain exports and not an immediate halt. Being forced to assess the human rights impact of
their exports before granting licences could put the British government in a difficult position.
Such exporters usually sell entire weapons systems to buyers. Those deals typically include
years-long maintenance and access to high-tech substitute components.
The case was heard for a mere three days. There were no judicial “outbursts”. The judgment
was brief, couched in simple prose. It was intended to adjudge a dispute, not to earn the judge a
place in history or the applause of the populace. There were no quotes from Shakespeare or
Milton; or, for that matter, from Tagore.
The appeal was heard by the Master of the Rolls, Sir Thomas Etherton, Lord Justice Irwin and
Lord Justice Singh. The judgment delivered by the Master of the Rolls was unanimous. Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, Rights Watch UK and Oxfam International intervened. The
reports of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which the Indian government treats
with scorn when they expose New Delhi’s misdeeds in Kashmir, were received with respect.
The CAAT submitted that a large body of evidence demonstrated overwhelmingly that Saudi
Arabia had committed repeated and serious breaches of international humanitarian law (“IHL”)
during the conflict in Yemen. It claimed, in particular, that Saudi Arabia had used indiscriminate
or deliberate air strikes against civilians, including ones that employed “cluster” munitions, and
targeted schools and medical facilities. The CAAT’s evidence ran to many hundreds of pages,
and included reports from the United Nations, the European Parliament, the Council of the
European Union, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Medecins Sans Frontiers,
Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, parliamentary committees, and the press.
The law is embodied in the Export Control Act, 2002. It confers on the Secretary of State the
power to grant licences. There is also the Export Control Order 2008. More to the point, the
member states of the European Union adopted the “Council Common Position 2008/944/CGSP”
of December 8, 2008, defining common rules governing control of exports of military technology
and equipment (“the EU Common Position”). Article 1.1 provides that each member state shall
assess export licence applications made to it for items on the E.U. Common Military List on a
case-by-case basis against the criteria of Article 2. Article 1.2 provides that those export licence
applications include applications for physical exports and applications for licences for any
intangible transfers of software and technology by means such as electronic media, fax or
telephone. The relevant criterion in Article 2 is that set out in Article 2.2 (“Criterion 2”) as follows,
so far as relevant:
“Criterion Two: Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms in the country of final
destination as well as respect by that country for international humanitarian law. —Having
assessed the recipient country’s attitudes towards relevant principles established by
international humanitarian rights instruments, Member States shall: (a) ...; (b) exercise special
caution and vigilance in granting licences, on a case-by-case basis and taking account of the
nature of the equipment, to countries where serious violations of human rights have been
established by the competent bodies of the United Nations, the European Union or by the
Council of Europe— Having assessed the recipient country’s attitude towards relevant principles
established by instruments of international humanitarian law, member states shall: (c) deny an
export licence if there is a clear risk that the military technology or equipment to be exported
might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law.”
74
Article 10 provides that “while Member States, where appropriate, may also take into account
the effect of proposed exports on their economic, social, commercial and industrial interests,
these factors shall not affect the application of the above criteria.”
Article 13 provides that “the User’s Guide to the European Code of Conduct on Exports of
Military Equipment” shall serve as guidance for the implementation of the E.U. Common
Position.
On March 24, 2014, the Secretary of State set out in a written statement to Parliament what
were described as “Consolidated E.U. and National Arms Export licensing Criteria” (“the
Consolidated Criteria”). These were based on the E.U. Common Position. The written statement
said that it was guidance given under the 2002 Act S.9.
The relevant and current version of the User’s Guide is dated July 20, 2015. Chapter 2, titled
“Criteria Guidance”, sets out “best practices” for the criteria in the Common Position, including
Criterion 2. The court considered at length the principles of international humanitarian law.
The reliefs claimed were: (1) an order prohibiting the defendant (the government) from granting
further export licences for the sale or transfer of arms or military equipment to Saudi Arabia, for
possible use in Yemen, pending a lawful review by the Secretary of State as to whether such
sales comply with the E.U. Common Position and/or the Consolidated Criteria; (2) a mandatory
order requiring the defendant to suspend extant licences pending such a review; and (3) a
quashing order quashing the decision to continue to grant new licences. The Divisional Court
dismissed the petition. The Appeal Court quashed its order while praising that judgment and
analysing it at length.
Grounds for appeal

There were four open grounds of appeal. Ground 1 was that the evidence showed that the
Secretary of State’s consideration of Saudi Arabia’s past and present record of respect for IHL,
including whether a pattern of violations could be discerned, was fundamentally deficient.
Ground 2 was that the Secretary of State failed to ask the questions identified in the User’s
Guide, and in particular failed to answer the following matters specified in the User’s Guide: (1)
whether the state in question has legislation in place prohibiting and punishing violations of IHL;
(2) whether there are mechanisms in place to ensure accountability for violations of IHL
committed by the armed forces; and (3) whether there is an independent and functioning
judiciary capable of prosecuting violations of IHL. Ground 3 was that the Divisional Court
adopted an incorrect approach to the standard of review in the present case. Ground 4 was that
the Divisional Court had failed to answer the question whether the term “serious violations” of
IHL in Criterion 2C was synonymous with “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions and war
crimes under international law or, as the CAAT submitted, referred to serious violations of IHL
more generally, and should have resolved that issue in the CAAT’s favour.
The proceedings were conducted in the open as well as in camera. Three senior officials gave
evidence on the process of decision-making. Incidents of violations of IHL were recorded in a
tabular form. This document was known as “the Tracker”.
True to form, the Foreign and Commonwealth (FCO) Office said, as the Indian Ministry of
External Affairs would have said, that on the basis of “all the information available... we have not
established any violations of IHL by the [Saudi-led] Coalition in this conflict”.
75
The Appeal Court made light of it. It relied on international non-governmental organisations
(NGOs), instead—the interveners. The court said: “The submissions of all the interveners
emphasise the long line of authority recording the importance of evidence from organisations
such as NGOs and the U.N. There is no need for long recital of these cases. The ECTHR [The
European Court of Human Rights] in Saadi v Italy (2009) 49 EHHR 30, NA v United Kingdom
(2009) 48 EHHR 15, and in Sufi and Elmi v United Kingdom (2012) 54 EHRR 9, and the Court
of Appeal in MS (Bangladesh) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ 1258 make the point firmly as to the
general authority of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Similarly, in R (EM)
(Eritrea) v SSHD [2014] AC 134 (UKSC), the Supreme Court emphasised the authority of the
UNHCR, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. The broad proposition is hardly in doubt....
“As regards Amnesty International’s work in the field, between February 2015 and May 2018,
Amnesty International conducted seven field missions in the north and south of Yemen,
covering Sana’a, Saada, Amran, Hodeidah, Ibb, Ta’iz, Lahj, and Aden. When conducting
investigations, Amnesty International gathers information by interviewing survivors, victims,
witnesses, medical and NGO personnel, journalists, lawyers and government officials on the
ground, either in person or by telecommunication. All interviews are conducted in Arabic.
Amnesty International investigates and corroborates the circumstances and impact of attacks by
examining satellite imagery, medical reports, physical evidence (such as remnants from
munitions used in attacks), and photos and videos with the original metadata. Images of
weapon remnants are analysed by weapons experts, and images of the impact site are sent for
ballistic analysis where possible. Amnesty International has repeatedly written to the Saudi
authorities, detailing its findings and requesting information about the choice of targets, the
decision-making process, and the rationale behind the air strikes documented in its reports.
Amnesty International has also requested that the Saudi authorities share the findings of any
investigations that may have been carried out so far into documented air strikes. No responses
have been received.”
It said that the Appellant did not submit that “the Secretary of State was bound by the
conclusions or opinions of the NGOs or the U.N. Panel. It was open to the Secretary of State to
differ from their conclusions. However, given that their evidence and conclusions were relevant,
consistent and apparently well-founded, rationality required that those conclusions were either
accepted or that proper reasons were formulated to reject them.” India refuses permission to
Amnesty to visit Kashmir.
Saudi excesses in their war were set out at length. This passage in the Appeal Court’s judgment
deserves notice. “We accept that the major NGOs, including the Interveners, and the U.N. Panel
of Experts had a major contribution to make in recording and analysing events on the ground in
the Yemen conflict. The NGOs did have the capacity to introduce representatives on the ground
and to interview eyewitnesses, which the Secretary of State could not do. It is the case,
however, that the Secretary of State could access a great deal of information which the NGOs
and the U.N. Panel could not see. As we have indicated, the CLOSED evidence makes that
clear. In the very crudest terms, the NGO and U.N. Panel evidence often establishes what
happened, but the further information available to the Secretary of State could assist as to why
events of concern had happened. Both may of course be highly relevant to whether a violation
of IHL had taken place and to the risk of future violations.”
The court concluded: “We emphasise that we have borne fully in mind the complex and difficult
nature of the decisions in question, the fact that this is an area particularly far within the
responsibility and expertise of the executive branch and that, as a consequence, rationality
alone can properly found interference by way of judicial review. We agree with the Divisional
76
Court (judgment paragraph [35]) that in such a case as this, the courts must accord
considerable respect to the decision-maker. It is in the application of that test that we have
concluded it was irrational and therefore unlawful for the Secretary of State to proceed as he
did.” Irrationality renders executive acts unlawful. The appeal was allowed on Ground 1 but
dismissed on all other grounds.
The Appeal Court’s Order of June 20 said, inter alia: “The defendant’s decisions (1) not to
suspend extant export licences for the sale of transfer of arms and military equipment to Saudi
Arabia for possible use in the conflict in Yemen and (2) to continue to grant further such licences
are quashed; and the matter is remitted to the Secretary of State to re-take the decisions on the
correct legal basis.”
Contrast in approach
In stark contrast is our Supreme Court’s approach on judicial review where personal liberty is at
stake, as two cases show: one concerns Punjab in 1984 after Operation Blue Star and the other
the outrages in Kashmir after August 5, 2019.
Appalled at the conduct of Operation Blue Star and what followed in its train, Ram Jethmalani
filed personally a habeas corpus petition for the release of Harchand Singh Longowal and
others. None had ever accused him of instigating violence. The Government of India’s White
Paper did not. It was mis-titled “White Paper on Punjab Agitation”. The case came up before the
vacation judge Justice E.S. Venkatramaiah (Ram Jethmalani v Union of India [1984] 3 Supreme
Court Cases 696). On June 19, 1984, he gave a judgment that reflected a disgraceful abdication
of judicial office in the face of a patent denial of personal liberty.
The judgment did not care even to set out the facts and the petitioner’s case. Even his name is
not mentioned. The judge had developed cold feet. He gave a long lecture on national unity and
referred the case to a larger Bench—well after the vacation, that is: “I, however, feel that the
questions involved are too large and complex for the shoulders of a Single Judge to bear.”
This was false. The case simply concerned a habeas corpus petition. The judge, in trepidation,
went beyond it. “May I say that there can be no compromise on the following matters, namely,
unity and integrity of India, the secular and democratic form of the Indian government and the
supremacy of the Indian Constitution? They must be upheld in any event. There cannot be any
doubt about the right of the established government to run the administration of the country. We
should remember that India is no doubt a Union of States, but the boundaries of the States are
not unalterable There is only one citizenship in India and that all of us—Indian citizens—belong
to the whole of India and the whole of India belongs to all of us. ... The above words appear to
be relevant in the present Indian context too…”
He added: “Even if allegations of serious offences against the state may be forthcoming against
the arrested persons, the court may still consider whether it is not possible to enlarge at least
some of them, who may be in a repentant mood, on bail to facilitate early restoration of
normalcy in the State. The court may at some stage have occasion to consider whether it
should recommend to Parliament to pass an Act of Indemnity which may be an act of great
sagacity, thus drawing the curtain on this unhappy page of the history of the Indian Republic.
There may be many other things which may be done and they are within the domain of my
learned Brothers who may hear these cases. If this court in the end can succeed in establishing
peace and harmony in the country, it would be its finest hour.” He rose to become Chief Justice
of India.
77
The case of Kashmir
Admittedly the arrests made in Kashmir on and after August 4-5, 2019, were “preventive” but
preventive against what? They were meant to prevent protests by the people against the
humiliating break-up of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. The politicians arrested were not
advocates of violence.
There was no outbreak of violence. What was being crushed was the right to free speech and to
freedom of assembly. The Supreme Court knew all that, and yet it accepted the government’s
narrative. On August 13, a Bench of Justices Arun Mishra, M.R. Shah, and Ajay Rastogi rankly
said “The government has to be believed” and “let the situation improve”. It is precisely in
difficult situations that the hapless citizen seeks its help—only to be rebuffed. “Nobody knows
the reality. Activists may have the inputs. You have no source of information.” Sample this: “Not
even one per cent chance can be taken” —of what? The people’s protest, of course.
On August 16, 11 days after the crackdown, the court through a bench headed by Chief Justice
Ranjan Gogoi said: “We would like to give it a little time. I have read in the papers that the
landlines will be restored by the evening.” Justice Bobde said he had spoken to the Chief
Justice of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. The BSNL lines were working well, but not those
of the citizens. This was on a petition filed by Anuradha Bhasin, executive editor of Kashmir
Times, who has kept alive the brave tradition of her fearless father, Ved Bhasin.
Four thousand people have been detained (The Hindu, August 20). They include an entire
political class. Mehbooba Mufti’s daughter, Iltija Javed, asks in a brilliant letter, why me?
In their hour of dire need, the Supreme Court of India has failed the people of Kashmir.
Significantly one notorious, self-confessed Intelligence Bureau (I.B.) man was not arrested. All
the noted unionists were removing the divide between them and the separatists. New Delhi has
no use for them, but only for Jammu politicians. The crime of August 5, 2019, aims to destroy
Kashmir’s identity. The curbs cannot last forever. When they are lifted, the people will speak out
in unison.
One is reminded of Lord Atkin’s words spoken in 1942 during the Second World War when
judges could see and hear bombs being dropped on London. “I view with apprehension the
attitude of judges who on a mere question of construction when face-to-face with claims
involving the liberty of the subject show themselves more executive minded than the executive.
... In this country, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but
they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of
freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which on recent authority we are now fighting, that
the judges are no respecters of persons and stand between the subject and any attempted
encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in
law. In this case I have listened to arguments which might have been addressed acceptably to
the Court of King’s Bench in the time of Charles I.” He did not spare his brother judges or the
Attorney General (Liversidge v Anderson (1942) Appeal Cases, page 206).
In England, the majority ruling was discarded. Atkin is honoured and his dissent is law. One
wonders what history will say of judges who shut the doors of justice when justice is most
needed.
78
THE NATION
KERALA FLOODS
Extreme weather events: ‘Tough time ahead’
R. KRISHNAKUMAR
Interview with Dr V. Venu, Relief Commissioner and Convener of the Kerala State Disaster
Management Authority, and Principal Secretary, Revenue and Disaster Management,
Government of Kerala.
Yet another extreme weather-related calamity has happened within a year in Kerala. How is it
going to impact the State’s plans to rebuild itself, after the disastrous August 2018 floods?
It is too early to say how the Rebuild Kerala initiative will be impacted. But I can say, by and
large, the floods that we have gone through recently do not really impact on the long-term ideas
that Rebuild Kerala has planned. In that sense there is really no deviation.
However, I think, what this has driven home to the political executive is the fact that hard
reforms cannot wait. There are several aspects in the reform agenda we keep talking about,
which need to be mainstreamed very, very fast.
Every Malayalee talks about land use. But nobody wants to bell the cat. But it is time that the
government at the highest level says that after the floods of 2019, there is no way that we can
live in denial. We cannot say that this problem does not exist. The latest event has brought out
how we manage our fragile regions.
That calls for a relook at our building rules. We have flagged that in our [Rebuild Kerala]
document, but we have not put a time limit. But now those are things which just cannot wait.
How do we change our building rules? You have municipal building rules and panchayat
building rules. Both are essentially the same creature in two different names. But neither
addresses the core issues of the context.
The building rules are not contextual. Should the rules be the same for cities or towns, the
lowlying wetland areas, the midlands and the highlands? Our rules still look at it very
mechanically—what is the setback, what is the height, and so on. But we need to look at the
context, whether the building is planned in a wetland, in converted land, and so on. Nobody
should build in such places. Or in the highlands, we must say that nobody should build more
than X square feet, because the local environment is not conducive to that. If a person has a
plot of land, the building is the only concern for that person. But how is the road to be built
there? If the access road has to cut a slope, we cannot allow that. So we have to incorporate all
such contextual changes in our rules. We have to wipe the slate clean and start all over again.
And that has to be done with the utmost urgency.
The other side is the issue of land use. Should we have homesteads and farms? In fragile
areas, do we want people to stay there at all? We saw the tragedy that happened in all these
places now. So how do you disincentivise people from staying there? Blanket bans won’t work.
The government can say that if you are going to stay in such places, it is going to be much more
costly, or that you cannot build more than 1,000 sq ft, you can only build a farmhouse, you
cannot build a palatial house on a fragile location just because your son or daughter is in
Europe. You may be able to afford it, but the rules will prevent you. You cannot build beyond a
certain limit, because the area is fragile and the government believes that only agriculture
79
should happen there. So that people will be forced to look at other options. And because they
are giving up their rights at one place, will you give them more rights elsewhere? Such models
of transferable rights have worked in many parts of the world. We need to think about these
urgently.
But are these ideas practical, even when we think about it in the context of such a calamity?
Kerala never moved in that direction after the big floods in 2018. For instance, our projects for
rebuilding Kerala itself require an ample supply of granite. Was quarrying put under check?
Yes, about quarrying. How much and how long? It is very easy to say that quarries should be
banned. It won’t work that way. So what is the long-term strategy? In ten years, what will be the
demand for granite in Kerala? And how do you propose to meet that? Nobody has a proposal
on that.
You cannot wish granite away. It is an essential component of buildings. It is easy for people to
talk about alternatives. There are no alternatives. At this time, there is no alternative to stones
that can be used on a large scale. You can do the odd building here and there, but is there
anything so popular that you can replace granite with it? So we can study those technologies,
but we cannot bring that into policies now. What we need to explore is, over 20 years how do
we bring down our granite consumption? How do you bring that to be on a par with our
extraction? Which are the areas where granite can be extracted safely?
But then, is there not the issue of high population density in the State? Demand would likely
only be rising.
Isn’t that a misnomer? If you go outside the towns, there is still a lot of land that is available.
Land is not the issue. The usage of land is the issue. Even in cities, for example in
Thiruvananthapuram, step outside the city centre and you get long rows of tiny little houses,
exactly like a village. A warren of tiny houses. We cannot do that anymore. Inside the cities,
certain centres should have verticals. But only in those centres, so that we can keep these other
places free… You cannot have a situation where everybody is able to build anywhere. That is
the reason why people keep on converting [fragile land]. We incentivise large-scale conversion
by saying, for example, “you cannot block a stream, but then, if it is only ten cents we will allow
you [to build there]”. What is the logic behind such policies? Ten cents or one cent is enough for
a water channel to disappear, for a padasekharam [contiguous paddy fields] to be destroyed.
Our whole settlement pattern must change.
Have you made a damage assessment of the situation now?
Oh no! We still have 25,000 people in the relief camps. That is surely our priority now.
But is Kerala not already overburdened because of the devastation caused by the floods of
2018? What would be the scale of the damage this time?
I would say that we would be looking at a quarter to a fifth of the damage in 2018. Probably
about a fifth, I would say.
After facing the biggest floods in nearly 100 years, and given the predictions about frequent
extreme events, how prepared was Kerala for such large-scale devastation within a year? How
did the State handle the aftermath, in comparison with last year?
80
It was far better. There is no comparison between the response of the government and
government systems last year and this time. This time, in every department, in every action
area, we were better prepared. For instance, we produced what we call an Orange Book, or our
monsoon guidelines, that defines the action required from each officer, each machinery of the
State government, each cog in the wheel. Those guidelines gave them clarity on what required
to be done. So from the very top command centre to the very bottom, every person knew what
needed to be done. That actually increased our efficiency, and decreased the response time.
Secondly, preparedness itself was much better. I will give an example. We evacuated 88,000
people from the floodplains of one river, the Panavaram river [in Wayanad district]. Last time,
when the water level came up in this river, it did so very quickly. There were allegations that it
was because of the opening of the dams. Of course, that was not the case. But tens of
thousands of people were cut off for two-three days. We could not reach them because the
current was too strong. This time the moment we got a warning that three Red Alert days were
coming, we did not wait. We gave instructions. We had already mapped the flood-prone areas.
So over 30,000 people went to relief camps; 55,000 people went to the places of relatives or
friends, and when the flood rose, there was nobody there. The water level rose higher than last
year in Panavaram. We did not have a single casualty. There was no complaint. The people
were prepared. That was the kind of preparedness of the machinery.
Our response time improved tremendously; we sought forces in advance. On Day Two, the
NDRF [National Disaster Response Force] was deployed already. It took six days last time. So
the NDRF, the Army columns, the technical teams, they were all in the field within 24 hours. We
have a control room coordinating the entire operation. It is a full-fledged division, and there are
people to look at each aspect of an evolving situation.
Regarding the management of relief camps, nobody has any complaints, because we were
prepared. The moment the need arose, we knew where each camp would be, because now the
full list is there. Earlier we didn’t have it. Each person knew what he or she had to do. The local
taluk officer knew, for example, how many camps he had in his area, how many people would
be there, and the quantity of supplies he had to provide. The revenue officials knew what
exactly they had to do. Overall, the management was far superior to what it was last time.
With regard to the nature of the calamity we faced in 2018 and 2019, were there any major
differences in terms of what the State had to deal with?
What happened this year has only validated what the government has been saying all along. It
was not the opening of the dams that caused the calamity last time. It was not a man-made
disaster. It was an extreme climate event. This time also it was an extreme climate event. In the
very same areas, like last time, water levels rose and people were evacuated. But this time the
dam levels were only 30 to 40 per cent. So dams are not the problem. It is extreme climate
events coming back to back.
If such events are to be repeated so frequently, what lies ahead for the State, with loss to life
and property sure to become cumulative and enormous?
My thinking is that, first let us look at protecting people’s lives. That is paramount. Property,
farmland, all that is subsidiary to this. From the point of view of managing and preparing for
disasters, the best thing you can do is to have phased relocation of all vulnerable populations.
We have already started this.
81
You mean, relocating people permanently?
Yes, permanently. The Chief Minister also has been saying that we must look at it with the
seriousness it deserves. In all our previous discussions, it was just a good idea. “Ideally, we
must move them; but they won’t move.” That is what we say. But we cannot do that anymore.
We must say, this is top of the line. People who are in vulnerable areas have to be relocated. It
should be our first priority. It could mean people living close to the sea, or extremely close to
water bodies, rivers and floodplains, or in susceptible areas in the hills, they need to be moved.
That is first. The second is gradual depopulation of sensitive areas by changing the laws.
But are we ready with the resources for it? Do we have the land for relocating people on such a
scale, in the first place? Or the money?
We have the land. Land is not the problem. But we may not be able to find the resources. Say,
here we are talking about rehabilitating 10 lakh to 20 lakh people. But in the long term, given the
increasing probability of more and more extreme climate events happening, it is something we
have to invest in. It is an investment. You should find external financing, or some innovative way
to fund it.
How has this second devastation impacted the State’s finances and the financing of the plans to
rebuild itself?
It is in a shambles. Last year itself, it was about 70 per cent that we got to spend under the Plan.
This year also I believe we will end up with a Plan cut. Financing will have to move to critical
areas. Normal budgeted projects will probably suffer. The Rebuild Kerala project—that we are
only starting. We can always reschedule it, and it is not as important as the emergency
management.
As of now, asking the Centre to raise the annual borrowing limit (in order to raise funds through
market borrowings, including from international financial institutions) seems to be Kerala’s only
hope to find more resources.
Yes, we will keep pushing that point. There is no way out.

How hopeful are you, about the Centre agreeing to it?
We have no idea. There is no indication…
Is it a bleak prospect for Kerala then?
Kerala, not only the government but the people also, will have to understand that the next five
years are going to be very, very tough. The external environment is not favourable, the national
environment looks unfavourable, our GST [goods and services tax] collections are way below
target. So we have to look at a period where public spending will have to be limited, where
finance will be harder to get. We have to tighten our budgets, tighten our belts, and brace
ourselves to be very brutal with our public expenditure. Do only those things that are absolutely
essential and make sure that every rupee that we spend goes to the right place. We do not have
any space for error. We do not have any room for slack.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/social-issues/social-justice/article29268878.ece
SOCIAL ISSUES SOCIAL JUSTICE
COMMUNALISM
Muzaffarnagar riot cases: Subverting justice
82
DIVYA TRIVEDI
The Yogi Adityanath government has systematically gone about withdrawing cases against BJP
leaders. The latest instance involves cases relating to the Muzaffarnagar riots of 2013.
In the latest instance of impunity to the perpetrators of violence in Muzaffarnagar in September
2013, the Yogi Adityanath government has sought to withdraw the cases registered against
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) legislators Sangeet Som and Suresh Rana and Member of
Parliament Sanjeev Balyan.
The Uttar Pradesh government has declared its intention to move the special court for MPs and
MLAs to withdraw seven cases registered against Som. Of these cases, registered between
2013 and 2017, four were in Muzaffarnagar and one each was in Meerut, Saharanpur and
Gautam Buddh Nagar districts of western Uttar Pradesh.
Som hails from Faridpur village in Meerut district and shot to infamy after his alleged role in
triggering the violence of 2013. In the 2017 Assembly elections, he won from the Sardhana
constituency, not in spite of but because of the communal polarisation created as a result of the
violence, according to both Hindu and Muslim voters. Indeed, the electoral victories of Prime
Minister Narendra Modi in 2014 and the BJP in the 2017 Assembly elections were credited to
the Muzaffarnagar violence by many, including those from within the ranks of the BJP. Standing
next to Sanjeev Balyan and addressing an election rally in February 2014, Umesh Malik, then
BJP executive committee member, said, “During the Lok Sabha election, the embers that rose
from Muzaffarnagar spread to the State, and from there to the entire nation. The embers that
you created made Narendra Modi the Prime Minister. It is the issue of identity and your honour
today.”
The charges against Som include the circulation of a fake video that was instrumental in
spreading the violence. The video, showing the murder of a youth, was uploaded by Som on
social media, claiming that it depicted the lynching of two Jat boys, Sachin and Gaurav, by a
Muslim mob in Kawal village. The fabricated story of love jehad that was decked up to justify the
violence was proved false and the video was later found to be an old one shot in Pakistan. The
Justice Vishnu Sahai Commission, which submitted its report two years after the violence,
indicted him for his role in the incident. The retired judge of the Allahabad High Court attributed
the escalation of the violence to a number of reasons, including inaction by the then ruling
Samajwadi Party, in his 700-page report and also submitted an Action Taken Report. According
to his estimation, 62 people lost their lives and 60,000 were displaced, but independent sources
give higher figures.
Som, along with 200 others who had “liked” the inflammatory video, were booked under Section
66 of the Information Technology Act on September 2, 2013, which criminalises the sending,
through a computer or other communication device, of offensive messages that are false and
meant to cause danger, obstruction, insult, injury, enmity, hatred or ill will. But a special
investigation team (SIT) formed to probe the incident gave Som a clean chit in 2017. In its final
report presented to the court, the investigation officer claimed they had found no evidence
against Som. Facebook, where the video was uploaded, apparently failed to provide details of
who uploaded the video by claiming that it kept records for only one year.
The SIT was formed in September 24, 2013. The same day, Som was booked under the
National Security Act. In total, 567 riot-related cases were lodged and first information reports
83
filed. But in most of the cases, witnesses turned hostile and the cases dragged on with no
progress whatsoever.
On January 18, 2017, Som was booked for showing clips from the riots as part of a
documentary. Apart from the riot cases, he was also charged with flouting Section 144 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), misbehaving with the police, violating Section 144 in
Saharanpur and Gautam Buddh Nagar, and taking out a procession in Sardhana.
Som was at the forefront of the anti-beef crusade that morphed into the gau raksha campaign,
leading to a spate of lynchings of Dalits and Muslims across the country under the pretext of
fighting cow smuggling. But, interestingly, it was found that he was associated with two meat
processing units and export companies, named Al-Dua and Al-Anam.
If the cases against Som do indeed get withdrawn, it would not be an aberration but routine as
far as Uttar Pradesh’s law and order scene is concerned. Ever since the BJP formed its
government in the State, it has systematically gone about withdrawing cases against its leaders.
The cases relating to the Muzaffarnagar violence alone have constituted a chunk of those
sought to be scuttled. On March 22, 2018, it was reported that the government had initiated the
process of withdrawing 131 cases concerning the 2013 violence. But the court is yet to give
permission for them all. Earlier in January 2018, Governor Ram Naik gave his assent to a Bill
that sought to withdraw 20,000 “politically motivated” cases filed across Uttar Pradesh over
protest demonstrations, including one against Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath.
In a blatant subversion of the law and order machinery, Adityanath absolved himself in a 1995
case where he allegedly violated prohibitory orders.
Earlier this year, an investigation found that in 40 of the 41 cases registered relating to the
violence against Muslims in Muzaffarnagar, all the accused were acquitted. The only conviction
was in the case relating to the murder of the Jat cousins Gaurav and Sachin, which led to the
spiralling of the violence in Muzaffarnagar district.
If the Uttar Pradesh government continues to deliver selective justice, then many BJP leaders
will be extricated from the law without due procedure. They include Union Minister and Member
of Parliament from Muzaffarnagar Sanjeev Balyan; MP from Bijnor Bhartendu Singh; Cabinet
Minister from Thana Bhawan Suresh Rana; Budhana MLA Umesh Malik; and Sadhvi Prachi.
Some, like Balyan, have already been rewarded with a berth in the Union government by the
BJP, after his name was associated with the communal violence.
inciting violence
All of them have been charged with inciting violence through their speeches at the
Mahapanchayat in Nagla Mandaur on August 30, 2013, which purportedly mobilised the rioters
just before the violence. They were booked under Sections 188 (violating prohibitory orders),
354 (assault or criminal force to deter public servants from discharging his duty) and 341
(wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In the past six years, these BJP leaders have claimed that the cases against them were
“politically motivated” and were part of the “vendetta politics” of the then Samajwadi Party
government, thereby justifying the quashing of the charges.
Rana, a two-time MLA from Shamli, was earlier Minister of State (Independent Charge) for
Cane Development and Sugar Mills. He was arrested under the National Security Act (NSA) for
84
his alleged role in fanning the violence in Muzaffarnagar through provocative speeches. But, in
less than two months of being incarcerated, his detention was revoked by the NSA Advisory
Board along with that of Som, who was also behind bars under the NSA.
Apart from the riot cases, Rana was charged with making hate speech in the run-up to the State
Assembly elections in 2017. He had said that if he won the elections, he would impose a curfew
in Deoband, Kairana and Moradabad. A case was registered against him under IPC Section 505
(making an inciting statement) and Section 125 (promoting enmity between classes) of the
Representation of the People Act. The very next day, he was again charged with violating the
model code of conduct. In the Cabinet reshuffle on August 21, Yogi Adityanath elevated him to
the rank of a Cabinet Minister.
Under the CrPC, the State government is empowered to withdraw from prosecution at any stage
before the judgment in a case if it seeks the approval of the court concerned. The court has to
satisfy itself that dropping the case against an accused would serve the “public interest”. Cases
against lawmakers are tried in special MP/MLA courts and permission for withdrawal can be
granted by these courts, explained a lawyer.
But the subversion of justice in the Muzaffarnagar cases, if it happens, will come as a surprise
to no one. When thousands of Muslims were pushed to subsist in relief camps after the
violence, the State government closed the camps down prematurely. An Aman Biradari [a
campaign for secularism, peace and justice] team, visiting the district after a year, had found
that over 10,000 men, women and children continued to live in unofficial camps in 25 villages
under appalling conditions. Outrage over the death of 100 children in these camps during the
winter months led to the administration sending medical teams, which, too, stopped after a
while. Instead of ensuring the safe return of these people to their villages, the State government
announced a compensation of Rs.5 lakh for each displaced household only in the villages that
were attacked, on the condition that they would not return to their villages. This compensation is
yet to reach the families.
In retrospect, Muzaffarnagar became another Gujarat 2002, where the perpetrators were not
only allowed to go scot-free but also rewarded for their alleged crimes, while the victims,
displaced and battered, continue to go from pillar to post in search of justice. Both occurred
under the watch of Modi, first as Chief Minister and then as the Prime Minister.
THE NATION
LEGISLATION
Triple Talaq Bill: In the guise of justice
ZIYA US SALAM
There are legitimate concerns not only about the Bill criminalising triple talaq but also about the
way the government went about passing it in the Rajya Sabha.
IT was on the anvil for a long time. Yet, it managed to catch the opposition unawares, as the
veteran Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad conceded after the Muslim Women (Protection of
Rights on Marriage) Bill, 2019, was passed in the Rajya Sabha by 99 votes in favour and 84
against. The Bill, which criminalises instant triple talaq, is aimed at providing protection to
Muslim women against instant divorce. The accused may suffer both imprisonment up to three
years and a fine. It follows the Supreme Court’s decision to hold instant triple talaq invalid in the
85
historic Shayara Bano vs Union of India and Ors judgment in August, 2017. The government
claimed that there were complaints of instances of instant triple talaq from affected women even
after the Supreme Court verdict. The Bill, it was contented, aimed to ameliorate the lot of
women.
“An archaic and medieval practice has finally been confined to the dustbin of history. Parliament
abolishes Triple Talaq and corrects a historical wrong done to Muslim women. This is a victory
of gender justice and will further equality in society. India rejoices today,” Prime Minister
Narendra Modi said in a tweet. Said Law Minister Ravi Shanker Prasad: “This is a matter of
gender justice, dignity and equality.”
The Bill makes instant triple talaq in all forms, oral, written or through other means, a cognisable
offence. The police can arrest an accused without an arrest warrant. The victim, her family, or
her family through marriage, or close relatives can file a case. The accused can approach the
magistrate for bail, who may grant it after hearing the victim’s side. The woman is entitled to
seek subsistence from her erstwhile husband. A compromise can only be arrived at on the
request of the aggrieved woman; the magistrate may decide the compensation amount. He will
also decide the custody of minor children.
Ghulam Nabi Azad, Leader of Oppostion in the Rajya Sabha, was not pleased with the hurry
with which the Bill was pushed through the Rajya Sabha. He said: “I call this cheating. You
cannot run Parliament like this. We have also raised the issue in Parliament. This is
undemocratic.” He revealed that the government first asked the opposition to give a list of Bills
to be sent to the Select Committee. “On the list, the Triple Talaq Bill was on top priority. The
government did not tell the opposition whether the Bill was sent to the Select Committee or not.”
As the opposition still enjoys a numerical edge in the Rajya Sabha, the Bill had earlier not been
cleared with the opposition, raising several genuine concerns. All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul
Muslimeen (AIMIM) leader Asaduddin Owaisi called it a ruse to break Muslim families. However,
the day it was passed, Nitish Kumar’s Janata Dal (United), an ally of the Bharatiya Janata Party
(BJP), and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), parties which had
spoken against the Bill earlier, staged a walkout from the House, making things that much
easier for the government. At the same time, Bahujan Samaj Party MPs abstained from voting,
as did the six members of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (TRS). Five members of the
Samajwadi Party and some from the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP), the Congress and the
Indian Union Muslim League (IUML) were absent. It facilitated smooth sailing for the Bill in the
Rajya Sabha.
Explaining the absence of MPs from the so-called secular parties at the time of the voting, Azad
said that there was not sufficient time for the parties to issue a whip. “I accuse that on Monday
night [July 22], the government had clandestinely sent the Bill to be put up before the Rajya
Sabha for discussion. The opposition MPs were informed about it on Tuesday morning. No
opposition party got the chance to issue the three-line whip. This is the first time in decades for
both the Upper and Lower Houses that a Bill was not sent to the Standing Committee, the
Select Committee or the Joint Committee. The reason is that this government does not believe
in democracy, Parliament and the judiciary. The government wants to run every institution
according to its whims, like a department of a Ministry,” he said.
His viewpoint was echoed by Derek O’Brien of the Trinamool Congress. He said the
government was bulldozing Bills in the Upper House. “This is like the stealth mode by the
government. Are we passing laws or delivering pizza?” he asked.
86
“Eighteen Bills have been passed. Only one Bill has gone through scrutiny, 17 didn’t. That is
only 5 per cent. Earlier, 71 per cent of Bills underwent scrutiny,” O’Brien said.
All political charges and countercharges aside, the Bill got the President’s signature and is now
law, replacing the ordinance issued on February 21 this year. Incidentally, it has been an
eventful journey for the Bill since the Supreme Court held instant triple talaq unconstitutional in
August 2017. In December the same year, the Lok Sabha passed the Muslim Women
(Protection of Rights on Marriage) Bill, but it could not be passed in the Rajya Sabha. Similar
attempts were made in September 2018 and January, and, finally, in February this year. The
government took recourse to the ordinance route to make instant triple talaq a criminal offence.
Not everybody appreciates either the route or the content of the Bill. Among the most vocal
critics was Asaduddin Owaisi, who asked in Parliament: “You have said in the Bill that the
marriage of a couple would be legal even if a man gives triple talaq to his wife. You have
proposed three years in jail for the man if he gives triple talaq to his wife. Who would give
maintenance to the woman when her husband is in jail? Should she still wait for her husband to
come out of jail?”
On the same lines, Congress MP Shashi Tharoor said he was opposing the Bill because of its
“text, draft and thrust”, without defending instant triple talaq itself.
Others, including members of the Jamaat-e-Islami, raised several questions. One of them
asked: “If the marriage is intact after pronouncement of instant triple talaq, where is the crime?
The marriage subsists. According to some schools of Islam, instant triple talaq amounts to a
single divorce. It can be annulled through word or action. A simple cohabitation between
husband and wife can lead to cancellation of divorce. Now, if the husband is in jail, how can
cohabitation between the spouses be resumed? And even for that annulment to take place,
there is a provision of a month in Islam. Not to forget the period of waiting during which a patch-
up is possible. If the man is in jail for three years, the marriage will automatically collapse.”
Muslims not consulted

The president of the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, Arshad Madani, asked: “Why did the government not
consult Muslims? Some 99 per cent Muslim men and women would have voted against the Bill.
For 1,400 years, we have lived life according to the Quran. Islam wants that a man and a
woman who are together should stay together till the end. After pronouncement of talaq, a man
gets three months to attempt reconciliation. Even if a man gives talaq twice, he has a chance to
atone and come to a compromise with his wife. The Bill makes a mockery of Muslim sentiment.
It will break many families, which could have been averted. When husbands and wives fight,
children are affected. If the husband is in jail, who will give maintenance, or the children’s school
fees? We have certain safeguards provided by the Constitution and will take recourse to the
courts.”
Other Islamic scholars, too, called the Bill an infringement of their rights guaranteed under the
Constitution. “The Bill goes against the tenets of the Quran. A Muslim man is allowed by the
Quran to pronounce divorce twice. After that he can either live peacefully with his wife or give
her a final divorce. After pronouncement of divorce, a husband is not allowed to throw out his
wife. They are supposed to live together to increase the chance of reconciliation. With the
cooling down of tempers, the spouses often realise their follies, and resume their marital
relationship.
87
“The Supreme Court made instant triple talaq invalid. That means a marriage continues even if
a man pronounces multiple divorces. There is a Hadith according to which the Prophet is said to
have allowed a man who had said multiple talaq at one sitting to go back to his wife. Now such
a law takes away that chance. In fact, in many ways, it is contradictory to the Supreme Court’s
invalidation of talaq. With criminalisation of a civil issue, it makes sure that no husband and wife
can attempt a patch-up,” said Sharf Hussain, a Delhi-based Islamic scholar who has worked for
the primacy of the Quran and Hadith in the life of believers.
Sajida Rehman, a women’s rights activist who had earlier played an important part in rallying
Muslim women against instant triple talaq, said: “After Talaq-e-Biddat was held invalid by the
court, a man and a woman continue to be spouses even after pronouncement of instant triple
talaq. Now, if the man is sought to be jailed for uttering the words on merely the complaint of the
wife, it could lead to desertion of women. Remember, the government has made instant talaq a
crime, but desertion is not a crime. Earlier, women could be at least free after instant triple talaq
and try to resume their life. They can now be deserted and they will not be able to resume their
married life with a new partner. Nor will they be able to go back to their erstwhile husband.
Which husband will take back his wife after spending three years in jail following her complaint?”
Even as Arshad Madani was planning to move the apex court, Kerala’s Samastha Kerala
Jamiyyathul Ulama challenged the Bill within hours of it getting the President’s assent. It
requested the court to declare it “unconstitutional” and contended that the Bill allowed for penal
action on a specific class of people based on their religion. It thus violated the fundamental right
to equality as two citizens cannot be given different punishment for the same offence. The
petitioner said the Act violated fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the
Constitution.
On the same day, an advocate, Shahid Ali, challenged the law in the Delhi High Court, dubbing
it “unconstitutional”. Ali said the Bill was not only against fundamental rights enshrined in the
Constitution but also against the principle of natural justice and the Directive Principles of State
Policy.
THE NATION
CRIME
Unnao rape case: The story of an unravelling
PURNIMA S. TRIPATHI
The case reflects the collapse of law and order in Uttar Pradesh.
The brazen and audacious way in which the police in Uttar Pradesh have shielded Kuldeep
Singh Sengar, the MLA accused in the Unnao rape case, and failed to protect the victim may
suggest a collapse of the policing machinery in the State. But the malaise, it seems, runs much
deeper. Senior political leaders and bureaucrats from Lucknow told Frontline that the Unnao
narrative could be a part of a larger political game plan to discredit Yogi Adityanath, whom the
party high command apparently sees as becoming too big for his boots.
The seemingly deliberate delay in taking action, and the alacrity with which the Supreme Court
ordered action, thoroughly debunking the entire administrative machinery in the State, is
unprecedented. If there are any conspiracies involved, the tragic thing is that the young victim
continues to suffer. She has lost most of her family and is now struggling for her life. The State’s
88
police machinery has been shown up as having grown into an entity that is now beyond
control.Uttar Pradesh has a purportedly untainted Chief Minister who has led an ascetic’s life
and headed a math. It is ironical that in this State the administration sat on the complaint of the
rape of a minor and failed to register a case for nine months.
The case appears strange when one reflects that the accused happened to be merely an MLA
and not known to be close to the Chief Minister; nor was he known outside his district. He was
certainly not in the league of a Raja Bhaiya or a Shahabuddin. He did not seem to share any
ideological affinity with the Chief Minister, too. Why then were the police allegedly bending over
backwards to save his skin? Political observers in Uttar Pradesh say that the police and the
political establishment in Uttar Pradesh often do not not work in tandem. “The police machinery
in the State under the present police chief, O.P. Singh, has grown into an independent entity,
controlled by self-seeking middlemen, acting on its own, at times not heeding advice or even
orders from the Chief Minister’s Office,” a senior retired police officer told Frontline. He added
that it was now an open secret that the Chief Minister is not in control of the police machinery
anymore. “He cannot remove the police chief, even if he wants to,” he said.
There are many reasons for this turn of events. But the most important thing is that the Chief
Minister has apparently fallen out with the party high command.
Senior BJP leaders recall that relations between the Chief Minister and the party high command
in Delhi (read, the Narendra Modi-Amit Shah duo), showed signs of strains even before the Lok
Sabha election. Yogi Adityanath, who had emerged as a star campaigner in various Assembly
elections, was much in demand for campaigning by various State units. In December 2018,
posters with with Modi’s and Yogi’s pictures on it, with the slogans “jumlebaazi ka naam Modi,
Hindutva ka brand Yogi” sprang up mysteriously all over Lucknow overnight at crucial locations.
They were by an outfit called Uttar Pradesh Navnirman Sena. The government swung into
action immediately and took down all the posters. A first information report (FIR) was also filed.
But the damage had already been done. “Since then, the Chief Minister has been facing
problems with the high command, which could have removed him immediately, but apparently it
wants him to be discredited before doing that,” said a senior officer.
The bureaucratic and the police machinery are remote-controlled by the authorities in Delhi.
“Transfers and postings are being managed from Delhi and that explains many square pegs in
round holes,” said an officer, adding that the situations like the one now being witnessed arise
when the administrative machinery breaks down.
Prakash Singh, former Direcctor General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, who has also worked as chief
of the Border Security Force (BSF) and now heads the Indian Police Foundation, said: “The
sequence of events and the delay in the case make one thing absolutely clear, that there was a
clear collusion of the police system with petty political leaders to deny justice to a rape victim.
But kowtowing to an MLA, right from the thana to the DGP level, is something I find surprising. I
cannot understand how a DGP could give a clean chit to a rape accused, address him as
mananiya vidhayakaji and how he could describe the car crash as prima facie an accident,
knowing fully well that this would be treated as a message for the officials down below,
impacting the investigation?”
Prakash Singh added that the way in which the Supreme Court had shown a lack of faith in any
State agency, from police to hospitals, from security to judiciary, was a huge slap on the State
government’s face. “In any other State, the DGP would have been removed immediately,” he
said.
89
The Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister seems to be caught in a web of his own making, The
Bulandshahar incident of December 2018 is a case in point when a police inspector, Subodh
Kumar, was shot dead by a crowd of Hindutva supporters who were bent upon attacking a
Muslim place of worship on the suspicion that cow slaughter had taken place there. The sub
inspector was trying to pacify the cow vigilantes when he was attacked by the mob and shot
dead with his own service pistol. The main accused, Yogesh Raj, a Bajrang Dal activist,
remained on the run for many months before being arrested, though he kept posting Facebook
and Twitter messages. The Chief Minister did not comment on the incident for many days, and
when he did, it was to first condemn cow slaughter.
As the Unnao controversy raged, showing up the police in poor light, senior police officers
across the State were busy posting pictures on social media massaging the feet of kanwariyas
and showering flower petals on them.
Yogi Adityanath’s government came to power on promises of ending “goonda raj”. Immediately
after taking over, the Chief Minister gave a free run to the police to kill criminals. A spate of
encounters followed, and 69 people were apparently killed in these “encounters”.
People are now wondering whether this government is serious about ridding the State of
criminals or whether it is trying to terrorise innocent citizens into silence about atrocities
perpetrated by he powerful.
THE NATION
CRIME
Unnao rape case: Corrupt nexus
DIVYA TRIVEDI
It was money, muscle power and political might that enabled Kuldeep Singh Sengar and his
accomplices to lord it over their fiefdom in Unnao and get away with multiple crimes.
The story of the Unnao rape case exemplifies how a criminal nexus continues to operate across
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-ruled Uttar Pradesh. The case of four-time MLA Kuldeep Singh
Sengar shows how political and financial corruption gets entrenched when an elected member
of the legislature functions like a satrap. Despite being investigated on charges of rape, murder,
criminal conspiracy and intimidation, Kuldeep Sengar continues to call the shots in Makhi, a
village in Unnao, from behind bars. When Frontline visited Makhi, 70 kilometres from the State
capital Lucknow, its residents were wary of even mentioning his name.
“Toh kya hua? Baahar nikalke maar dega humko [So what if he is in jail? After coming out, he
will kill me],” said a man in a matter-of-fact way. An atmosphere of dread pervaded the village.
In the Garhi mohalla, where Kuldeep Sengar lived in a sprawling complex with a school and a
temple, not a single person criticised him. A few Thakurs insisted that he had done no harm. A
Muslim resident, who did not want to be named, said: “We are poor and marginalised people.
We cannot afford to offend the powerful. It is better for us to keep quiet.”
But in another neighbourhood of the same village, where Sushpal Singh, a Thakur, had dared to
take on Kuldeep Sengar in the election, people were willing to discuss the case, albeit in hushed
90
tones. They spoke of the sordid affair and explained how Kuldeep and his brothers enjoyed
unchallenged impunity. They lorded it over the region and struck fear in the hearts of all.
The house where Kuldeep Sengar lived belonged to his grandfather, who had been a pradhan
for several decades. Kuldeep’s father joined the family business of sarapha or bullion, but
Kuldeep did not follow suit. He had political aspirations, and when he started out, all residents of
the village supported him, thinking that he would carry on his grandfather’s legacy. But he
turned out to be different. Gradually, he won the acceptance of all the small landlords and
started functioning like a khap panch. He helped people during weddings and cremations and
kept the peace in the village by sorting out local issues at his doorstep. The State administration
and the police establishment were kept at abeyance. The arrangement suited everyone. Those
who did not like his ways were coerced into silence. Over the years, the atmosphere of the
village deteriorated and people who could send out their children to study and work elsewhere,
did so. Several houses in the village were locked or only had elderly people staying on. “Young
boys at an impressionable age start imitating the ways of the Sengars and get into trouble. We
did not want our children to get affected by all that, and so we ensured they left. Now they work
in Kanpur or Delhi,” said an old farmer.
Kuldeep Sengar began his political career nearly two decades ago with the Youth Congress but
soon joined the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). He won from the Unnao Sadar seat for the first
time on the BSP ticket. Later, he jumped ship. He won from Bangermau in 2007 and Bhagwant
Nagar in 2012 on the Samajwadi Party (S.P.) ticket. In 2017, he joined the BJP ahead of the
Assembly election in Uttar Pradesh and won from Bangermau.
Kuldeep Sengar’s political reach was wide. Residents of Makhi said that Annu Tandon of the
Congress and Sakshi Maharaj of the BJP had been among his visitors in the village. The school
he built on his compound was financed by Akhilesh Yadav, who, too, had been his guest. It took
the BJP two years to expel him after the rape allegation surfaced against him. It took the
outrage triggered by the gruesome accident in which the girl and her lawyer were seriously
injured and she lost two of her aunts on July 28 this year for the party to finally expel him. But he
continues to be an MLA. His wife, Sangeeta, continues to be the chairperson of the zila
panchayat. His brother Atul’s wife, Archana, remains the village pradhan.
The case dates back to June 2017, when the girl, who was then 17 years old, was allegedly
raped by Kuldeep Sengar in his house. Barely 100 metres separate her humble home from
Kuldeep’s palatial one in Makhi. The two families were related. Kuldeep called the girl’s father
“mama”, or, maternal uncle. Both families are Thakurs, but belonging to different gotras.
Residents said Kuldeep and his two brothers, Atul and Manoj, used to work with the girl’s father,
Pappu or Surendra Singh, and his brothers, Mahesh and Guddu. But as the Sengars grew
richer and started throwing their weight around, they distanced themselves from the girl’s father
and uncles, and the two families became estranged. Guddu Singh died a decade ago, allegedly
killed by the Sengars, residents of the village said. But no police complaint was lodged.
Murky trail
Shashi Singh, a distant relative of the family staying in the same village, lured the girl away to
Kanpur, apparently on the pretext of getting her a job. But villagers say that Shashi’s son
Shubham and the girl had eloped. Kuldeep intervened and asked them to get married, but
Shubham’s father did not agree. That is when the trouble started. The girl was taken to
Kuldeep’s house for some sort of reconciliation, and he allegedly raped her.
91
Residents of the village wondered why the girl was taken to Kuldeep Sengar’s house when her
father or uncle might just as well have visited him to work out a solution. Kuldeep had no earlier
complaints of sexual harassment against him. But in a village where a feudal code of conduct is
still very much in force, the girl being taken to his house instead of her father or uncle is
suspect.
Thereafter, the girl was allegedly gang-raped by associates of Kuldeep Sengar. A first
information report (FIR) was lodged under Sections 363, 366, 367 and 506 of the Indian Penal
Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, naming
Kuldeep as the main accused. While some of his associates were charge-sheeted, Kuldeep
Sengar was allowed to roam free. He apparently continued to influence the police and intimidate
the girl and her family members. False complaints were lodged against the girl’s uncle. Even
after she complained to the Chief Minister through an open letter, no action was taken against
Kuldeep by the local authorities.
On April 3, 2018, the girl’s father was beaten up, allegedly by Atul and his accomplices. Both
parties lodged complaints against each other. But on April 4, the police arrested the victim’s
father, on the charge of possessing an unlicensed firearm. The family feared that he might be
tortured in custody. Days later, on April 8, the girl tried to immolate herself near Chief Minister
Yogi Adityanath’s house in Lucknow.
The next day, her father died in custody. The post-mortem report mentioned the cause of death
as blood poisoning due to perforation of the colon and listed multiple injuries, contusions and
abrasions on his body.
Adityanath’s administration was now forced to act. The Chief Minister set up a special
investigation team to probe the rape and the father’s custodial death. The girl and her family,
who were still in Lucknow, were taken to a hotel in the city and kept confined to their room
without water or electricity on the pretext of protection.
On April 11, the Allahabad High Court took suo motu cognisance of the case, admitting as a
public interest litigation petition a letter by a senior lawyer, Gopal S. Chaturvedi, seeking an
investigation. The court said that as per the submission made by Chaturvedi, it found it
“disturbing” that the father of the rape victim was arrested by the police “for no reason” and was
“mercilessly beaten” while in custody, The Hindu reported on April 12. “We fail to understand
why the investigating agency, instead of arresting the accused persons, arrested the
complainant, in connection with this case,” said a Division Bench of Chief Justice Dilip B.
Bhosale and Justice Suneet Kumar, the report in The Hindu said.
These incidents led to huge outrage and another FIR was registered against Kuldeep Sengar.
The case was handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). On April 13, finally,
Kuldeep, Atul and their accomplices were questioned and arrested by the CBI. Shashi Singh,
who was accused of taking the girl to Kuldeep, was also arrested.
But that did not stop the BJP from patronising him. Soon after the general election results, MP
Sakshi Maharaj went to the jail to thank Kuldeep Sengar for his help. Several other small-time
BJP leaders spoke out in his support and defended him in the press. In August 2018,
Mohammad Younus, a key witness in the case of assault on the father, died under mysterious
circumstances and was hastily buried.
92
Village residents said that after the girl and her family persisted in pursuing the case against
Kuldeep, old cases filed by the Sengars against the family were revived. On July 2, after a lull of
a couple of months in the case, the girl’s uncle got convicted in a 19-year-old case of attempt to
murder, filed by Atul. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison by a district court. Some village
residents pointed out that he was alive because he was in jail and that his life would be in
danger had he been free.
The “accident”
On July 28, when the girl, two of her aunts and her lawyer, Mahendra Singh, were travelling to
meet her uncle in jail, a truck rammed into their vehicle in Rae Bareli. It was coming from the
wrong side of the road and had its number plate greased out. The aunts were instantly killed.
The girl and her lawyer suffered multiple injuries and were put on life support at King George’s
Medical University (KGMU) in Lucknow. Three security personnel, a gunner and two women
constables, who had been assigned to accompany the girl whenever she travelled, were not
with her. They were later suspended. The girl’s uncle filed an FIR from inside prison blaming
Kuldeep Sengar for the accident. He said that Kuldeep had called them from behind bars and
asked them to take back the case if they wished to live. He recalled that when they had gone to
the police to file a complaint in the rape case, the police told them that Kuldeep was a lawmaker
with the ruling BJP and urged them to compromise with him as they feared losing their jobs.
According to the FIR, the threats had increased after the Allahabad High Court rejected the
request of a co-accused in the rape case for bail. In view of the threats, the uncle had asked the
family to move to Delhi from Unnao for safety.
The incident revived the case in the public domain with several political leaders and the media
slamming the BJP for its inaction. It rocked Parliament, with opposition leaders demanding
accountability. The National Commission for Women (NCW) wrote a letter to the Director
General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, and met with the girl’s family. “The Commission is seriously
concerned about the unfortunate incident. Considering the gravity of the matter, it is requested
to ensure absolutely free, fair and speedy investigation into the matter and take action deemed
appropriate for the crime committed,” said the NCW in its letter.
The CBI, which took over the investigation from the Uttar Pradesh police, has carried out
searches at 17 locations. Kuldeep Sengar and nine others were named in the FIR, including
Arun Singh, son-in-law of Ranvendra Pratap Singh or Dhunni Bhaiyya, who is the State Minister
for Agriculture, Agricultural Education and Research.
The number of the truck was retrieved and the driver and cleaner, who belong to Fatehpur, the
same place where Ranvendra is a lawmaker from, were arrested. The owner of the truck,
Devendra Singh, was questioned by the CBI, but he denied knowing Kuldeep Sengar. He
asserted that the number plate was smeared as he wanted to escape being caught for unpaid
instalments on the truck. But the girl’s relative told Frontline that there was no doubt that it was
Kuldeep who orchestrated the accident.
A day after the accident, a letter dated July 12 addressed to the Chief Justice of India, Ranjan
Gogoi, and written by the girl, surfaced. In the letter, she sought the CJI’s intervention in the
case. She had mentioned the increase in threats and said it posed a danger to their lives. Gogoi
pulled up the Supreme Court registry on why the letter had not reached him. In January, the
girl’s mother had filed a transfer petition before the Supreme Court to transfer the case to Delhi
from Unnao, fearing that a fair trial would not be possible in the State.
93
Rajiv Yadav of the Rihai Manch in Lucknow was not surprised at the apex court’s non-
intervention in the case. “We deal with cases of violence and atrocities routinely and write to the
police establishment, politicians and judiciary. Not once, in all these years, have we ever got a
receiving from the Supreme Court,” he said.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court transferred four cases from a CBI court in Lucknow to Delhi and
ordered the State government to pay the girl Rs.25 lakh as interim compensation. The trial is
expected to be complete in 45 days and hearings will take place on a day-to-day basis, as per
orders of the court. These cases include the rape of the minor, a false case hoisted against her
father under the Arms Act by conniving police officers, the custodial death of her father, and a
second instance of gang rape of the survivor within a week of the first one. The transfer of the
fifth case pertaining to the accident, for the time being, has been stalled.
The CBI submitted before a Delhi court that Kuldeep Sengar had indeed assaulted the minor
and Shashi Singh had lured her to his house. Counsel for Kuldeep Sengar claimed that the girl
was not a minor. District and sessions judge Dharmesh Sharma stopped short of gagging the
media as demanded by the CBI and the counsel for the accused. He issued guidelines
restraining the media from reporting the names and addresses of the victim/survivor, family
members and witnesses. He also asked the media to refrain from reporting witness testimonies
and opinion on the merits of the case. Kuldeep Sengar, who was in judicial custody, would be
shifted to Tihar jail, as per the orders.
The apex court also ordered the girl and her lawyer to be airlifted from KGMU to the All India
Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) in Delhi. On August 5, two green corridors were created in
Lucknow and Delhi, and the girl was brought to AIIMS Trauma Centre, where her condition
continues to be critical requiring ventilator support. The next day, her lawyer too was shifted. He
was unconscious with severe traumatic brain injury, multiple fractures and was on advanced life
support systems, said AIIMS.
According to the residents of Makhi, if this accident had not taken place, the case would have
been slowly forgotten and Kuldeep Sengar would have eventually come out of jail. But now they
are not too sure.
THE NATION
CHARGESHEET AGAINST JNU TEACHERS
Charge-sheeting JNU teachers: Stun and subdue
T.K. RAJALAKSHMI
The charge-sheeting of 48 JNU teachers for a protest they participated in a year ago, under
rules framed for government employees, is widely criticised as a move to curb the freedom of
thought and expression among the teaching community. The move is also of doubtful legality.
IN an unprecedented move, the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) administration has framed
charges of misconduct against 48 faculty members under the Central Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, for participating in a one-day protest in July
last year. It has also invoked the Central Civil Services (Conduct), Rules, 1964, applicable to
government employees.
94
On July 24, 2019, a memorandum was sent to the teachers initiating an inquiry against them
and threatening them with penalties, major and minor, under CCS Rules that could include
deduction of wages and increment. The teachers have been given 15 days to reply to the
charge sheet, which cites a CCS rule that requires government servants to not “bring or attempt
to bring any political or outside influence to bear upon any superior authority to further his/her
interest in respect of matters pertaining to his/her service under the Government”.
CCS Rules do not categorise teachers, whether of schools, colleges or universities, as

government servants. Yet the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the teachers are based
on the assumption that they are regular government servants. The development has
underscored the belief that the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government led by the
Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is working, through its appointees in universities, towards
systematically undermining the autonomy of universities, each of them set by up an individual
Act of Parliament, and reining in expressions of grievance by “disciplinary” mechanisms. That it
took one full year for the university to establish the charges is surprising in itself. The charge-
sheeting of the teachers, many of whom are professors with more than three decades of
teaching experience, has shocked the teaching community. It has had a chilling effect not only
on the teachers in the university but elsewhere as well. The Federation of Central University
Teachers Association and several other State teacher associations, like the West Bengal
College and University Teachers Association, have condemned the move.
The decision to charge-sheet the teachers was finalised through a resolution passed at the
university’s Executive Council meeting where dissenting voices were not allowed to be heard.
This has raised serious questions about the Central government’s approach to higher
education, coming as it does close on the heels of the soon-to-be-finalised New Education
Policy. The legality of the move itself is under doubt following an Allahabad High Court order in
2015. While disposing a writ (Writ Number 4178 of 2015), which was about the exercise of
statutory powers and the invocation of disciplinary proceedings under CCS Rules, the court
upheld the position that “professors of a University are neither members of a service nor do they
hold a civil post under the Union nor are they in the service of local or other authority; CCS
(CCA) Rules therefore would have no application to a Central university.”
According to the JNU Teachers Association, which had called the one-day strike, the protest
was held in support of the interests of the university and in defence of the JNU Act, Statutes and
Ordinances. It was to highlight, the JNUTA stated, the “repeated violations of the JNU Act and
its statutes, bypassing of time tested and established academic deliberative procedures,
violations of reservations policy, arbitrary removal and appointment of chairpersons and Deans,
the tripartite Memorandum of Understanding with the University Grants Commission and the
Ministry of Human Resource Development, the proposed Higher Education and Financing
Authority loan, arbitrary reinforcing of attendance, misrepresentation of the proceedings of
Academic and Executive Council Meetings, Skype vivas for MPhil and PhD and the draft IPR
policy of the vice-chancellor”. The charge sheet, it said, was the latest in a series of disciplinary
proceedings initiated against the teaching community which, incidentally, had been rated the
best by the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development. The charge sheet initiates formal
disciplinary proceedings under “major penalty” as per the recorded resolution of the university’s
Executive Council. The administration referred to a 2011 Executive Council decision wherein it
was resolved that all rules and regulations of the Government of India would be applicable to
service matters of JNU teaching and non-teaching employees, including inquiry, conduct and
disciplinary rules, where the university statutes and regulations are silent.
Rules for teachers
95
As per the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, a university is created through an Act of a
legislature and is an autonomous body even if it is public-funded. Teachers are not government
servants as defined in CCS Rules themselves and their pay and service conditions are
governed by UGC Regulations, which have Central government approval. Neither the UGC
Regulations notified on July 18, 2018, nor the earlier 2010 Regulations, make CCS Rules,
particularly those relating to conduct, applicable to university teachers. Instead, those
Regulations include a Code of Professional Ethics for teachers which are fundamentally
incompatible with CCS (Conduct) Rules. The Code of Ethics for teachers emphasises in several
clauses that independence of thinking and freedom of expression are not only to be enjoyed but
exercised by teachers. JNUTA office-bearers said that CCS Rules were not applicable to all
government servants and that the “silences” in the UGC Regulations or in the JNU Act or
Statutes did not constitute gaps that could be used as a pretext for invoking CCS rules.
Some clauses in the Code of Ethics enjoin teachers to “express free and frank opinion by
participation at professional meetings, seminars, conferences, etc., towards the contribution of
knowledge; work to improve education in the community and strengthen the community’s moral
and intellectual life; perform the duties of citizenship, participate in community activities and
shoulder responsibilities of public offices…”. In dealing with the relations of teachers with the
authorities, the Code recognises the importance of teachers enjoying the rights to articulate and
demand conditions that in their view are conducive to the fulfilling of their responsibilities. It calls
upon teachers to “discharge their professional responsibilities according to the existing rules
and adhere to procedures and methods consistent with their profession in initiating steps
through their own institutional bodies and/or professional organisations for change of any such
rule detrimental to the professional interest.”
The background
On July 27, 2018, the university administration issued a circular under Rule 7(6) of Academic
Rules and Regulations, which prohibited all forms of coercion, including gheraos, sit-ins, or
other such action, that disrupted the university’s normal academic and administrative
functioning. Quoting the rule, the circular also said that hunger strikes, dharnas and other
peaceful and democratic forms of protest and group bargaining should be conducted with
restraint, that is, at a distance of 100 metres from the administrative and academic complexes.
Interestingly, the circular proscribed as well as allowed peaceful forms of democratic protest,
including strikes. The contradiction was glaring.
The charge sheet refers to this circular and holds that the teachers violated the rule invoked in it
by participating in the one-day strike. Curiously, the circular was issued on July 27, four days
before the teachers’ protest, which suggests that the university administration had prior
knowledge of the strike. Yet it made no move to resolve the issue through discussions. The
strike itself was peaceful by all accounts. Over 100 teachers participated in it, which makes the
targeting of 48 of them appear selective.
The university administration’s previous efforts to invoke CCS Rules with regard to teachers had
been thwarted. In the 276th meeting of the Executive Council on October 22, 2018, the Vice
Chancellor issued a press release saying that “no CCS Rules have been incorporated in JNU
ordinances”.
CCS (Conduct) Rules have several provisions restricting the freedom of expression and rights
of protest of government servants—a curtailment of fundamental democratic rights that are not
only available to teachers but in principle are guaranteed to all other citizens of the country by
the Constitution. This difference between the conduct expected of a government servant and a
96
university teacher is not surprising given the different functions they have to perform—what is
essential to one is incongruent with the other. As one of the charge-sheeted teachers explained:
“If a journalist seeks the opinion of a bureaucrat on some government policy or decision, he or
she is required to respond by explaining the government’s view on it and not articulate a
personal opinion. The same question addressed to an academic in the relevant field is an
invitation to his or her professional and expert opinion on the policy. Government servants have
to execute the government’s policies while university teachers have to contribute to the
development and transmission of knowledge and critical thinking.”
Thus, while government servants are debarred from participating in political activities and
elections, university teachers are encouraged by their code of ethics to be willing to hold public
office—and Indian politics has seen several teachers playing an active part without retiring or
resigning from their service as bureaucrat-turned-politicians have had to do. There are several
Members of Parliament who are university professors and teachers, including from the ruling
party, who have been elected to both Houses without retiring or resigning from service.
Draft NEP celebrates faculty autonomy

These differences are the reasons that universities are not treated as government departments
and are created as autonomous units, having their own Act, statutes, ordinances and
regulations. Teachers’ bodies are therefore concerned that the imposition of CCS Rules on
universities will defeat the very purpose of their creation and make teaching a profession that
would require the surrender of constitutionally guaranteed democratic rights. Such a scenario
would sound the death knell of all the creativity and autonomy that give teachers their sense of
self-fulfilment and which allow their collective efforts and even their disagreements to produce
“quality” in higher education. Even the draft New Education Policy put out for public discussion
emphasises these points, at least in principle, and celebrates faculty autonomy. The fear among
teachers is, however, that the policy may be saying one thing while pushing for a contrary
outcome.
Though in the past courts have held that CCS Rules are not applicable to teachers, in recent
times several Central universities have seen attempts to change the legal framework and
impose CCS (Conduct) Rules on teachers and other employees. Many of the new Central
universities created through the Central Universities Act, 2009, adopted the CCS Conduct
Rules. Similar efforts were under way in the older Central universities, including JNU. The
Central University of Kerala used such rules to suspend a faculty member for expressing
dissatisfaction with the administration’s handling of a student matter. A letter dated March 3,
2016, from the Ministry of Human Resource, to universities, supposedly for “improving financial
management and strict compliance of rules/procedures”, was viewed as a veiled attack on their
autonomy. The insistence that Central universities should sign tripartite memoranda of
understanding with the UGC and the Ministry as a precondition for release of grants was also an
attempt to make their policies subject to government control and monitoring. Last year, bringing
Delhi University under the ambit of the ESMA (Essential Services Maintenance Act) was also
considered.
Curbing freedoms to associate

These moves suggested a policy push towards curbing freedoms of teachers and of their unions
and associations. However, when there was a hue and cry about it in 2018, and teachers’
groups affiliated to the ruling BJP also expressed concern, the then HRD Minister, Prakash
Javadekar, denied that the government had any such intention, and some of the moves were
scrapped. Even the JNU administration withdrew in October 2018 its proposal to incorporate
CCS Rules into the new ordinances for teachers. So why has it suddenly revived a case against
97
teachers for their participation in a protest whose scale and form would rarely attract serious
attention of most university authorities, even less as something inviting major penalty? It was a
one-day protest and no law and order situation was created or administrative functioning
disturbed. Neither the original notice issued to the teachers in September 2018 nor the charge
sheet now served makes any accusation against them other than that they participated in the
protest. The notice referred to, CCS (Conduct) Rules, and this has raised suspicion that there is
more to this story than merely the JNU administration’s erratic behaviour. Is this a sign that the
government, with the huge mandate that it has won, is making a concerted bid to rewrite the
framework governing university teaching? Is the JNU case just the beginning of the end of
academic freedom in Indian higher education and of teachers’ right to protest?
A perusal of the Rules reveals that they apply to “every person appointed to a civil service or
post in connection with the affairs of the Union”. Certain categories of services are exempted—
the All India Services, Railways and casual employees.
The Rules are inapplicable to the teaching community as they virtually militate against the very
functions that teachers perform or are required to perform owing to the very nature of the
profession. For instance, the Rules prohibit a) any employee from participating or conducting
the editing or management of any newspaper or periodical; b) publication of books and articles
save for a purely scientific and literary character; c) interventions that have the effect of adverse
criticism of the government or embarrass relations with the Union or with any foreign
government; d) association with any political party or any organisation which takes part in
politics; e) association with activity that is prejudicial to the interests of the sovereignty and
integrity of India, public order, decency or morality; f) any public testimony and expert opinion
and raising funds or accepting subscriptions or associating with fundraising, etc. The blanket
caution against any “political movement or activity” would mean that teachers’ participation in
mass rallies or collective mobilisations, including in the mobilisations witnessed in the Nirbhaya
case, would be tantamount to a breach of service rules and invite punishment, stated a member
of the JNUTA.
The invoking of CCS Rules is an overreach aimed at intimidating the teaching community of a
university that has performed in an exemplary fashion on all fronts, apart from contributing two
alumni who are Ministers in the present Union government. Teachers and students not only in
JNU but elsewhere in the country have been raising pertinent concerns in academic and public
interest (which even government servants are allowed to do under CCS Rules). The free flow of
ideas and knowledge-sharing, central to the existence of an institution of higher learning, cannot
happen with such straitjacketed approaches. The process of critical inquiry can also involve
questioning the decisions of the authorities, especially if those decisions are perceived to be
arbitrary and inimical to academic reasoning and thought.
Expressions of support
Statements of support for the charge-sheeted teachers have come from teachers’ associations
from across universities. They include the University of Hyderabad; Jamia Millia Islamia;
Ambedkar University; Rajiv Gandhi University, Arunachal Pradesh; Aligarh Muslim University;
Maulana Azad National Urdu University; Nagaland University; Allahabad University; and Indira
Gandhi National Open University. The Tripura University Teachers’ Association; the Visva-
Bharati University Faculty Association and the Federation of Central Universities’ Teachers’
Associations; the All India Federation of University and College Teachers’ Organisations; and
the West Bengal College and University Teachers’ Association are among others who sent
letters of support.
98
Close to 2,000 scholars and teachers, including academics of international repute such as Akeel
Bilgrami, Professor of Philosophy, Columbia University; Arjun Appadurai from New York
University; Professor Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak from Columbia University; David Hardiman
from the University of Warwick; Jan Breman from the University of Amsterdam; Sheldon Pollack
and Partha Chatterjee from Columbia University; and Veena Das from Johns Hopkins University
issued statements of solidarity with the JNU teachers.
THE NATION
HUMAN RIGHTS
Amendments to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993: Trampling on rights
ILANGOVAN RAJASEKARAN
Activists accuse the government of undermining the autonomy of human rights commissions by
amending crucial sections of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.
HUMAN rights activists and members of civil society have accused the Union government of
“compromising” the autonomy of the nation’s rights bodies, namely the National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC) and State HRCs, by amending certain sections in the Protection of Human
Rights Act, 1993.
They said that the amendments, passed in both Houses of Parliament “in haste” amid stiff
opposition, would alter the basic composition and working module of the NHRC and SHRCs in
contravention of the United Nations’ Paris Principles on human rights.
“It will disturb the core values and principles for which the NHRC was created,” said Henri
Tiphagne, national working secretary of the All India Network of NGOs and Individuals working
with National and State Human Rights Institutions (AiNNI).
Amendments to the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, have been pending for long. In 2005,
the government introduced a Bill on amendments to Section 3(2)(a) and Section 21(2)(a) of the
Act, which deal with the tenures and eligibility criteria of chairpersons of the NHRC and SHRCs.
It suggested that the Centre could consider a retired judge of the Supreme Court, who had
served a minimum of three years, for the post of NHRC chairperson instead of retaining the
existing practice of appointing a retired Chief Justice of India (CJI) as mandated by the Act.
However, the then Parliamentary Standing Committee on Home Affairs with Sushma Swaraj in
the chair rejected it. A new Bill was tabled again in Parliament in 2018, but it was allowed to
lapse. Then, on July 8, Minister of State for Home Affairs G. Kishan Reddy introduced the latest
Bill, the Protection of Human Rights (Amendment) Bill, 2018, with certain sweeping
modifications. It was tabled and passed in the Lok Sabha on July 19.
The Rajya Sabha passed it on July 22 by voice vote amid strong protests from opposition
benches, who demanded a detailed discussion and insisted that the same be referred to the
standing committee for critical evaluation.
The amended Act says specifically that if a retired CJI is not available, the option is to appoint a
former Supreme Court judge as NHRC chairperson.
99
Opposition members criticised these amendments, saying that they would encourage the
government to appoint its own “yes men” as chairpersons in rights forums. Congress MP Shashi
Tharoor, during debates on the Bill in the Lok Sabha, said that there were several gaps in it.
When the Bill was moved in the Rajya Sabha, opposition MPs accused the government of
tinkering with the Act to suit its needs. They said that the Bill was not in conformity with the Paris
Principles. But Home Minister Amit Shah, replying in the Rajya Sabha, said that the chairperson
was not appointed by the Prime Minister on recommendations from the Home Minister. “There
is a committee which includes the Prime Minister and Opposition leaders of both the Houses.
The House should trust the wisdom of such a committee,” he said.
AiNNI, which coordinates rights work with all rights commissions at the national and State
levels, whose chairpersons were “deemed members” of the NHRC and the SHRCs, is of the
view that the latest set of amendments to the 1993 Act are in “violation of the international
covenant on human rights”.
Henri Tiphagne said that no consultations were held with the stakeholders prior to the tabling of
the Bill in both Houses of Parliament. “Neither non-governmental organisations nor members of
civil society were consulted,” he said. He also said that it was not clear whether the
amendments were discussed by the Ministry of Home Affairs with the members of the NHRC
and SHRCs.
Other amendments
Apart from the amendment on the NHRC chairperson, the Bill also amended Section 3(2)(d) of
the Act, increasing the number of members of the commission from two to three, of whom one
will be a woman.
Yet another amendment, to Section 3(3), says that the “deemed memberships” would be
extended to chairpersons of the National Commission for Backward Classes, the National
Commission of Protection of Child Rights and the Commission for the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities, apart from existing chairpersons from other commissions.
Similarly, the composition of SHRCs too could change. The amendment to Section 21(2)(a)
makes any retired judge of the respective High Court eligible for the post of SHRC chairperson,
as against the provision of appointing former High Court Chief Justices.
The tenure of the chairperson and members of the NHRC as per the amended sections of 6(1)
and 6(2) stand reduced to three years from five.
However, the amendment allows the government to reappoint them for a further period under
Sections 6(1) and Sections 6(2) respectively. The same would be applicable to the chairpersons
and members of State commissions too.
Activists said that the tenure of NHRC and SHRC chairpersons and members should not be
reduced as the three-year tenure was inadequate to even understand how the system
functioned.
By the time a chairperson or a member understands the working system of the NHRC or an
SHRC and can initiate necessary actions to implement the provisions of the Act, their tenure
would be nearing completion. This will lead to a decrease in efficiency in the functioning of the
NHRC and SHRCs, with new members coming in at frequent intervals, they said.
100
According to rough estimates, an average of one lakh cases are referred to the NHRC every
year.
The activists also said that the increase in the representation of women in the NHRC would only
be ceremonial. “In the 25 years of the NHRC, only three women have served as members and
none as chairperson. If the government is concerned about unequal representation of women in
the NHRC and SHRCs, it should amend the Act to the effect that at least half of the total
strength of the NHRC and SHRCs must be women. Only then can equality and plurality be
ensured,” Henri Tiphagne said.
The amendments also aim to change the working profile of the secretary general of the NHRC.
The amended Section 3(4) permits the secretary general (chief executive officer) of the Office of
the NHRC to exercise all administrative and financial powers other than judicial functions but
“subject to the control of the NHRC chairperson”, thus bringing the officer under the control of
the chairperson instead of a full commission, which originally used to delegate powers to the
secretary general. The appointment of heads of various commissions who are “deemed
members” in the NHRC and SHRCs are political.
AiNNI said that this would influence the free and fair functioning of these panels.
To substantiate its claims, AiNNI noted that for the 2011-15 period, the Statutory Commission
meetings of the NHRC and chairpersons of various commissions who are “deemed members”
were few and far between.
They met once in 2011 (July 14), twice in 2012 (February 7 and December 7), never in 2013
and once each in 2014 (February 4) and in 2015 (February 3). In the meeting held on February
7, 2012, chairpersons of the National Commission for Women (NCW), the National Commission
for Schedule Castes and the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (NCST) were absent
while in the meeting held on December 7, 2012, all chairpersons were absent.
Again, on February 4, 2014, the chairpersons of all commissions were absent. In the meeting
held on February 3, 2015, the chairpersons of the NCW and the NCST did not attend.
“Only five Statutory Commission meetings were held between 2011 and 2015, which recorded
heavy absenteeism. The minutes of these meetings suggest that the ‘deemed members’
continue to show apathy in the core business of the NHRC’s functions,” Henry Tiphagne said.
That the practice of appointing “deemed members” in the NHRC and SHRCs was ceremonial
and ineffective was not far from the truth. Instead of appointing such chairpersons of the
commissions mechanically, activists said, Section 3(2)(d) of the Act should be amended to
increase the number of members in the NHRC in order to ensure representation from diverse
communities on the basis of language, region, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity and gender.
Similar amendments must be made in Section 21(2)(c) pertaining to SHRCs, AiNNI said.
AiNNI also said that the existing provisions on the eligibility criteria of chairpersons of the NHRC
and SHRCs should be retained to prevent the government from taking control of the
commissions.
101
According to AiNNI, the amendment on appointments would encourage unhealthy competition
among members of the judiciary. The total number of members of the NHRC should be
increased by at least five times and they should be drawn from different sections of civil society,
it said.
AiNNI also sought a re-evaluation of the powers and functions of “deemed members” and the
formation of an independent appointment committee with members having no political affiliation.
Such an independent committee would ensure justice to the victims of atrocities, it said.
AiNNI said that on April 12, 2017, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights had
dispatched a letter to the then Union Minister of External Affairs, expressing concern over the
working module of the NHRC. In the letter, the High Commissioner had stated that “establishing
an open, transparent and merit-based selection process for the members of the governing body
of the NHRC by giving equal representation to all sections of the society” was necessary.
The High Commissioner urged the government to appoint an advisory council to the governing
body of the NHRC comprising non-government organisations, civil society actors and
independent experts, with no voting rights.
The letter urged the establishment of three additional offices for the NHRC in the eastern,
western and southern parts of India, besides instituting a toll-free national helpline for grave
violations of human rights. The NHRC should be empowered to cover all relevant cases
involving rights violations of all paramilitary forces and the Army, including in Jammu and
Kashmir, the letter said.
(In addition to these recommendations, AiNNI said Section 30 of the Act pertaining to the
establishment of Human Rights Courts and Section 31 for appointing Special Public
Prosecutors for these courts should be evaluated.)
As per the provisions, courts and special prosecutors had been appointed in several States. But
these courts, the High Commissioner pointed out, had remained on paper all these years in the
absence of any notification of offences.
However, none of these recommendations was taken into account by the government while
formulating amendments to the Act.
“It was passed in haste. It is of utmost importance for us to protect human rights institutions
without any compromises. It is still not too late. These amendments, before getting effected into
an Act, can be put under critical legislative review. If rights commissions are to play a
meaningful role in society, they must include civil society and human rights activists as
members,” Henri Tiphagne said.
THE NATION
CAFE COFFEE DAY
CCD founder V.G. Siddhartha's death: Brewing mystery
RAVI SHARMA
102
The mysterious death of Café Coffee Day founder V.G. Siddhartha raises several questions.
Was the financial position of his successful ventures shaky? Did tax terrorism play a role? Or
was it the result of an exaggerated sense of honour?
VEERAPPA Gangaiah Siddhartha Hegde, the 59-year-old billionaire coffee entrepreneur, was
not known to be a flamboyant, in-your-face kind of businessman. He was not a man who liked to
give interviews and be in the news. Reticent to the point of driving many a journalist to
frustration, Siddhartha preferred to let his business acumen and forays into diverse businesses
do the talking. His massive coffee chain, Café Coffee Day, which was established in 1996 and
which has grown to nearly 1,800 outlets in 250 cities, created a fashionable coffee culture. The
Café Coffee Day tagline said it all: “A lot can happen over coffee.” That is exactly what Café
Coffee Day went about doing, transforming the way the traditional beverage, gulped down
piping hot in south Indian homes from steel tumblers or sipped out of cups first thing in the
morning in restaurants and coffee shops, was drunk, affording patrons with memories of a
lifetime.
The coffee chain introduced a buzz and razzmatazz around every cuppa, hot or cold. It
dovetailed perfectly with the changing Bengaluru landscape of the mid 1990s when the city’s
tree-lined skyline and colonial bungalows began vanishing rapidly, giving way to avant-garde
architecture and manicured landscape gardens, and the information technology industry
changed with equal vigour the city’s lifestyle. The swanky Café Coffee Day outlets, with the
promise of free Internet, cleanliness and classy service, complemented Bengaluru’s
ultramodern look as the Silicon Valley of India. Café Coffee Day soon became an iconic brand
and a franchise like no other. Despite challenges from rival chains and, more recently, from
foreign entrants such as Starbucks and Costa Coffee, Café Coffee Day managed to stay
profitable and even maintain a steady growth.
So when news broke out late on the evening of July 29 about Siddhartha’s disappearance, it
caused astonishment and surprise. Why would and how could one of India’s most successful
entrepreneurs just vanish? Over the next 36 hours, the astonishment melted into disbelief and
then despair, as the worst fears were realised. The recovery of Siddhartha’s body in the early
hours of July 31, floating nearly 500 metres from where the river Netravathi joins the Arabian
Sea close to Hoigebazar (eight kilometres from Mangaluru) only confirmed the worst fears. The
body was brought ashore by fishermen. The news of his untimely death under mysterious
circumstances, purportedly after jumping off a bridge that spans the Netravathi, has whipped up
more questions than answers. Unfortunately, dead men tell no tales.
Pressure from private equity players
Café Coffee Day may have been his most famous business venture, but much before the word
“start-up” became common parlance, Siddhartha had launched several of them. An innovator
who was not averse to taking risks, Siddhartha was ambitious, always thought big and chased
valuations. But did his vastly diverse businesses cause him to go too far and become marooned
in a vortex of debt from which he could not rescue himself? Despite having created the brand
Café Coffee Day, he was finding it difficult to raise funds. He had also run up huge debts and
was reportedly under tremendous pressure from private equity players, who were forcing him to
buy back part of the equity they had invested in.
The fact that the stock price of the Coffee Day Enterprise (CDE), the holding company that runs
Café Coffee Day, had not appreciated since its initial public offering (IPO) listing in November
2015 has been a huge drawback for the entrepreneur. The CDE issue price was firmed at
Rs.328 in the IPO but listed at Rs.313, and finally closed at Rs.270.15 on the opening day.
103
Except for a brief period in the first half of 2018 (when it touched a high of Rs.374.60 on January
22, 2018), the CDE’s share price never crossed its initial listing price. Also, hardly any mutual
funds hold shares of the CDE. The underperforming CDE scrip has had other ramifications.
Money market analysts explained that Siddhartha’s borrowings from private equity entities were
often through compulsorily convertible debentures, a debt instrument that converts into an
equity instrument at a certain date, with the “PE funds operators getting to exit with a certain
amount of guaranteed return”.
Trouble arose because the CDE stock price never appreciated. Private equity investors such as
KKR, New Silk Route and Standard Chartered (now known as Affirma Capital), who backed the
CDE in 2010 with almost $150 million, found it difficult to exit the company, given the stock’s
underperformance.
Private equity firms generally tend to exit companies in four to five years. According to share
brokers, Siddhartha had issues because some of the private equity operators who had funded
his businesses were treating their operations as structured debt rather than equity.
Analysts explained that the conglomerate structure of the group, where various unrelated
businesses are clubbed under one roof, has been a drag on the success of the group’s coffee
and related businesses, and impeded the stock’s buoyancy.
While half the group’s revenues come from coffee plantations, retailing and exports, the other
half is a mix of wholly unrelated diversifications in logistics, commercial realty, financial services
and information technology. Many of these capital consuming verticals have ensured that
returns are not commensurate and this dragged down the overall financials of the group.
Investors also view parts of this agglomeration as having political exposure. The financial
services firm Maybank Kim Eng noted on July 3 that the shares of the CDE lagged “due to
delays in the process of simplifying the corporate structure from a conglomerate to pure play
café business”.
IT searches
The Income Tax Department had Siddhartha in its crosshairs. In August 2017, the Department
conducted investigations into the financial affairs of senior Congress leader and former Minister
D.K. Shivakumar (a close associate of Siddhartha). As part of the investigations, in September
that year, searches were conducted at Siddhartha’s residences and offices in Bengaluru,
Chennai and Chikkamagaluru, which taxmen say were based on evidence of transactions
between the two. Income tax sleuths found undisclosed income belonging to Siddhartha and the
CDE totalling Rs.483 crore. The amount was later revised by the Department to Rs.418 crore.
With penalties, the Department raised a claim for Rs.636 crore. The 2017 raids were just the
beginning.
In January 2019, after media reports indicated that Siddhartha was planning to hive off his stake
in Mindtree Ltd, an Indian multinational information technology and outsourcing company
headquartered in Bengaluru and New Jersey, United States, the Income Tax Department
attached 7.5 million Mindtree shares held by Siddhartha and the CDE. The total value of the
shares was worth Rs.655 crore.
A month later, in February 2019, the Department acceded to Siddhartha’s request to release the
Mindtree shares as they were pledged against a loan of Rs.3,000 crore. In lieu of the Mindtree
shares, Siddhartha offered the Department 25 million CDE shares, then valued at Rs.667
104
crores. The Department accepted this. The sale of Siddhartha and CDE’s Mindtree stake
(totalling 20.4 per cent) to L&T fetched Rs.2,858 crore, almost all of which was used by
Siddhartha to pay off the CDE’s debt.
A portion of the sale proceeds was used to bear the transfer cost of shares, with a further
amount of Rs.46 crore being paid towards the first instalment of advance tax of estimated MAT
(minimum alternative tax) liability in the case of shares of the CDE. Given that MAT liability is to
the tune of around Rs.300 crore, of which only Rs.46 crore has been paid, Siddhartha and the
CDE still have to pay Rs.890 crore (Rs.636 crore plus Rs.254 crore) in taxes. But with the
CDE’s stock having drastically fallen from Rs.265 per share on February 6 to its present value
of Rs.89 (as on August 6), the CDE shares attached by the Income Tax Department are now
only worth Rs.222.5 crore, totalling just 25 per cent of what the CDE and Siddhartha owe the tax
department. In a letter allegedly written by Siddhartha on July 27, four days before his body was
found, and addressed to the board and employees of the CDE, he claimed that harassment
from a former Director General of the Income Tax Department, who directed that CDE/Mindtree
shares be attached, led to a “serious liquidity crunch in the group”.
Figures garnered and collated from the websites of the CDE, the Bombay Stock Exchange and
the Ministry of Corporate Affairs indicate that as on March 31, 2019, short-term borrowings and
long-term liabilities of the CDE were to the tune of Rs.6,542 crore. The CDE’s market cap, as on
August 2, was Rs.2,110 crore with nearly 70 per cent of his and his family’s holdings pledged as
security against loans, and the total debt of the promoter group companies of the CDE (primarily
Devadarshini Info Technologies, Combedu Coffee Estates, Sivan Securities and Coffee Day
Consolidations) as of March 2018 was to the tune of Rs.1,460 crore.
Soon after the L&T’s takeover of Mindtree, leads indicated that Coca-Cola Company, which was
desperately looking to reduce its dependence on sugary, carbonated drinks, was in early talks
to buy the Café Coffee Day chain, which according to various estimates was then valued at $2
billion. But the leads have turned cold.
From venture capital to coffee business
Born into a family of Vokkaliga coffee planters from Chikkamagaluru, Siddhartha after finishing
his college education from Mangaluru decided to skip the family’s coffee plantation business
and instead pursue a career in merchant banking. He interned with JM Financials as a
management trainee for nearly two years, learning the nuances of the trade from JM Financials’
Mahendra Kampani. Returning to Bengaluru in 1983-84, he acquired the stock-broking card of
Sivan Securities and formed his own investment and venture capital firm. (Sivan Securities was
later renamed Way2Wealth Securities.) He started investing the profits from his fledgling firm to
buy coffee plantations in Chikkamagaluru district. There was now no stopping him. In 1993, it
was Sivan Securities along with Vallabh Bhansali of Enam and Morgan Stanley that rescued
Infosys’ IPO from tanking by underwriting the float. But he did not hold on to the stock for too
long, a decision which, he admitted, was a mistake. However, over the years since the IPO,
Siddhartha made several investments in the information technology sector, the most notable
being in Mindtree, when, starting from 1999, he invested over a period of time about Rs.350
crore.
In 1993, Siddharatha started taking a keen interest in coffee plantations. Realising that there
was a serious mismatch between the prices Indian farmers were getting and the prices in the
international market, he was part of a delegation of coffee planters who convinced the then
Finance Minister Manmohan Singh to remove the restrictions on who coffee farmers could sell
105
their produce to. He set up a coffee trading business that soon became India’s largest coffee
exporter, and the extent of his estates multiplied manifold. He also set up another company for
trading in coffee, called Amalgamated Coffee Beans, now known as Coffee Day Global.
Over the years, Siddhartha acquired and invested in businesses ranging from logistics and
commercial real estate to plantations, resorts, logistics, tech holdings and wealth management
services. While the coffee business is valued at Rs.4,800 crore, the total value of the
conglomerate is Rs.7,200 crore. (Tanglin Rs.1,290 crore, Sical Rs.610 crore and Way2Wealth
Rs.470 crore.)
Siddhartha was married to Malvika, the elder daughter of former Karnataka Chief Minister and
Union Minister S.M. Krishna. Krishna’s second daughter, Shambhavi, is married to the liquor
baron Vijay Mallya’s stepbrother, Umesh Hingorani. Siddhartha was rarely seen in the company
of his father-in-law; nor did he parade his political connections. His connections were
nevertheless high profile; his political, social and business ties often intersected. The grapevine
is full of stories, including one that claims he raised campaign funds for Krishna and money to
pay the kingly ransom that was given to the bandit Veerappan to release the Kannada matinee
idol Rajkumar whom Veerappan had taken hostage in July 2000.
It was Siddhartha’s political ties that were arguably the beginning of his end.
Krishna, it is alleged, switched allegiance to the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in early 2017 after
spending a lifetime in the Congress, only to provide some protection for Siddhartha from Central
agencies.
To many who knew him, Siddhartha had the business acumen, knowledge of the financial
markets and the clout to come out of the debt that was plaguing him. Then why did he, as is
being alleged, jump off the bridge leaving behind a note in which he states that there was no
serious or severe asset-liability mismatch? Was Karnataka’s political power play a reason for his
income tax troubles? Or is the BJP’s sloganeering on the ease of doing business under its
regime just grandstanding? Is tax terrorism a real issue? Was the decision to buy back equity
from private players based on prudence or an exaggerated sense of honour? Why did he
suddenly rescind on hiving off a portion of his real estate assets? Why did Siddhartha defer at
the last minute plans to sell his real estate venture, Tanglin Developments Ltd, to the New York-
based private equity giant Blackstone Group Lp for an estimated Rs.2,700-2,800 crore? Or did
Siddhartha judge himself too harshly?
His last letter probably summed it up: “After 37 years, with strong commitment to hard work,
having directly created 30,000 jobs in our companies and their subsidiaries, as well as another
20,000 jobs in technology company where I have been a large shareholder since its founding, I
have failed to create the right profitable business model despite my best efforts.”
THE NATION
Makeover move
A NEW hoarding that appeared overnight all over Kolkata has become a major talking point in
political circles in West Bengal. While hoardings and cut-outs of Chief Minister Mamata
Banerjee are a common sight in the city, the new hoarding with the words “Didi ke Bolo” (Tell
Didi), inscribed alongside a picture of the Chief Minister, is particularly significant in the
changing political situation in the State. The poster reads: “If you have an opinion or any
106
problem, then call me—9137091370”. The message reads as if it is coming directly from the
Chief Minister. At a time when the Trinamool Congress is getting increasingly cornered by
widespread allegations of corruption and public outrage over the practice of having to pay
Trinamool leaders “cut money” for benefits from government schemes and projects, Mamata
Banerjee’s message is being seen as a desperate measure to win back the support her party
has lost, as was evident in the April/May Lok Sabha election. Disconnect with the masses,
grievances against the high-handedness and corruption of the local leaders, and the apparent
apathy of party high-ups towards the plight of the people are seen as some of the reasons for
the alarming decline in the Trinamool’s popularity.
Announcing the campaign on July 29, Mamata Banerjee said: “The Trinamool Congress has
taken up an initiative to intensify our public contact programme. To directly hear from the
people, we are providing a phone number… people can call this number and talk of whatever
problem they are facing, and I will try and address them to the best of my ability. They can log
on to the website too www.didikebolo.com and voice their grievance,” she said.
The party claimed in its social media handles that the campaign got over one lakh responses
within 24 hours of being set up. It is apparently a part of Mamata Banerjee’s turnaround
strategy, conceived by the poll strategist Prashant Kishor and the Indian Political Action
Committee.
Mamata Banerjee also announced a programme of reaching out to the masses through the
party’s elected representatives and leaders. “In the next 100 days more than 1,000 Trinamool
workers and elected representatives will be visiting more than 10,000 areas of villages and
towns and taking stock of the situation there, and talking to the local people, hold meetings with
party members, and before leaving the area raise the party flag there. This will make them
connect with workers at the booth level. The objective is to reach out to the people in a modern
manner and hear what they have to say,” she said. Trinamool leaders have even been
instructed to spend a night in the places they will be visiting.
The Chief Minister said that this campaign had nothing to do with the elections. “Elections are
still 21 months away and we are not immediately going into election mode, as we are going to
continue with the development work we have been doing. But the citizens need a platform,” she
said. She preferred to describe the new developments as “modernisation” of the Trinamool.
To some extent, these announcements and steps have managed to change the recent narrative
in Bengal’s political sphere, with the public focus shifting from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
to Mamata Banerjee. After the Lok Sabha election, it was the BJP’s performance and the daily
defection of Trinamool members to the BJP camp that was the talk of the town. Certain changes
in the Trinamool’s style of functioning and in Mamata Banerjee’s politics have become apparent
and are being attributed to Prashant Kishor’s influence. For one, the normally mercurial Mamata
Banerjee is now measured and mellow in her public speeches. “She is making a point not to be
seen in perpetual election mode and has even asked her Ministers and top party leaders to
refrain from flamboyant displays of power. She has also curbed her excessive use of the police
and the state machinery to resolve political issues,” a political source told Frontline.
Opposition parties, however, see all this as a gimmick. “Mamata Banerjee has lost the support
of the people of Bengal. Her party is involved in practically all the major corruption cases in the
State. Now, in the face of defeat, she is desperately trying to regain some lost ground; but that
is not happening. So long she has ruled with threat and terror, but after the Lok Sabha election
107
results people are no longer scared of her. It is a lost case for her now,” BJP leader Abhijit Roy
Choudhury said.
The Communist Party of India (Marxist) believes that it may be too late for Mamata Banerjee to
rectify a situation that her party is responsible for. “The isolation from the masses that Mamata
Banerjee is facing is increasing every day. Many people, including Trinamool supporters, are
pointing accusing fingers at her,” CPI(M) central committee member Shyamal Chakraborty told
Frontline.
By Suhrid Sankar Chattopadhyay
T.K. Rajalakshmi
T.K. Rajalakshmi, Senior Deputy Editor, has been with Frontline for 23 years. She analyses
critically, at the policy and grass-roots levels, issues relating to labour, land, industry, gender
and the social sector (health and education), besides keeping a sharp watch on national and
regional politics and documenting from time to time violence against specific social groups.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/columns/C_P_Chandrasekhar/article25294979.ece
COLUMNS C.P. CHANDRASEKHAR
IMF
Bracing for the bust
Print edition : November 09, 2018
The message from the IMF’s October meeting suggests that a return to recession is a real
possibility, but this time around the crisis could also hammer the emerging markets that are
already financially volatile.
THE message from the October meetings of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the
World Bank, which normally exude optimism, is glum. In January this year, the IMF noted that
“the cyclical upswing under way since mid-2016” was growing stronger, contributing to “the
broadest synchronised global growth upsurge since 2010”. It now feels that while “the global
economic expansion remains strong”, it has “become less balanced and with more downside
risks”. This does not just mean that one more sighting of the “green shoots of recovery” is
proving to be premature. Given the IMF’s predilection for underplaying bad news, it suggests
that a return to recession is a real possibility.
The IMF points to two factors—rising interest rates in the United States and a stronger U.S.
dollar—that are contributing to downside risks, while throwing in rising trade tensions as an
additional cause for concern. However, these factors in themselves are not recovery-
threatening.
The first, namely rising interest rates as part of a dose of monetary tightening, was long
overdue. For almost a decade now, the U.S. Fed and Central banks in other developed
economies have been focussed on quantitative easing and interest rate reduction as antidotes
for the recession triggered by the 2008 financial crisis.
In the event, Central bank balance sheets were overly fat, the global economy was awash with
liquidity and interest rates were near zero. There was little disagreement on the need to unwind
balance sheets, rein in liquidity infusion and raise interest rates. The only question was when
108
and how fast. The signs of a recovery in the U.S. offered as good an opportunity as any to begin
this long overdue exercise. To the extent that the rise in U.S. interest rates and the improved
performance of the U.S. economy trigger a shift of investment in favour of dollar-denominated
assets, a strengthening of the dollar would follow, making that too an expected outcome.
The reasons why these inevitable movements in interest rates and the dollar are identified as
sources of concern relate to the consequences they have in the current global environment.
Rising interest rates in advanced nations are reversing the flow of capital from developed to
developing markets. This is because much of the portfolio investment in “emerging markets”
undertaken during the years of easy money reflected the “carry trade” encouraged by
differences in interest rates.
Interest rates
Investors borrowed cheap in dollar and euro markets and invested in emerging markets that
offered much higher interest rates. When those interest rate differences narrow, portfolio capital
tends to flow out from developing countries. That outflow, besides limiting liquidity, weakens
currencies, triggers speculation, and leads to a collapse (as happened in Argentina and Turkey)
or a significant fall (as seen in Brazil, South Africa and India) in the value of local currencies vis-
a-vis the dollar. This accelerates capital outflow.
Rising interest rates also hurt private players in emerging markets who borrowed quite happily
during the cheap money years but now find that their debt service burden is rising sharply. This
is true across the globe. But it is particularly true in the emerging markets where firms and other
borrowers chose to pile up foreign debt, which was cheap but carried the risk of turning costly in
local currency terms if the latter depreciated.
Today, they are faced with a double whammy—rising interest costs that increase debt service
commitments and sharply depreciating currencies that increase the domestic currency value of
those commitments even more, hurting their bottom line and even presaging defaults.
The potential for currency crises, debt defaults and a liquidity crunch inherent in this situation
portends a substantial growth slowdown and even a return to recession. That is the “downside
risk” the IMF is concerned about. That downside risk is great because of the huge build-up of
debt in recent years.
According to the IMF, “total non-financial debt in countries with systemically important financial
sectors now stands at $167 trillion, or over 250 per cent of aggregate GDP, compared with $113
trillion (210 per cent of GDP) in 2008.” This rise of nearly 50 per cent in non-financial debt over
the last decade is surprising. A major cause for the 2008 crisis was the build-up of household
and corporate debt, facilitated by a process in which risks were ‘shared’ through the creation
and sale to third parties of securities backed by debt assets. So, ‘deleveraging’, or reduction of
debt on the balance sheets across firms and households, was widely seen as crucial to any
process of post-crisis restructuring. Contrary to that requirement, the debt overhang has actually
risen sharply in the years since the crisis.
The IMF recognises why this has happened. “The unconventional monetary policies
implemented since the global financial crisis were aimed at easing financial conditions to
support the economic recovery,” it said. “In such an environment, total non-financial sector
debt—borrowings by governments, non-financial companies, and households—has expanded
at a much faster pace than the growth rate of the economy.”
109
Thus, the debt build-up is the result of the use of monetary policy measures such as easy
money policies and low interest rates in response to the recession induced by the financial
crisis. But, if that crisis was the result of excess debt, then measures that increase rather than
reduce the dependence on debt are not just the wrong medicine but counterproductive, as the
danger of another crisis suggests.
What is worse, that medicine has not delivered a robust recovery, with the return to growth
restricted to a very few economies. In sum, governments and Central banks got it wrong when
they relied on monetary measures as antidotes for the recession. That, however, is something
the IMF is not willing to accept since it would imply that greater reliance on proactive fiscal
policies, or enhanced state spending, which the IMF and financial interests rail against, were
possibly the better option.
Sell-off in stock markets

The problems created by the reliance on unconventional monetary policies do not end with the
danger of a debt bust. Stock markets across the world are coming off their highs. This is
happening even in the U.S., which is recording good growth and improved corporate earnings,
with the official unemployment estimate of 3.7 per cent being at its lowest in almost half a
century.
Over the week ended October 12, the U.S. stock market saw a massive sell-off, bringing to an
end the longest bull run in its history that had taken stock indices to unprecedented highs. This
establishes what was clear for long—that the bull run was the result of speculative fever
triggered by the easy and cheap money environment. To the extent that easy access to credit
fuelled the speculative boom in the stock market, the bust can result in defaults, when over-
indebted investors find they are unable to recoup their capital and repay their creditors. That is
another outcome that could squeeze liquidity and stymie growth.
Finally, despite the central role of opaque asset backed securities in aggravating the 2008
financial crisis, the issue of such securities has not diminished.
Noting that “leveraged finance, comprising high-yield bond and leveraged loan-based finance,
has doubled in size since the Great Financial Crisis”, the Bank for International Settlements
argues that this was facilitated by developments in the securitisations market.
“Originator banks are finding it easier to securitise and sell these loans. This can be seen in the
growing investment in loans by securitised structures such as collateralised loan obligations,
especially in the last couple of years.”
Nothing much has changed on the financial front since the crisis. What is different this time
around is that the danger of a crisis is not focussed on the advanced nations, with the rest of the
world, especially the emerging markets, only experiencing the after-effects. In fact, in 2008,
countries like China and India were still seen as growth poles that could help moderate the
intensity of the global crisis and even lead the recovery.
This time around, the disease will likely afflict the emerging markets too; these markets are
already bearing the brunt of the financial volatility unleashed by the reversal of “overused” rather
than “unconventional” monetary policies.
110
Yet, the IMF still finds reason to be positive about the state of some of these economies. In a
statement made in Washington, reported by the Press Trust of India, the Director of the IMF’s
Fiscal Affairs Department argued that while global debt had touched troubling levels, India had
managed to moderate debt expansion. Private debt in India is placed at 54.5 per cent of the
gross domestic product (GDP) and general government debt at 70.4 per cent, making a total of
125 per cent. That compares with a 247 per cent debt to GDP figure in China, for example.
India’s vulnerability
The debt exposure figure does not mean, however, that India is not vulnerable. India’s
vulnerability stems from its increased exposure to dollar debt, partly because of investment by
foreign portfolio investors in debt markets and partly because of direct borrowing by
corporations seeking to benefit from low international interest rates.
Rising U.S. interest rates combined with a widening of India’s current account deficit (owing to
the rise in oil prices and other factors) have weakened the rupee considerably vis-a-vis the
dollar. As a result, India has also been badly hit both by the exit of portfolio investors from debt
markets and by the depreciation of the rupee that followed. Of the more than $12 billion pulled
out by portfolio investors so far this year, more than $8 billion was from debt markets.
The rupee, meanwhile, has depreciated from less than Rs.64 to the dollar to around Rs.74. One
consequence of the latter is a rise in the rupee servicing costs of foreign debt. Borrowers
exposed to foreign debt are bound to feel the pressure.
Seen in those terms, the IMF’s sanguine assessment based on India’s overall debt-GDP ratio
does not reveal the extent of the nation’s vulnerability.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/columns/sabyasachi-bhattacharya/article25298170.ece
COLUMNS SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYA
When Vivekananda reconstructed Hinduism
Print edition : November 09, 2018
The real success of Swami Vivekananda’s iconic speech at the World’s Parliament of Religions
in Chicago in 1893 lay in his ability to rise above theological strife and the historical constraints
of the times.
AS I sit down to write my column for Frontline, I am overwhelmed by a sense of urgency to
catch up with news from 125 years ago. At that time, the big news in India was a speech
delivered in Chicago by an obscure Indian, Swami Vivekananda. The urgency to get back to
that comes from an apprehension that Vivekananda’s message to us may have been lost. How
authentic is the claim of some of his followers that they alone offer the true interpretation?
When we read Vivekananda’s words once again with care today, it seems that we are yet to
appreciate the full significance of his message. Consider, for instance, Vivekananda’s
comments on how Christianity was elaborated “in a patronising way”. By way of a reply to the
Christian missionary effort to belittle other religions, Vivekananda spoke on the tenth day of the
Chicago Conference. In his speech entitled “Religion is not the crying need of India”, he said:
“You Christians who are so fond of sending out missionaries to save the soul of the heathen —
why do you not try to save their bodies from starvation? ...they ask for bread, but we give them
stones. It is an insult to starving people to offer them religion, it is an insult to a starving man to
teach him metaphysics” (Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Calcutta, 1963, hereafter
cited as CWSV, Volume I, page 20).
111
Exactly 125 years ago, on September 19, 1893, Swami Vivekananda spoke on Hinduism at the
Chicago Parliament of Religions. It was a speech that would reverberate around the world. And
numerous commentaries have been made, for many decades since, on the words then uttered.
And yet, we may question ourselves whether we have fully realised the significance of that
moment, that effort to reconstruct Hinduism by one of the many delegates from India at the
world forum on September 19.
From the long view of history, what is the significance of that day and hour? It holds an import
that may not be clear from the text of the proceedings at the Chicago Parliament of Religions.
The import becomes clear only when we consider the context, the historical conjuncture, and
ask, why did Vivekananda’s speech create such an impact?
The answer is not easy to find. After all, Vivekananda’s was not the first exposition of its kind in
the Western world. One can recall, for example, the writings of Raja Rammohan Roy or the
speeches of Keshab Chandra Sen, or at the Chicago Parliament itself, Reverend Dharmapal or
P.C. Mazoomdar, who shared the podium with Vivekananda. Thus, Vivekananda’s celebrated
success was not due to the chronological accident of being the first on the scene. Secondly, the
message of classical Hindu texts was no longer new in the West when Vivekananda went to
Chicago.
For about a century before that, the Orientalist scholars of Europe, particularly the English and
the Germans, had translated many Sanskrit texts so as to allow Western people access to those
texts. Vivekananda might have construed those texts in his own fashion but many of them had
already been construed before. Thus, novelty was not the reason why Vivekananda’s speech
produced such an impact.
A third possible explanation (apart from the charismatic personality of Vivekananda) may be that
Vivekananda’s Chicago speech marked the beginning of an initiative that fructified into a
missionary and ideological movement of vast proportions. It is perfectly true that the speech did
mark such a beginning. But then, that is known to us only by virtue of our historical hindsight. It
could not have been self-evident to Vivekananda’s compatriots in India in 1893 because that
missionary and ideological movement was at that time part of an unknowable future. That is
obviously no explanation of the reception of Vivekananda’s speech in Chicago in 1893.
Therefore, we see that these explanations are inadequate, and that they cannot fully explain the
impact of that speech on the contemporary mind. Perhaps we have to seek an explanation in
the historical conjuncture when the speech was delivered. Consider the events in India between
1857 and 1893, as well as the scene abroad.
Let us examine the five years immediately preceding 1893. In 1888, France secured an
imperialist hold over Indo-China including Cambodia. In 1889, Italy claimed Ethiopia, or
Abyssinia, and Cecil Rhodes obtained Britain’s support towards expansion of the Cape Colony
in South Africa. In 1890, Britain secured her occupation of Uganda and Nigeria and in the next
year she cut up Borneo into pieces to be shared with Holland. In 1892, Britain came into conflict
with the ruler of Egypt and the French fought and defeated the king of Dahomey in West Africa.
In 1893, the United States annexed Hawaii, while the French crushed native resistance in Siam
and the British suppressed the Metabele rebellion in South Africa and the tribal resistance in
India’s north-west border. These are just some representative events in the tide of imperialist
advance around the time the Chicago conference met. In fact, the conference itself was a part
of the Columbian Exposition of 1893 in the year following the 400th anniversary of Christopher
112
Columbus’s discovery of America, bringing about Europe’s penetration and domination in the
American continents.
Historical perspective
It is interesting to note that Vivekananda emphasised Western domination of the world in his
speech on September 19: “We who have come from the east have sat here day after day and
have been told in a patronising way that we ought to accept Christianity because Christian
nations are the most prosperous. We look about us and we see England, the most prosperous
nation in the world, with her foot on the neck of 250 million Asiatics. We look back into history
and see that the prosperity of Christian Europe began with Spain. Spain’s prosperity began with
the invasion of Mexico. Christianity wins its prosperity by cutting the throats of its fellowmen”
(The Times, Dubuque, Iowa, September 29, 1893, cited in M.L. Burke, Swami Vivekananda in
America, Calcutta, 1966, pages 81-82). These remarks indicate Vivekananda’s historical
perspective. In the context of the fact that he was speaking at a conference which came in the
wake of the colonisation of North and South America by European powers, and the Christopher
Columbus celebrations, this statement was especially significant.
Vivekananda’s own speeches in reply to the many addresses of welcome emphasise the
intrinsic merit of the Vedantic outlook, but to the common citizens the confrontation with the
West had a significance other than that of spiritual discourse. This was understandable in the
historical conjuncture I have tried to outline.
Racism
In this context, let us also remember two other historical facts: racial discrimination in North
America at the end of the 19th century and the concerted Christian effort to assert Christian
superiority in the Chicago Conference in 1893. Racism was a part of Vivekananda’s personal
experience in America. He wrote to Mrs Bull about his being turned out of a hotel on account of
colour-bar at Baltimore (Collected Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume VI, page 279, to Mrs
Bull, October 271894). There is similar evidence in his biography (Life, Volume III, page 226).
On each occasion, it should be recorded, he received the support of liberal-minded Americans.
A very touching example is cited by Marie Louise Burke. Vivekananda stayed during the
Chicago conference as a guest of John B. Lyon at 262 Michigan Avenue. The lady of the house
welcomed Vivekananda late in the evening, but “when she went to bed she was somewhat
troubled (her granddaughter writes). Some of our guests were Southerners…. Southerners have
a strong dislike for associating with anyone but whites…. When my grandfather woke up, she
told him of the problem and said he must decide whether it would be uncomfortable for Swami
and for our Southern friends to be together.” In the event, grandfather Lyon decided that
Vivekananda was a “brilliant and interesting man” and must stay as guest, no matter what other
guests thought of it (M.L. Burke, ibid., pages 100-101).
In such apparently small ways racism—and its opposite, a liberal spirit—were evinced. Racism
was also evident in the white American attitude to the American Indians. White settlers’
incursions into traditional American Indian territories were legalised in September 1893 (while
the Chicago Conference was meeting) in the case of appropriation of Cherokee Indian lands. In
the preceding two years, there were outbreaks of conflict with Cherokee and Sioux Indians, and
in December 1890 the famous chief of the Sioux, Sitting Bull, was killed. It is a matter of
speculation whether Vivekananda sympathised with the American victims of racism. But it is
likely that his scepticism about the authenticity of the Christian spirit was influenced by his
awareness of these forms of Western racism.
113
That brings us to the other historical factor which Vivekananda had to contend with and which
added to his credit: he was a spokesman from outside the pale of Christianity. The Chicago
Parliament of Religions nurtured a strong Christian defence of the faith against other religions.
On September 19, the day Vivekananda spoke, the air was thick with invectives. It continued in
that fashion about “the greasy bull of Madura and Tanjore”, “adherents of false religions”, and so
on until the last day. “Brethren all, yet they indulged in sharp words” was a newspaper headline
of reports on September 19. (M.L. Burke, ibid., page 80).
But the historical conjuncture—the resentment of the oppressed peoples in two continents
under Western dominance, the emotional reaction to Western racism, the resistance of old
civilisations and religions to aggressive Christian missionary zeal—assigned to Vivekananda a
contestatory position. It was Vivekananda’s ability to hold his own in this position which
accounts for Vivekananda’s celebrated success at the Chicago Parliament of Religions as the
spokesman of the eastern world. His utterances found a resonance not only in the hearts of his
compatriots in India, which is evident from the congratulatory and welcome addresses he
received from his countrymen. Let us recall the impact of Vivekananda in the speeches and
letters from his compatriots in India. For example, the address of welcome to Vivekananda at
Ramnad: “Your Holiness has crossed boundless seas and oceans to convey the message of
truth, peace, and to plant the flag of India’s spiritual triumph and glory in the rich soil of Europe
and America…. Above all your lectures in the West have tended to awaken apathetic sons and
daughters of India to a sense of the greatness and glory of their ancestral faith…” (CWSV, Vol.
III, page 144). Likewise, the “Zamindars and citizens of Shivaganga and Manamadura” were
impressed with the ability of Vivekananda to “convey the greatest message of the East to the
West” (CWSV, III, page 163). The address of welcome in Colombo (CWSV., III, p. 103), Madras
(CWSV, III, page 200), Paramakudi (CWSV, III, page 155), Madurai (CWSV, III, page 169),
Almora (CWSV, III, page 350), and so on harp on this theme of Vivekananda’s triumphal march
in the West, as Indians perceived it.
The greatness of Vivekananda was his ability to rise above the contest, if it can be called so,
between religious faiths. In his major speech on Hinduism on September 19 he focussed on
certain universalities above the narrow particularism of religious contestations. The core
universal concept in his speech is the concept of unity, alike in religious experience and in
science. The speech begins with an assertion of the syncretism of Hinduism: “From the high
spiritual flights of the Vedanta philosophy… to the low ideas of idolatry with its multifarious
mythology, the agnosticism of the Buddhists, and the atheism of the Jains, each and all have a
place in the Hindu’s religion.” Then followed an exposition of the concept of Advaita (unity) and
the striking thought that “Science is nothing but the search for unity” and thus a parallel between
the quest of man in the spiritual and scientific realms.
Turning to “the religion of the ignorant”, Vivekananda explains many features attacked by
Christian missionaries as a means used by the Hindu to reach the same end that every religion
aims at. “The Hindu may have failed to carry out all his plans, but if there is ever to be a
universal religion, it must be one which will have no location in place or time… which will not be
Brahminic or Buddhistic, Christian or Mohammadan, but the sum total of all these, and still have
infinite space for development…. It will be a religion which will have no place for persecution or
intolerance in its polity, which will recognise divinity in every man and woman, and whose whole
scope, whose whole force will be centred in aiding humanity to realise its own true, divine
nature”. (CWSV, I, page 19).
This humanist universalism accounts for Vivekananda’s enduring influence. The historical
context I have tried to analyse explains in part his success in his mission in September 1893 at
114
Chicago. But his real success lay in his ability to rise above the theological strife, above the
historical constraints of the times on members of a subjected people. It is given to few to
overcome history and he was one of them.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/columns/C_P_Chandrasekhar/article29059793.ece
COLUMNS C.P. CHANDRASEKHAR
When pessimism rules
The government’s focus is not on economic revival that leads to legitimacy but on quelling
dissent that loss of legitimacy leads to.
The Indian establishment’s obsession with GDP growth and stock market performance to the
exception of all else, especially economic and social deprivation, is coming home to roost.
Recent media reports on the state of the economy have highlighted three supposedly “troubling”
features of recent Indian economic performance. First, according to the World Bank, India is
losing rank in the league table of economic size, with its rank according to dollar GDP slipping
from fifth to seventh position in 2018. There are also indications that the Indian economy is not
as “big” as it was thought to be, making Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s promise of taking it to
$5 trillion by 2024 look even more implausible.
Second, doubts expressed by a number of economists and statisticians for some time now
about the validity of the official rate of growth, based on a new and substantially revised series
of national income figures, have intensified. India, it is argued in a wider circle, grew at a
significantly lower pace than official figures suggest. Talk of high growth, and even of being the
fastest growing economy globally, was clearly misplaced.
And, finally, even that growth is slowing. GDP growth is officially estimated at 5.8 per cent in the
first quarter of 2019, and projections for financial year 2019-20 are being trimmed. The
slowdown is reflected not just in the inflated GDP figures themselves, but in the perceptions of
leading industrialists and bankers. Individuals such as Larsen & Toubro chairman A.M. Naik and
HDFC chairman Deepak Parekh, who had remained silent when others were espousing growth
pessimism, have also suddenly turned pessimistic. Some are sounding alarmist.
Representatives from different segments of the automobile industry, which had been one of the
drivers of growth, are demanding tax relief and other sops on the grounds that the slowdown is
steep.
Reversal of euphoria
Parallel to this growing growth pessimism is the rise of “market” pessimism, leading to a
reversal of the post-election euphoria in the stock market. After having risen from just above
37,000 on May 13 to above 40,000 on June 4, the Sensex fluctuated and slumped back to
around 37,000 by August 1. In other words, the huge and largely speculative spike in stock
indices in the run-up to the election and immediately after the announcement of the results has
been completely reversed, principally because foreign portfolio investors (FPIs) are booking
profits and heading back. The net outflow of FPI capital, which amounted to Rs.2,986 crore in
July as a whole, totalled Rs.2,881 crore in the first two days of August alone. How far this will go
is anybody’s guess.
Earlier, such behaviour could be attributed to nervousness regarding monetary policy in the
advanced nations, with central banks threatening to reverse the easy and cheap money policies
they had adopted since the crisis. Risky bets that could be taken when capital was cheap had to
be abjured when capital was not merely becoming expensive but hard to come by. But that
115
environment no more prevails, with central banks of most of the advanced nations, including the
Federal Reserve recently, indicating that a return to interest rate cuts and quantitative easing is
what is required. Nor could it be said that the trade and technology war unleashed by United
States President Donald Trump against China would hurt India adversely. If anything, it could
help India by making it a potential alternative source of imports for the U.S. So, if FPIs are
pulling out from India, it must be due to developments in this country.
Part of the problem is that perceptions on the basis of which growth optimism and market
euphoria were built are now proving to be wrong. Principal among these perceptions was the
view that if a business-friendly Bharatiya Janata Party and its supposedly decisive leader
Narendra Modi were returned to power, there could be no holding back the Indian economy.
Rapid reform and aggressive government support for the private sector, it was believed, would
raise profits and rouse the animal spirits of private investors and accelerate growth in what was
already the world’s fastest growing economy. That the BJP received almost all of the corporate
donations provided to political parties through the electoral bonds route was proof that it was the
private sector favourite. And so was the euphoria that had overcome the market even before the
results were out. Not everybody cherished such hope, but the euphoria that had overtaken
some players provided an environment where well-chosen speculative bets by asset managers
could yield large returns. That accounted for the speculative boom in the stock markets before
and after the election.
Seen in that light, both the stock market collapse and the newly expressed growth “realism” are
evidence that these expectations have been belied. Because the economy was “not doing as
well as it can”, and given the huge victory the BJP had won, quick and strong action was
expected. But all that the Budget could offer was a celebration of the achievements of the
previous Modi government, with nothing to suggest that the new government would catch the
economy by its scruff and send it running. Moreover, it is becoming clear, especially after the
Budget, that despite the rhetoric and the hype, Modi wields no magic wand that can make an
economy that is tanking boom suddenly.
Neoliberal trap
The change in mood became clear as the nitty-gritty of what the Budget revealed and, more
importantly, concealed came to be discussed in the public domain. The picture that emerged is
of a government caught in a neoliberal trap. Tax forbearance and the goods and services tax
(GST) misadventure have significantly sapped its resource mobilisation capabilities. While
revenue growth is sluggish, the government cannot increase its borrowing significantly as it is
constrained by the demands of global capital and its own commitments to rein in the fiscal
deficit. If it cannot borrow, its expenditures are capped. If it cannot spend, it cannot spur
demand for the private sector or put in place the infrastructure needed to support private sector
growth, however fast that may be. It also cannot outlay the large resources needed to
recapitalise financial institutions, so as to set right the visible crisis in the banking sector and the
less visible crisis in the non-bank financial sector. That precludes a credit surge that can drive
demand and support private investment. To top it all, even though it cannot do all this, to the
extent that it has chosen to spend it is dependent on special resources from the central bank’s
reserves, large and ambitious privatisation plans and, disconcertingly for the private sector, a
surcharge on the super-rich.
This neoliberal bind that the government has put itself in has implications for the growth story.
India is still an economy in which demand is driven not primarily by mass incomes that create a
wide market or by large exports to global markets, but by the demand generated by government
spending and credit expansion. If the government cannot spend to drive demand, growth would
116
be indifferent or slow. And if the government cannot provide the resources to revive a sick
financial sector, credit will remain sluggish, restraining demand and growth even further. So, the
problem is not just the evidence that growth is slowing, but that it is likely to decelerate even
more.
Realising that the government was not doing and possibly cannot do what they thought it would,
stock market players are choosing to book profits or cut losses and exit. The intensity of the
decline triggered by disappointment only matches that of the climb driven by misplaced
expectations. But there are other players, in industry, banking and the trade, who cannot exit
unless driven to bankruptcy. They are the ones who are now waking up to slow growth and
have chosen to speak up and say things are going awry, perhaps with the hope that they can
get the decisive leader to somehow break out of the tentacles of neoliberalism.
It is important here to see the difference in the nature of the new demands. The clamour earlier
was for “more reform”, based on the belief that it was reform and the animal spirits it would
unleash, and not state support and easy credit, that was crucial for growth. The demand now,
implicitly and explicitly, is for a stimulus: more spending, more infrastructural investment, more
tax cuts, and the like. In fact, the chief executive of the NITI Aayog is reported to have declared
that growth is slowing because of too much reform. That, if true, is definitely a turnaround.
Meanwhile, in a turn reminiscent of the emphasis on non-economic issues in the election

campaign, the “decisiveness” of the new government is focussed on other fronts. The race to
amend the Right to Information Act and the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, among others,
points to a trend where it is not economic revival that leads to legitimacy that is the
government’s focus, but the ability to quell any dissent that a loss of legitimacy would lead to.
That is what the push for “minimum government and maximum governance” is proving to be.
But that, unfortunately, is not a matter that seems to concern India’s business leaders.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/arts-and-culture/cinema/article29064967.ece
ARTS & CULTURE CINEMA
SOCIAL JUSTICE ON SCREEN
Caste on celluloid
T.K. RAJALAKSHMI
A still from “Article 15”. Photo: By Special Arrangement
Anubhav Sinha’s film Article 15 is a near-realistic portrayal of caste oppression in contemporary

India.
FROM time to time, Indian cinema has experimented with the intransigent character of caste in
society. While in the past some film-makers have depicted caste and land and feudal relations
in their most brutal expressions through “socially meaningful” films, the contemporary depiction
of caste relations and discrimination is unique for its attempt to portray the lived experiences of
the socially marginalised, including caste conflicts and the concomitant assertion.
Anubhav Sinha’s most recent film, Article 15, is about the persistence of caste and the
discrimination that is integral to its existence. The film courted controversy when certain
organisations claiming to represent Brahmin interests protested against it on the grounds that it
portrayed Brahmins in a negative light. A few critics panned the movie for being paternalistic
and patronising. Sinha has otherwise charted an uncontroversial cinematic career and directed
117
several commercial “hits”. Scripted by Sinha and Gaurav Solanki, Article 15 is interestingly
titled, inspired as it is by Article 15 of the Constitution that prohibits the state (and persons) from
discriminating on the grounds of caste, sex, race, religion or place of birth.
A young police officer is posted in a village somewhere in north India, and his first case involves
locating three missing Dalit girls. The policemen, mostly upper caste, with one exception, are
reluctant to look for the girls. In fact, no one is interested. When the bodies of two of the girls are
discovered, there is an attempt to fudge the post-mortem report.
The film correlates the provisions in the Article vis-a-vis extreme forms of discrimination in
society using cinematic imagery in the context of a brutal double murder that took place in
Badaun district of Uttar Pradesh in 2014. Two young girls, cousins belonging to the Other
Backward Class community of Mauryas, were found hanging from a tree. Three persons
belonging to the Yadav community, a dominant backward class group, were arrested for the
murders. The Mauryas are numerically smaller than the Yadavs who are not only economically
better off but also politically protected by virtue of their caste. The girls had allegedly been gang-
raped and murdered, the police said on the basis of their initial investigation, the confessions of
the accused and a post-mortem report (which was refuted later). The case was referred to the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which ruled out rape. Various theories were mooted,
including a property dispute, honour killing, and suicide because one of them was allegedly
involved with one of the accused. In the end, the Badaun case never really got closure.
The plot of Article 15 is loosely based on the Badaun twin murders, but the film is much more
than a murder mystery. Set in a village in north India, the film drives home the point that lower
and backward castes are routinely ill-treated by upper-caste members and that caste biases are
deep-rooted among investigating authorities such as the police. It reflects the despair of the
poor and the lower castes and their lack of faith in the justice delivery system, while also
highlighting the assertion by a section of educated Dalits and the crushing of that assertion by
the use of rape and internal security laws and the subtle co-option of a section of Dalits in a
political formation led by an upper-caste seer.
The film begins with the powerful lyrics “Kahab toh” sung by Sayani Gupta (who is also the main
female lead), depicting the sharp contrast in the lives of the poor and the rich. A group of
villagers huddled under a shack to escape the monsoon showers sing along with the young
woman. Their caste identities are not revealed until much later through the protagonist, an
upper-caste police officer with a public school education and a degree from St. Stephens.
‘Those people’
He is shocked at the apathy of his staff vis-a-vis the lower castes, and begins inquiring about
their caste identities. He is first amused, then shocked and frustrated at the layers of hierarchy
and the lens of caste through which his subordinates view each other as well as the murdered
girls. The police officer’s subordinates constantly refer to Dalits as “those people” and refuse to
take the complaint of the missing girls seriously, which, incidentally, was the case when the girls
in Badaun went missing.
With righteous indignation, the police officer takes a printout of the clauses of Article 15 both in
English and in Hindi and pastes them outside his office. It is not insignificant that there is a
photograph of B.R. Ambedkar in the police officer’s room, a reminder of the Indian Constitution
the officer is supposed to uphold at all times. The police officer is a Brahmin by caste, a fact
revealed by his subordinate who tells him that he does not belong to the top-notch categories of
Brahmins. To show that he does not have any caste hang-ups, he gets thoroughly involved in
118
the search for the missing survivor, which includes wading through a swamp with his men in
khaki, a scene reminiscent of the Hollywood thriller Mississippi Burning where a team of FBI
officials search a swamp for the bodies of three civil rights activists presumed murdered by the
Ku Klux Klan.
At the heart of Article 15 are a police officer driven by a social conscience, a fiery Dalit leader
who refuses to get co-opted and vows to take on the “feudals” and the reigning elite (he is
booked under the National Security Act and killed in an encounter), the slogans of “Jai Bhim”,
and a spirited Dalit woman who does not give up looking for her missing sister. The film
captures the essence of some contemporary forms of social engineering, evidence of which was
seen in the recent general election where a consolidation of votes took place in favour of an
upper-caste party. There are a few scenes that show the deep nature of social and economic
inequities that persist despite constitutional provisions such as that of Article 15. There are
scenes resembling the Una flogging (in the film, three young Dalits are flogged publicly for
entering a temple meant for upper castes), the sham exercise of political leaders eating at the
homes of Dalits, and scenes of sewers being cleaned manually. The deliberate choice to show
such imagery, some of which are disparate and do not flow with the plot—the flogging, for
instance—does make the film stand apart. The manual cleaning of a clogged sewer by a man
without any protection whatsoever is grim testimony to what actually happens even today. The
central theme remains discrimination on the grounds of caste and gender and the various
manifestations of the same.
A credible film
Article 15 may not be a perfect film. At some points it stretches needlessly—for instance, the
long-distance back-and-forth between the main lead played by Ayushmann Khurrana and his
partner, an activist-journalist who derides him for being insensitive and then makes a surprising
appearance in the village to give him moral support. These inanities apart, much of the film
appears credible, including a scene where an upper-caste policeman who is an accused hurls
casteist abuses at his subordinate who retaliates by slapping him. There is a fleeting expression
of regret on the face of the subordinate, which is open to much interpretation. Such nuances
make the film interesting. There is also an interesting cameo by the veteran actor M. Nassar,
who essays the role of a CBI officer who takes over the case and lectures Khurrana on the need
to identify with local customs and the local language.
There have been many films that have dealt with caste oppression right from the inception of
Indian cinema, and many of them are critically acclaimed. Anubhav Sinha’s Mulk (2018) on the
angst of the Indian Muslim, which was described as a political masterpiece by a critic; Prakash
Jha’s Aarakshan (2011), where the protagonist was a Dalit, essayed superbly by Saif Ali Khan;
Nagraj Manjule’s critically acclaimed Marathi films Fandry (2013) and Sairat (2016), both of
which dealt with love that transgresses caste boundaries; and Anurag Kashyap’s Mukkabaaz
(2018) are recent examples of films about the lives of the socially and economically
marginalised as well as that of assertion and change.
The violent reaction to the assertion of basic rights, as seen in most of these films (in Article 15,
the girls are killed for demanding a raise of Rs.3 in their daily wages) and the unequal system,
with partial or full support from the tools of the state, are often responsible for people losing faith
in the justice delivery system. The Rajnikanth-starrer Kaala directed by Pa. Ranjith also falls
broadly in this category. The caste bias exhibited by the police towards those in the lower
hierarchy in Article 15, where remarks such as “these people are like this only and need to be
mindful of their place”, has some conceptual similarity with the 2019 Netflix docudrama When
they see us, based on the 1989 sexual assault of a jogger in New York’s Central Park and the
119
arrest of five innocent teenagers of colour and their conviction for a crime they had not
committed.
Popular cinema is a powerful medium of communication, and even relatively smaller actors in
films with a powerful storyline have been seen to reach out much more effectively to audiences
than some of the biggest names in the industry. That Indian cinema is looking at “inequality”,
even if through a commercial prism, is gratifying enough.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/arts-and-culture/music/article29068324.ece
ARTS & CULTURE MUSIC
MUSIC AND SOCIETY
Looking back, looking ahead
DEEPA GANESH
September 26, 2016: At the M.S. Subbulakshmi birth centenary event organised by the M.S.
Swaminathan Research Foundation in Chennai. Photo: M. Karunakaran
T.M. Krishna in concert. Photo: The Hindu Archives
During a performance on the Loyola College campus in Chennai. Photo: R. Ragu
During the fourth edition of the annual Urur Olcott Kuppam Vizha at Elliot’s Beach in Chennai in
2018. Photo: R. RAVINDRAN
From a music video of “Chennai Poromboke Padal”, which was part of a campaign to save the
Ennore creek. Photo: By Special Arrangement
An interview with the singer T.M. Krishna.

T.M. KRISHNA's musical journey can be mapped as past and post. In the past, he looked and
conducted himself exactly like a Carnatic musician, conforming to the norms of that world. In the
post, he went in search of the soul, shunning the looks and the conformism, and layer by layer
he peeled off everything that was a hindrance in the quest to get to the heart of music.
It was not easy; he had stirred up a hornets’ nest and had to face questions pertaining to the
social and the political. These introspective years were certainly hard on Krishna as they were
on his listeners. But the singer made the scope of these questionings wider and larger and
concluded that good art cannot be separate from good politics. Krishna, whose musical journey
has clearly moved beyond music, spoke to Frontline on a range of issues. Excerpts:
Your mother was a trained Carnatic classical musician, and your father an avid listener. How did
music come into your life? Did it happen just like in most middle-class homes—where every
child learnt either music or dance? Or were the circumstances different?
First of all, ours was not a middle-class home, it was upper class. My mother came from a
middle-class home, and my granddad was a doctor who was among the set of doctors who set
120
up Manipal Medical Hospital. My grandmom played the veena. They were an enlightened
family: back then, my grandmother went to boarding school in Chennai, my mother was a
student of literature who did her master’s in music. After marriage, her music had become
dormant, but after I was born, she decided to resume her music. Bhagavathula Seetharama
Sharma came home to teach her.
They say I showed interest and so, when I was three years old, I started getting music lessons
from Seetharama Sharma . In a way, it was very similar to what happens in middle-class
homes. My elder brother, Srikanth, learnt the mridangam. But I don’t even think I can articulate
a relationship; it was just “paattu” class. Given a choice, I would have preferred to play cricket
with my friends.
When did it become serious?
I am not sure. But when I was 12 years old, I took part in the Spirit of Music concerts that the
Music Academy conducts. It was the first time I went on stage. My singing was received
enthusiastically and lots of people told me I sang well. That made me feel I should take my
music seriously.
The Youth Association for Classical Music [YACM] was another reason. I became a member in
1989 and at that time a lot of young musicians who are now seniors in Carnatic music… Vijay
Siva, Unnikrishnan, Shriram Kumar, Arun Prakash, Sanjay Subramaniam, Sangeeta
Sivakumar… were its members.
The YACM was very active in those days, doing a lot of good work. It was wonderful because I
found people with whom I could talk music. We spent a lot of time together and there was a lot
of learning. Those years made a huge impact on me and the way I looked at music. Once I
found young people to discuss Begada and Sahana, it interested me a lot. The focus was
mostly on skills, that is the mechanics and grammar of music, but it was useful.
You learnt music under three gurus—Seetharama Sharma, Chingleput Ranganathan and
Semmangudi Srinivasa Iyer—three different world views and three different musical
sensibilities. How did they influence you and your music?
Seetharama Sharma was there from day one. He put my foundation in place. Whether it was
approach to a composition, the discipline involved, shaping manodharma, voice production...
everything came completely from him. Chingleput Ranganathan was someone I went to each
time I needed a special lesson, a kriti, etc. He was a taskmaster. I kept my connection with him
throughout. I learnt from Semmangudi mama for about five years but the benefits were huge.
The first time I saw him was at a Pallavi workshop at the Music Academy—a traditional, strong,
disciplined old man, an incredible musician.
I have had a wonderful relationship with all my gurus. Seetharama Sharma was there with me
throughout, he was a father figure to me. With Semmangudi, it was different. I was once singing
at the Ramamandira on the outskirts of the city [Chennai], he happened to come there. After the
concert, he asked my father to send me to him for lessons. He was well into his nineties at that
time, but so sharp and full of life; he was differently incredible. Very young at heart, and the kind
of jokes he cracked... it would leave me embarassed. He taught me how to go to the core of
things. It was not something that he would demonstrate, but he pushed me to it. He taught me
how to dig deep.
121
He was a phenomenal musician, but he had quite a reputation otherwise…
That’s true. But when I went to him the many pressures of his social life and musical journey
had gone out of his life. I was not even his contemporary. He was very old and I was really
young. He was a lot of fun. I used to spend the whole day with him, and it was not like we were
at music all the time. He knew every gossip in town, he would chat, I would have lunch with him,
he would take his afternoon siesta, after waking up he would teach me for a while more… he
really got me to think and understand music in a deeper sense. I watched the great musician in
him with awe. Till his very end, he was what he was. I remember that in those days I sang a lot
in Kerala. That particular year, for Vijayadasami, I had called him from Nilambur Road. He was
thrilled because the former President R. Venkataraman had come to see him. Ten days after
that he passed away. The last couple of days while he was in hospital, I went to see him. His
daughter asked him if he knew who had come. He didn’t respond. She told him it was T.M.
Krishna. She asked him again, and again. Maybe some four times. “I got it…. Thodur Madabusi
Krishna. How many times will you say, stop it,” he told her. He was very sharp-tongued, and
continued to be so till the end. It had not disappeared.
Incredible! Where are all those people? They behaved as themselves till the end. Now, most of
us behave in the same way, there is a homogeneity in the way we think, the way we speak, the
way we are seen… we are so plastic. Whether we agree or disagree with him is another stage
of discussion, but they could be who they are. That’s something amazing. He could flaunt who
he was. All that influenced me a great deal.
Seetharama Sharma was my first guru, a father figure to me. He passed away in 2017. He
really looked after me. All my early understanding of ideas about music, tradition, environment,
culture, the sense of self, art, everything comes from him. My family was elite, the culture was
upper class. The discussions were around Sartre, J. Krishnamurthy, etc.But my guru’s home
was a typical middle-class, traditional, Brahmin household. He was devout, simple, and his life
views were different. He made a big impact on me. Semmangudi taught me depth and abandon,
Seetharama Sharma shaped my musical edifice.
But did Semmangudi’s politics not trouble you?
Hmm…. I am not sure if I thought about all that so seriously back then. But one thing is for
certain, art takes you to the sublime, but once that moment is over the player is back. The
artiste, like anyone else, has to survive, and his insecurities get the better of him. Art world, in
general, lacks introspection. Using the magic that art creates to condone, everything else is
unacceptable.
I think my schooling also helped me in a big way. Well, that’s another thing—everyone thinks
I’ve read Krishnamurthy back to back [laughs]. I’ve hardly read him. My grandmother went to
Besant Theosophical Higher Secondary School, Swami Chinmayananda was a close family
friend, and whichever part of the country he was in, on the day of the exam my mother received
a letter from him. He used to stay with my granddad in Manipal. So, our home had mixed
philosophical threads. Schooling and upbringing helped us not to place anything on the pedestal
blindly. I never placed anyone in a blind, unquestioning place. So, I didn’t expect him to be an
ideal human being.
Spirit of Music, YACM, three outstanding gurus…. When you look back at those early years,
what is the one thing that strikes you the most?
122
There is one thing that has happened in the last 15-18 years and it keeps coming back to me
often. When we arrived on the music scene, I mean all of us who are now considered seniors,
there was an amateur element in us. I am speaking of the 1990s, I was youngest in terms of
age, but I shared musical standing with the rest of them. We could jam with each other, criticise,
tear each other apart, laugh at our own selves… it was fabulous.
We could go up and say, “Ennada padine nee [what did you sing]?” and none of us felt it was
professional slight. I feel that this attitude made it possible for us to engage with our music
seriously. Today, we may not be in touch with each other, but at that time we were having fun.
We never engaged with music with a concert in mind. We loved to sing and perform, and if got
an opportunity we would sing. Primarily, it was only love for music, we became professionals
later.
But coming up in the ranks today, there is a sense of competition, the dynamics is different. I
keep telling my students about those days. You know why? They all enter as professionals now,
it is too structured.
The perception of another singer, mridangist and violinist, is always underlined with the
conception of a market, the stage, etc. I don’t blame them, but it definitely plays a role in the
way you engage with music. Much has changed. The talent is humongous, every generation is
more talented than the previous one, but the focus is different. They have to interrogate the
context they are in. I am not wallowing in nostalgia, but really it is the case.
That is because the market was not so huge and determining everything for the arts.
That’s right. We were lucky. What would I have been if I was coming up as a musician in 2004?
So, how did you look at Carnatic music in those days? Was it religious, spiritual, personal, was it
an elite preoccupation? What was it?
In the late 1980s and 1990s, I don’t even think I gave it much thought. I just loved singing. It
sounds very naive now, but that is what it was. I was never a hyper-religious person. I did my
upanayanam and all that, but nothing was too big. I never thought Carnatic music was religious.
But till about the mid 1990s, I was a very superstitious person. I had crazy superstitions. You
want to call it quasi-religious or some such thing? Perhaps, yes. I had all those streaks in me.
I think there is a connection that is made with how you look and who you are. And I think the
Carnatic music world was comfortable with the way you looked.
Of course. I wore the namam. Why did I wear it—I don’t even have an answer. I wore it because
my mother told me to wear it. I think it probably came from my guru. So… some kind of
conformism.
After many years, one day, my wife, Sangeeta, asked me why I wore it. That was the day I
actually thought about it. I had no answer, and it didn’t make any sense to me. So I just stopped
wearing it. It also becomes a superstition. It is a catch. You wear it and things go right for you,
and then you feel only if you wear it will things happen the way they should. So, it is a mixed
bag of things. In my early years I never questioned any of it.
123
You also send a certain signal, and people are reading you. Finally, everyone wants to belong.
You can’t even easily categorise it as right and wrong. This is so evident in the way male and
female musicians dress for a Carnatic music concert.
It is mixed with all kinds of things—social, religious, moral, puritanical, conformism of all sorts. It
is too entangled. It is up to each person whether they want to inquire into it or not. I did not in
the initial days of my life, but now it is problematic. I will not wear the namam. I am not
comfortable with the signals it sends, it is too loaded. It is not just about wearing something, I
feel it is necessary to interrogate it.
During the second year of your college, you decided that music was going to be your life choice.
What did you envisage for yourself?
When I think where I am now, and think of myself back in those days, I can’t even understand
the person that I was. A very different person, very different self view, world view, all views. I
wanted to sing, wanted to be famous, wanted to get the Sangeeta Kalanidhi—as simple as that.
And it was my ultimate aim. I was willing to work very hard to realise all this. I was not
competitive, but I was an aggressive young man. I never let go of a single opportunity. I was
passionate about music and believed that the stage was my place. I was a very different kind of
a person then.
You were so close to all of this, and suddenly something happened.
Yes. [laughs]
You were a rock star; people thronged to your concerts. Everyone believed that the new big
thing to Carnatic music was happening with T.M. Krishna. You were amidst several able and
competent musicians, but your audience sensed that you were strikingly different. What
happened?
You try to think of these things only in retrospect. You let it happen and only then you think
about it. So many of my re-evaluations, I do not know how accurate they are, but let me try. I
think one element that has remained with me, thanks to home and school, is my questioning
self. Even when I was extremely career-driven, opportunity-driven, someone who would go after
a kutcheri, travel, etc., even in that period, I was a questioning person, that streak was there in
me. That is perhaps what triggered these questions within me. Maybe there is an incident, but I
don’t recollect it. Many people think there is an incident or a couple of incidents, but I have no
such memory. Probably something happened in my own sub-conscious. I don’t remember
anything that triggered this transformation.
Could it be fame itself?
Hmm… possible. Now that you say it, I will take it from you. That itself could have been the
trigger. It may have pushed me.
At one point I started asking myself—why am I singing this music? Maybe it also came from the
fact that at some level I felt I had cracked it. I knew the success formula of a concert. What
works for the audience, how to take control of them, I knew it all. What is growth after that? It
was only about developing more repertoire. Maybe singing ragas no one had sung, singing in
complicated talas, singing unknown kritis—all this meant developing on skill sets and abilities.
That is it. I suddenly felt that all this was not of great significance.
124
People asked me if I was bored, I know I was not. I just felt that this was a lacuna. Again, I am
reconstructing the entire thing for you. So, we don’t know, but there was something entirely
empty about this kind of a pursuit. Also, even in those late 1990s, there were moments in my
music which were beyond my control, things I could not explain. The former was more
fascinating, those moments that were beyond my control. They left me with a profound
experience.
Probably there was a conflict: on the one hand I felt I had cracked this formula of professional
success, I was in total control of the stage, I knew exactly what to do, and I had the ability to
achieve. All of a sudden something appears from nowhere, and this gives me the most profound
experience that all my ego and control had not given me. It is probably this musical conflict that
led me to ask the question: “What am I doing here?” This is probably what it was. I couldn’t just
explain this disparity. If this most profound experience is music, then what is this that I am
pursuing? Does this evident dichotomy need to exist?
Did it begin to dismantle all your ideas and notions about what constitutes music?
Not immediately. I started discussing this with people who were very close to me. My mother,
[my wife] Sangeeta and some of my closest friends. It bothered me a lot, a lot. And I knew it was
not nostalgic emotion, I could not rationalise it. If it was memory or experience driven, like an
experience in a temple or something with my guru, then maybe I would understand it. This was
not any such thing, it bothered me terribly, all the time, always. When it happened repeatedly, it
didn’t dismantle my notions, but I began to investigate my music and digging deeper into it.
Is that when you went into research?
Yes, that is when I started research, looking at old manuscripts. I began to study the Sangeeta
Sampradaya Pradarshini, the Natyashastra, etc. I was doing it as an amateur, I had no clue of
most things. Luckily, I had scholars like Dr Ramanathan who were kind and generous to me.
Multiple questions came to me and all were aesthetic—neither social, political or philosophical. I
was in a conversation with myself.
There are so many things we accept, so many things that we say without thinking. For instance,
“unbroken tradition of beauty of 150 years”. When I began reading up, I realised that what we
see as beauty now was not considered so 150 years ago. Is this entire beauty thing a
sociopolitical construct, driven by a set of people? What is this thing that we call beauty? Is it
transgenerational or eternal or what we call “sampradaya”? Is there something like that or are
we seeking solace, like we do in antiquity? We say, for instance, India is 4,000 years old or
something like that. We say it and we feel good, pure. Would my investigation really lead me to
something positive, or would it dismantle everything? It was a scary proposition. At one point, I
asked myself if the answers I found were against my beliefs, was I willing to give up music? I
was all muddled.
Then I started doing Pradarshini work with the violinist and my friend R.K. Shriram Kumar. It led
me to fascinating things. I am a relentless digger, I couldn’t stop, I couldn’t sleep…. But that’s
when concerts started deconstructing for me.
I began to question the idea of a concert being a composite idea of beauty. Can we truly call it
an aesthetic whole? Is it there or is it something we bestow upon it? If we break it down, does
beauty still exist? That was another quest. I didn’t get up one fine morning and say the concert
125
structure was all nonsense. I never did that. It just happened very organically and over a long
period of time.
Listeners were not paying attention and they said all kinds of things, but I know, I know exactly
when it happened. It was in Bangalore, at Indiranagar Sangeet Sabha. Ask the mridangist Arun
Prakash, I sang Sahana varnam in between. Slowly, in the coming days, the concert structure
started dismantling. And the moment it dismantled, something incredible opened up. And also I
realised that the dismantling dismantled for me the professional compulsion. Entirely. So,
pleasing the audience, success of a concert, everything just went out of the window.
In a way, the profound itself became the music. I took the success formula and dissolved it over
a period of time. So, now the only thing I needed to hold on to was the possibility of the
profound. That is the only thing I had. All this just happened. Maybe I was just too lucky.
A lot of people thought it is about concert format. They said bizarre things like, he could well
start the concert with the mangalam! But that was not what it was: it was about what the format
is in its construction, what it implores you to do, the relationship you have with art, people,
community, everything.
It must have been isolating.
Shriram Kumar, Arun Prakash and Sangeeta were the first people I used to discuss with. They
have partnered in many of these ideas. It was happening in discussion. My thoughts were being
questioned, challenged, broken down—a lot of these things took place between the four of us.
They did see in it a certain liberation from the process. They clearly understood that I was
making an important point musically. So, when I said why should the profound only be an
accident, both Arun Prakash and Shriram Kumar found validity in it. They may have not done it
themselves as individual musicians, but they recognised the merit of the argument. It was an
important aesthetic discussion and we have influenced each other tremendously.
It indeed was a testing ground.
Yes, it was. Many things were discarded. So many people think that I have done it on a whim.
No, it's not true. Whatever I felt was an indulgence I threw it out of the window. It felt dishonest.
Those ideas that were about myself, what seemed like self-projection, I discarded them.
So much happened within you, and you went with it. Did you realise what you were taking on?
No, I am not the one to think of consequences, I just plunge into it. I have become slightly better
with age. If I feel strongly about something, I don’t care about the repercussions. As I went
ahead with my research, I began to see that these questions did not throw up purely musical or
aesthetic answers. It landed me in a different kind of problem, and that became the biggest
struggle. I had grown up in a certain kind of environment, I had certain notions about music and
the world... slowly they began to crumble. That was harder to deal to with.
You’re comfortable with your beliefs, but you realise that what you’re comfortable with is deeply
problematic. So, what do you hold on to? Is there anything at all? I didn’t know that self-
questioning would manifest itself in this way, lead me to so many problems. When people think
it is a concert format problem, I really want to tell them it is not as simple as that. Things are still
emerging…. I never imagined that I would be doing things that I am doing today.
126
Did you feel it was unstoppable?
It was unstoppable. I've been told I had an agenda, and they perhaps imagined that I had a long
list on which I kept ticking—one done, two done, etc. I wish I was such a strategist. One
question led to the other, and I could not stop. I could not stop because all this was very
important for my inner self. Sangeeta and I had differences, but we both felt it is extremely
important to address these questions. There was just no stopping.
At one point, I even felt that my music career was not going to last too long. It felt very sad, but
questions of money, survival, didn’t bother us too much. We could find a way to earn money, but
there were other deeper issues, and I could not retract. I’ve even heard many saying that I float
around in money, I am super-rich, etc. It is utter rubbish. All these days I never spoke about it.
But let me say it now. In 2001, my father’s company was in huge debt, and our family lost every
penny. The only thing we had was the apartment that my maternal aunt gave me. Nothing was
easy….
People looked at you in awe and admiration, with irritation and frustration. They called you
young and arrogant, rich and elite, J. Krishnamurthy product…. and not all of these comments
were about your music. It was more about shedding those “costumes”. It must have been lonely.
It was very lonely. There were days when it just felt so suffocating. There are days even now.
Probably even more than then. Things are manipulated, misinterpreted, stories are created,
twisted, all kinds of narrations, trivialisation… very bothersome. Very tiring, when people don’t
even attempt to understand, let alone agree. “Who the hell asked you to do all this? Couldn’t
you have minded your business? Just make money, sing, travel…”—these were the things that
came my way. It has been lonely, tiresome and hurtful too, you can no longer talk to people who
you thought were your friends.
You decided to call Carnatic music art music. You no longer wanted to call it classical music.
Art music is not my creation; both in the West and here, that’s how it is called. If Carnatic music
is tagged with “classical”, I have a problem. I met this musicologist Harold Powers, who had
done extensive research in Hindustani and Carnatic. In early 2000, we were in my apartment
discussing music. I casually asked him what the difference between classical and folk is, and he
said: “When something goes up the social ladder, it transforms from the folk to the classical.”
His answer was both astounding and crazy. That is something that stuck with me, this
fundamental definition. He problematised the definition of classical for me. I didn’t grasp it for a
long time, but it kept haunting me.
The more and more I investigate into history, look at society, I find “classical” very problematic.
It becomes an ideal, an aesthetic ideal.
Classical music has a privilege and status that comes embedded with the feeling that it is
greater. In most musicological writings in India, for instance, it is pathetic the way we
understand the social within the aesthetic and the aesthetic within the social.
The community’s situation within the aesthetic has not been explored at all. I found the classical
and folk an important platform to do that.
Aesthetically, the “classical” by itself has no value. How equipped are we as individuals to argue
and understand this? In that case, what allows this tagging, what allows what we are saying of
127
the other? The classical, then, is the othering process. Once I reached this point, I had to
disown myself from the classical sphere. The lullaby, harvest song, etc., you can call it social
music. I began to feel that these categorisations need to have basis in the intention of the art
itself, and not in who controls the idea of the aesthetic in society. So, classical and folk are
entirely about that and not the form.
Basically, you are not comfortable with the hierarchy that is embedded in the word classical.
Yes, absolutely. I have a problem with this cultural elitism. T.J.S. George, in the new edition of
his book on M.S. Subbulakshmi, refers to my article on her. While he seems to appreciate other
arguments that I make, he says that he disagrees with my view that the idea of the classical has
to be discarded. He says, classical is an aspiration, and it has to stay. Is that not a problem? Are
you not universalising the idea of aesthetics?
Many art forms are undergoing a transformation, for they seek validation from the classical.
They seek larger social acceptance. Now, we should not confuse this with the number of
listeners. They want to be closer to something that is aesthetically “superior”. The practitioners
seek a social affirmation that needs to be investigated. The power structures need to transform
and not inversely. So, call it Hindustani and Carnatic, and disband the word classical.
Do you have the same issues when they say Western classical?
Of course, I do. It is the same struggle for jazz. Tell me why it cannot be called classical. It is
Afro-American music and the Western classical is white music. I don’t think we should accept it.
What art music does is interesting, it doesn’t deal with the literal. It deals with the literal to
convey something abstract. Whether it is jazz, Hindustani… many art forms around the globe.
Art music is completely abstract. The text is only a catalyst.
What is the purpose of this music? Is it entertainment, spiritual, religious...?
Spiritual is one word I run away from. It comes with a huge baggage, and the minute I use the
word, I know exactly what people are thinking. So, it is no longer what it means to me, but how it
is understood out there. I don’t want to get into that intersection. I think the safer thing for me to
do is not use it.
The fundamental purpose of music is to give you an abstract sense of life. And what is beautiful
about it is that it is impersonal. We create this music. The moment you abstract, your self is
removed, only the idea exists.
Do you think all those great “vaggeyakaras” have been limited to their social-religious selves?
I entirely think so. We have underestimated, undervalued the philosophical and aesthetic breath
of these individuals. I believe that Tyagaraja or Dikshitar inhabited many spaces. It is
claustrophobic where they are today. They are seen as evangelists. It is really sad. Their work
says so much more. They may have operated in certain clusters, but there was definitely a
search that was beyond all these frameworks. We should see it.
How can there be art where there is no flux? We want conformity, homogeneity….We have
regimented them and destroyed their soul. Both of them lived in a continuous quest for
meaning, they were troubled and were seeking, else they could not have created art.
128
But we have made them realised beings, like they had a solution for everything. They grappled
with issues of this life and that of the universe. We are trying to externalise something that is
deeply internal. This is a problem with us, we create external manifestations when we fail to
converse with the inner self.
The music one sings is the product of the relationship one has with it.
Yes, that is probably why the intention of music also changes. There are plenty of conflicts even
there. Your social conditioning tells you of a certain purpose. But when you are singing, your
experience could be contraindicative. If you start listening to those thoughts, your music
changes.
Also, music is not about sounding beautiful. There is a way that beautiful has been defined, and
once you start saying no to that messaging system, a different kind of beauty begins to
blossom. I am not finding fault with that idea of beauty, but it just doesn’t feel real or honest.
This is an advice I give my students too—don’t try to sound pretty, be your own self even it
sounds harsh. Give your everything to it. There is so much we need to think about.
How is the singer, song and listener relationship formed? Is it in a flux or is it a given?
In Carnatic music, it is a given with escape routes. The given can never be asked, for example,
the bhava. If Tyagaraja has said Rama came and stood in front of me, I should feel the same.
The escape route has to be there. How much ever we say it in discourse, it doesn’t always
happen in actual rendition. The way we render some kritis has nothing to do with meaning.
Suppose we hold that every sahitya has to be emoted in singing, then I demand from Carnatic
musicians that every word in the “padam” they sing should carry an experience. But we come
up with excuses, Tyagaraja didn’t sing like that, this musician couldn’t sing it properly. Then you
create new meaning which does not exist. Unfortunately, this is a very complex trap, it is a
tough one because of social pressure. Because this is not just a musical conversation, but a
social-religious one. It is so deeply seated that it is difficult to escape.
The kutcheri format was reorganised or rather, you reordered it.
I didn’t reorder it, I removed the idea of order. I personally never thought of it as reordering. The
“alapana”, idea of “swaras”, the “neraval” technique, everything changed. I wanted to remove
the conditionality of it all. It was with respect to me. I asked myself what does one achieve
aesthetically with the existing format? When people said it was difficult for them, it was difficult
for me as well. It was out of my comfort zone. But gradually, it opened many vistas. I began to
listen to what I was singing and I responded to it. You know something, when the conditionality
is kept intact, we don’t listen. It is important to stop worrying about all things external.
For instance, the “kalpana swaram”. Where is it placed, what are its limits? When does the
“kalpana swaram” transform from being an aesthetic beauty to a manipulative tool? The
“neraval” that I sing today is very different from what I sang a few years ago…. I know it for a
fact. As a singer I need to listen, and say wow. And stay with the wow for a while.
Art is never born in isolation, isn’t it? Ariyakudi Ramanuja Iyengar’s “kutcheri” format was also a
product of its time. The Tamil Isai movement too. So is today’s speed and aggression in
Carnatic music. They were all born out of interactions with the social-political that shape not only
society but also art.
129
We have constructed Carnatic music in the last 100 years as something that is beyond
discussion. You keep on touching only those things that serve nostalgia value and everything
else is a no-go zone. Whether it is the Ariyakudi format or the current format, we must see that
music is in interaction with society. But we conveniently gloss over all these truths and have
positioned it beyond the political. You can’t even touch it. It is like asking questions about God.
How can you? That sort of a thing. But, God can have many “roopas”. He can have new, and
newer, “roopas”.
The problem is that classrooms are still very undemocratic. It has changed to some extent, but
not significantly. Questioning is not encouraged. You have an environment and culture of
unthinkingness. The present is never a playground for deep questioning.
What is this past that one keeps going back to? What is this “tradition” one wants to preserve?
There is no fixed point in the past that is being referred to as “the past”. There are many stories,
but we decide which story we want to tell and keep. There is one thread of the past that we want
to preserve. It is a backward moving line, which terminates in the Natyashastra. It is a game we
play with the past, and as we move forward in time, we like to erase from public memory all the
careful manoeuvring we have done.
Let me give you an example. They say Pattammal was the first woman to sing the “ragam
tanam pallavi”. It has been documented that there were devadasi musicians who sang ragam
tanam pallavis. Why was this memory erased? Does it make Pattammal less great if she was
the second woman to sing it? We change the truth because Pattammal belonged to the
community that controls the music world. Because of who we are and how we function, we build
stories that reiterate our position. Shouldn’t we break these designs? That is what I want to ask.
Pride blinds you.
The past, as you say, is a very selective go-to place. While we keep invoking the great masters,
our reverence for them, etc., I don’t think in any sense the past lives on in the present. It is not
possible either. With our great respect for past and tradition, how do we explain our current
music that has so little to do with the past?
In my opinion, the past is a mechanism that we use. To say I’m in line or I revere the
pastmasters or I’m inspired, we copy gestures or we sing the kritis they sang—this doesn’t take
much from us. But what it really demonstrates is our level of engagement. To belong is a
strategy, it is a habit. The mind is a place where ideas have to be built. Sadly, there is no deep
engagement with either the past or the present.
You speak of a certain complicity with tradition. And you speak of Brahminisation. Are they the
same or are they interlinked?
They are inseparable. The history that we have chosen and the story we want to tell are
evidence. Why are certain traditions not seen as mainstream? How do we give respect to
traditions that are so glorious? What have we done to the devadasi and the nagaswaram
tradition? We keep talking about legends like Rajarathnam Pillai and Karaikurchi Arunachalam.
What happened, why do they have only one slot in Music Academy? Every year in December, I
organise 15 nadaswaram concerts.
130
[Pauses]…. There is a great deal of dishonesty here. I have no words to express my feelings. I
feel I have lost my vocabulary. I don’t know how else to articulate it… it disturbs me a great
deal. The privileged caste has not engaged with those castes lower in social hierarchy. It is not
about rich and poor at all. It is not even about music, it is only emblematic of what is happening
in society. That is why people who have never heard Carnatic music are coming out to say
Carnatic music is about caste.
We need not be ashamed of our identities. But we must be aware of it with respect to others in
this society. Pride, in a way, blinds you.
We seem to be caught in a world of binaries. Do you think it is possible to celebrate moments of

victory than to highlight separation? Have you considered that as a model?
I have a deep problem with that model. It pushes things under the carpet before we realise it.
Once, one mami asked me: “But why do you talk, you are anyway doing all these things.” My
fear is condescension, we think we are giving art and culture to those who don’t have it. I am
resting my hope in a minority of youngsters, they seem to get the discourse.
We have a quarrel with the way music is dressed and presented—both aesthetic and social. By
trying to break this, we are giving it another kind of appearance.
Can we make it shorn of all appearances?
The effort is to push it out of the familiar. I am pushing it in the way I know, but it is not the only
way. Multiple people should imagine this in their own ways and do their bit. We must ask difficult
questions of ourselves. Come out of your cocoons, and then fascinating things can happen.
You took to writing seriously, became an activist, and now it almost seems like everyone wants
T.M. Krishna as a peg to hang their woes on, to fight their battles. From the environment to
queer issues to women’s issues. How difficult is this for you? How has it impacted your music?
It puts a lot of stress on me, it is very, very hard. I do see the interconnectedness of it all. I am
also careful—for both what I am, and what I am asked to be. I am trying to be as aware as
possible. It is harder, simply because I believe in it.
People think that I am no longer interested in my music, but that is not true. I personally feel it
has taken me deeper. The politics has made my music a bit more profound. What I also realise
deeply is that I need to step back not just for myself, but for the discourse itself. Otherwise, the
discourse gets clouded by who I am. More people should engage with these issues, then I will
not be seen as so important. Community and society make you conscious about who you are,
and it has facilitated a self-understanding in me.
Do you also realise that a large number of the people who draw you into their fold do not
engage with T.M. Krishna the musician? Your core is music, or rather that’s your gateway into
everything.
Well, I know… but there is no level playing field to demand that. T.M. Krishna was born into
enough privileges to walk his road and theirs.
Being conferred with the Sangeeta Kalanidhi title was something that you dreamt of. You gave
up all your chances to get it. Does it make you feel bad?
131
[Laughs loudly.] Not even a wee bit. Not even for a second.
What are your plans for the future?
I am dreaming that sometime in the future there will be cultural conversations and it will make a
difference to society. It is a slow process. Long-term changes have to change the social fabric. I
will be dead and gone, but if the questions I’ve raised make a difference to people, to music, if
they think about their identities, I think the effect it will have on people and society will be
incredibly profound. Culture and art can bring about long-term changes. These conversations, I
believe, must happen in schools and colleges.
Agreeing with me also becomes a problem for people. They can’t take a public stance. There is
a fear generated in society today; you cannot ask questions. You cannot even rethink.
Therefore, you make Tyagaraja and Dikshitar blemishless, God-like figures. But blemish is
where art is born. Now, all these people who are experts in Vedanta and philosophy, don’t they
know that realisation happens only when you become acutely aware of your complicated self,
and not in cleansing yourself?
You were faulted on your practice of music, its reconstruction and, later, your writings, the
political and social crusades. But the interest in Krishna’s music did not wane.
To some extent, it is true. The public still come to my concerts. I have been very sincere to my
music, though I now pursue a different ideal.
But there is a good number that has boycotted me. They have thrown my CDs, emptied their
hard disks of my voice, they hate my political stance. What I really want to ask all of them who
have said these things to me is, what is their position on art? On the one hand, they tell me that
art and politics have to be kept separate. But on their part, they can’t keep it separate. The
climate is so anti-intellectual, it is like war. There is no debate or conversation, you just malign
and abuse.
Look around in a hall and tell me that Carnatic music is not dominated by Brahmins. How can
anyone argue that way? These same musicians go on a U.S. tour and come back to say that
there is a lot of discrimination. Why, was there an incident? No. But it is a feeling that you don’t
belong. You’re scared that the chances of you being picked in a security line are much more
than a white man. Then why is not a legitimate feeling that someone from the so-called lower
castes feels intimidated in Music Academy? You can argue and say deal it with another way.
Shall I tell you something more ugly? You use the great Isai Vellalar musicians as examples of
your own inclusiveness. Nothing is more vulgar than that. Please read about their struggles to
find legitimacy. What happened to Rajarathnam Pillai when he wanted to sit and play in
Tiruvaiyaru?
In a sense, art is trapped in a paradox, is it not?
True. Art in general has been a manifestation of enquiry and reasoning. But it ceases to be that
very fast. There is no constant interrogation. Very important aspects that go in to build habit, like
language, caste, identity, and so on, have to be put on the dock. For this, the greater
responsibility lies with the artiste. The receiver has to be nudged by the artiste to think. But the
artiste is in fear, he thinks he will lose his constituency.
132
The “change”—was it your own personal need or did you have the society in mind?
I’ve stumbled upon things. I didn’t think so far, honestly. The format thing was something that
happened organically. Just before this phase, I was trying to study history, sound various things.
Many of these questions emerged.
Many people who critique and support me have not understood what a structure does. It is not
just ordering of things. People trivialise the discussion by saying can we have curd rice before
sambar rice. What does structure do?
Structure doesn’t emerge by itself. So, the whole idea of form and content… they are very
important negotiations. They come from larger social, cultural and aesthetic happenings. Moving
a song from one place to another is no great deal. What does the presentation give us? What
are the comfort zones we create? What are we going home with? They often say that Brinda
and Mukta compositions are good for small gatherings. Why, have we asked? Because in larger
audience groups, experience is conditioned and since their music doesn’t evoke the experience
we are looking for, it will not work. How can we ignore this question?
My primary questions were what happens if I reinterrogate the role of composition and the role
of manodharma. It came from historical and musicological investigation. What are the
foundational aspects of this form? Where does structure come in? How much structure
contributes to the foundational aspect of it or at what point does it disassociate from it. After I
began to think on these lines, automatically my presentation began to change. It began with little
things, but then it became major. Instead of trying to understand my efforts, they began to say
things like he will soon start the concert with the “mangalam”. Now, that is bad, even as a bad
joke. If a musician said it, then it is even more sad.
These churnings within me were happening because of who I am, and who you are, who we
are, and who we have been. The next question that had to be asked is who can we be, the
transformational question. It led me very slowly to ask religious, aesthetic, political and cultural
questions regarding my own practice. It just happened one after the other… no strategy, no
process, no end.
It was a personal journey to begin with. But every artistic journey is intertwined with the
community. So, the artiste and the community grow together in this art experience.
Do you, in some ways, feel that the community alienated you when you began to question?
Yes, the community did alienate me. Earlier, the issue was format. Now it is no longer
connected to music, everyone’s talking of my political concerns. Even for music critics my
political views are priority.
The disagreement and anger did not shock me. Because, 20 years ago, I too was part of the
same system. So, I have an understanding of how deeply entrenched we are. What I think
surprised me is the lack of engagement to understand what is going on. Except a few artistes
who reached out to me, no one bothered. It was not an easy process for me.
Somehow, the word caste is the biggest red flag you can hold, people just go into burrows and
send hate signals. Also, the political environment is not easy in India today. I wonder many
times, if we had this discourse 15 years ago, I know that there would be disagreement, but
would there be so much anger? The political environment has made it that much harder for me.
133
The political climate valorises the status quo of the classical world, it is now an emblem of
Indian culture. For them, I have sullied the waters. You cannot agree with T.M. Krishna, if you
do you may be ostracised.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/world-affairs/article29059834.ece
WORLD AFFAIRS
VIOLENCE IN AFGHANISTAN
Shades of Vietnam
JOHN CHERIAN
Members of the Taliban delegation speaking to reporters on May 28 in Moscow. The conference
in Moscow had representatives from the Taliban and the Afghan government under the same
roof for the first time. Photo: Alexander Zemlianichenko/AP
At a hospital in Herat on July 31 after a bus hit a roadside bomb on the Kandahar-Herat
highway and dozens of passengers, mainly women and children, were killed. Photo: HOSHANG
HASHIMI/AFP
The political headquarters of Amrullah Saleh, President Ghani’s running mate, in Kabul on July
29 after a car bomb attack. Photo: Jim Huylebroek/The New York Times
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani arriving for an election campaign rally in Kabul on August 5.
Photo: Rafiq Maqbool/AP
Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan with Zalmay Khalilzad, the Special Representative for
Afghanistan Reconciliation at the U.S. State Department, in Islamabad, Pakistan, on August 1.
Khalilzad met Imran Khan ahead of his flight to Doha, Qatar, for a crucial round of peace talks
with the Taliban. Photo: Press Information Department/AP
The bloodletting in war-ravaged Afghanistan continues unabated even as the U.S. and the
Taliban engage in peace negotiations. U.S. military experts believe that getting out of the
country is likely to be a messy affair.
The only thing that is clear about the murky situation in Afghanistan is that President Donald
Trump of the United States wants to withdraw the bulk of the American soldiers from the country
before the next presidential election. Speaking to reporters in early August, the President
claimed that “a lot of progress” had been made in talks with the Taliban. After much cajoling and
arm-twisting by many countries, notably Pakistan, the resurgent Taliban agreed last year to
engage in talks with the U.S.
Afghanistan’s immediate neighbours had been telling the U.S. for quite some time that the only
way out of the military and political impasse it found itself in Afghanistan was to engage with the
Taliban. Russia and China, backed by Pakistan, have called for a dialogue with the Taliban for
years. Pakistan played a key role in pushing different sections of the Taliban to participate in the
talks with the U.S. Trump has been bending over backwards to show his gratitude to Islamabad
134
as was evident during Prime Minister Imran Khan’s recent official visit to Washington, D.C. It is
another matter that in the same press conference, Trump threatened to wipe Afghanistan off the
map of the world if the Taliban insisted on being defiant.
Moscow hosted a conference earlier this year in which representatives from the Taliban and the
government side were present under the same roof for the first time. India is the only major
country with interests in Afghanistan that has refused to establish contacts with the Taliban.
Even Iran has welcomed the latest round of peace talks. When the Taliban was in power, Iran
was on the verge of declaring all-out war against Afghanistan.
The Taliban leadership even today refuses to engage directly with the government in Kabul
despite repeated calls to do so from the U.S. and others in the international community. It
continues to view the government of President Ashraf Ghani as a puppet regime put in place by
the occupying U.S. military force. However, the Taliban’s hard-line position has undergone a
visible change. It has given a solemn commitment to the U.S. that it will not allow forces inimical
to the U.S. to operate from Afghan soil. The George W. Bush administration had alleged that
Osama bin Laden planned the 9/11 attacks from Afghanistan. Many counterterrorism experts
are sceptical about this claim.
This year, senior Taliban officials informally talked to representatives from other political parties
and representatives of civil society on the sidelines of recent meetings on Afghanistan held in
Doha, the capital of Qatar, and during the conference in Moscow. The Taliban has been saying
for some time that it will start talking officially to the government in Kabul after the U.S.
completely withdraws from the country, though most security experts are of the view that it is
unlikely that the U.S. will vacate the strategic military bases it has in the country.
President Ghani has exuded optimism about the prospects for peace. He recently tweeted that
“peace is coming” to his war-torn nation. At the same time, he is angry and upset with the U.S.
for not keeping him in the loop while negotiating with the Taliban. Ghani is running for a second
term in office, with the election scheduled for September.
The Taliban wants the election to be cancelled and has been targeting candidates. The election
dates have already been rescheduled twice. There are calls for the election to be postponed
indefinitely. Ghani’s running mate, Amrullah Saleh, narrowly escaped with his life after he was
targeted by a Taliban suicide squad in late July. The attack left 20 people dead and more than
50 injured. Saleh was a close associate of the late Tajik leader Ahmad Shah Masood.
The Taliban now controls more than half of the country, the most territory it has had under its
control since the U.S. invasion in 2001. Many experts are of the view that the peace talks
between the U.S. and the Taliban have strengthened the hands of Pakistan to the detriment of
the government in Kabul. Former President of Afghanistan Hamid Karzai recently said that
though he welcomed the prospects for peace he “could not accept a deal between two
countries” on Afghanistan’s future.
In the first week of August, the U.S. and the Taliban started another round of negotiations in
Doha. Both sides have declared the current round the “most crucial” phase of the negotiations.
The American side has even expressed optimism that a “peace agreement” could be inked in
the August itself. Zalmay Khalilzad, the Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation at
the U.S. State Department, tasked by Trump with bringing home U.S. troops, however, clarified
that the two sides were not yet ready to sign a comprehensive “withdrawal agreement”. More
135
than 20,000 U.S. troops continue to be deployed in the country. There are thousands of
Americans and other foreigners working as military “contractors” for the Pentagon.
The Taliban has been demanding that the U.S. announces a departure date for its troops. A
senior Taliban spokesman speaking to the media just before the latest round of talks in Doha
said that the issue of troop withdrawal was prolonging the peace talks and preventing the
signing of a comprehensive peace deal. There are reports that Trump has agreed to withdraw
thousands of American troops from Afghanistan as part of an “initial peace deal”. Trump on the
campaign trail three years ago had promised to bring back at least 8,000 American soldiers. But
before doing so, Trump wants the Taliban to start negotiating a bigger peace deal directly with
the Afghanistan government. U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said that Trump had
ordered a reduction in the number of troops before the 2020 presidential election.
Highest number of casualties

Meanwhile, the bloodletting in the war-ravaged country continues unabated, and the Taliban is
only one of the actors responsible for it. In a recent report, the United Nations Assistance
Mission in Afghanistan said that more Afghan civilians were killed by the U.S. and allied forces
than by the Taliban and other militant groups in the first half of 2019. According to the U.N., July
witnessed the highest number of casualties recorded in a single month since 2017. The report
said that more than 50 per cent of the casualties were caused by bombings. A roadside bomb
killed 32 people travelling in a bus in western Afghanistan in the last week of July. The U.N. has
issued an urgent call to all the parties in the conflict to give peace a chance and end the cycle of
violence that has been going on for the last 18 years. According to U.N. statistics, at least 8,304
civilians, including 927 children, lost their lives in 2018.
Even as the peace talks go on, the Taliban seems intent on keeping up its offensive. The U.S.
and its allies are also using more firepower in their counter-insurgency operations. Most
Afghans believe that meaningful peace can be achieved only if there is a comprehensive peace
agreement involving all political parties. Afghan women especially fear the return of the Taliban
though the group now says that it is no longer against girls being educated. Some Taliban
factions are yet to agree to joining in the talks.
Then there is the Daesh (Islamic State), which has struck root in eastern Afghanistan. Some of
the recent suicide attacks that claimed several innocent lives in the capital, Kabul, were carried
out by fighters owing allegiance to the Daesh, which in this region calls itself the Islamic State of
Khorasan. A U.N. report released in late July concluded that the group was responsible for 11
per cent of the killings that occurred in Afghanistan in the first six months of this year. The
Daesh has been nibbling into the Taliban’s zone of influence for some years now and has also
been randomly targeting the Shia minority. The two groups have fought pitched battles. U.S.
airplanes have bombed Daesh-controlled areas and forced it to retreat.
So far, the Taliban and the Americans have been able to confine the influence of the Daesh to
isolated pockets. U.S. intelligence officials say that the Daesh is not a serious threat to the
country’s national security. According to them, the territory it controls is of little strategic
importance. But the U.S. military leadership, which does not want a precipitate withdrawal from
Afghanistan, is hyping up the threat posed by the Daesh.
Serving and retired army generals are making the case for the continued deployment of
thousands of U.S. special forces in Afghanistan. General Mark A. Milley, Trump’s nominee for
the post of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Senate that withdrawing troops too
soon from Afghanistan would be “a strategic mistake”. Gen. David Petraeus, the man credited
136
with the military surge in Iraq, is among those arguing for a continued military presence,
claiming that it would deter terrorist groups from regrouping and prevent the collapse of the
government in Kabul. Khalilzad has been saying that the U.S. “is not cutting and running from
Afghanistan” and that the Trump administration is not looking for a withdrawal agreement.
“We’re looking for a peace agreement,” he said. In all likelihood, getting out of Afghanistan is
going to be a very messy affair for the U.S. Already parallels are being drawn with Vietnam.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/world-affairs/article29059856.ece
WORLD AFFAIRS
TRUMP AGAINST SOCIALISTS
War on socialism
VIJAY PRASHAD
U.S. President Donald Trump and Melania Trump greet visitors at the White House on June 21.
Photo: Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Congresswomen whom Trump loves to hate, (from left) Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley,
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, at a press conference in Washington, D.C., on
July 15. Photo: Alex Wroblewski/AFP
U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren in Detroit on July 30. Photo: /REUTERS
Trump’s tirade against “socialists” in the U.S., such as Bernie Sanders and several new
Congress members advocating public education and health care, is one way of keeping his
support base intact.
THE presidential election season in the United States has assumed a permanence of sorts.
There is not a day when either the President who seeks re-election or his rivals are not trying to
win the election that takes place every four years. Such an election cycle favours Donald
Trump, the sitting President, because his entire mode of being is combative. Trump takes no
prisoners. His belligerence is unyielding, painting his opponents as weak and anti-national.
Trump portrays himself as the last man standing, the only person who can save the U.S. from
those who otherwise hate it. His is a cultural war, his mouth his weapon, his enemies his fuel.
Twitter and rallies are his battlefield. Politics has suffocated governance. The mundane work on
his desk irritates him. The endless election season beckons.
There are so many reasons to believe that someone like Trump was only accidentally elected,
and that he would not be given a second term. Trump offends large numbers of people and he
seems to have a penchant for dangerous brinkmanship that has led to confrontations with
China, Iran and other countries. “Anyone but Trump” was a popular slogan before his first
election and it resonates today amongst more than half the U.S. population. There are currently
about 20 Democratic Party candidates for the presidency. As almost all of them said in their first
omnibus set of debates, any one of them would be a better President than Trump. But this view
of inevitability is short-sighted. Trump did win the presidency, despite losing the popular vote, in
2016 and he could very well be re-elected in 2020.
The presidential election in the U.S. suffers from all the limitations of 21st-century democracy.
Money has corrupted the process but so have the hard-to-understand shenanigans on the
137
Internet. Underneath all this has been a policy to discourage people from voting, whether by
demoralisation or by active mechanisms of voter suppression.
In the 2016 race, the presidential election itself cost about $2.4 billion, while the simultaneous
Congressional election cost $4 billion. The Indian Lok Sabha election of 2019 cost $6.5 billion,
the world record holder. This kind of money sways the election towards political parties and
candidates that are favoured by big money. Candidates from the Left are disqualified at the
bank even before the ballot box.
While the entire episode of Russiagate, Russian interference in the U.S. elections, might end up
being a sideshow, there is a real problem with the way the Internet has become a weapon in
elections. Using money power, massive troll farms are set up to micro-target voters with highly
objectionable messages and to inspire them to bring their friends and family to vote.
Racist and homophobic messages have been commonplace, not only in the U.S. election but
also in the elections in Brazil and India.
The U.S. has a long history of voter suppression. Laws and procedures sought to prevent
women and African Americans (as well as other minorities) from being able to vote. The civil
rights movement of the 20th century was geared towards the vote, with the Voting Rights Act of
1965 finally giving people the right to vote and have mechanisms in place to protect voting. The
U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the most important parts of this Act in 2013, which meant that
the presidential election that voted in Trump was the first one since 1965 that was conducted
without the protection of the right to vote. Large numbers of African Americans and Latinos were
disenfranchised in key U.S. States.
Trump’s team realised that in order to win the 2016 election he had to produce a base that was
loyal to him. By January 2016, months before the election, Trump confidently told his supporters
in Iowa: “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose
voters.”
A combination of racism and machismo, as well as old-fashioned nativism and right-wing

nationalism, fuelled Trump’s campaign. He reached out to the wealthy sections of the
population, who almost totally supported him, and to white-collar workers, who had seen
substantial job losses as a consequence of business process outsourcing (BPO). What was
visible was his blue-collar support base, the workers from factories and mines that had been
closed down. Trump’s culture war appealed to a section of the U.S. population that felt it had
been “left behind” by globalisation. This was at the core of the “Make America Great Again”
campaign. But behind this was an elite, eager for more tax cuts and more full-throated
capitalism. That Trump’s base was contradictory did not bother anyone. The details were
irrelevant. The slogan was everything.
Mobilise the base

Trump never stopped mobilising his base. The attacks on China and on immigrants were key.
Trump said to the unemployed part of his base, both white and blue-collar, that he was going to
revive a faltering U.S. economy. And for them, and the very rich, he said that he would prevent
socialism in the U.S. In March 2019, Trump’s economic advisers released the “Economic Report
of the President”. The sections on the trade war against China and on the increase of
mechanisation were interesting but limited. Much discussion could have taken place around
these topics. But these were met with silence. Everyone focussed on Chapter Eight—Markets
Versus Socialism.
138
It seemed anachronistic. Why would the U.S. government need to make the case against
socialism in 2019? In the 2018 U.S. House of Representatives election, the Democrats defeated
the Republicans. Amongst their ranks were not only liberals but also socialists. This was the first
time in several generations that open socialists had won office to the U.S. Congress. At the
same time, one of the key candidates for the U.S. presidency is Bernie Sanders, another
socialist. Bernie, as he is known, has galvanised millions of people in the U.S. towards his
agenda of public education and public health care, key planks of a social democratic
programme. Polls at the start of 2019 showed that 40 per cent of the people in the U.S.
favoured socialism, and the Democratic Socialists of America saw their ranks increase to
60,000 members. Socialism has made a comeback in the U.S.
But socialism has polarised the electorate. Amongst Republicans, 84 per cent have a negative
view of socialism. Trump’s animosity to the Bolivarian government in Venezuela has to do with
their socialist policies. He has railed against the Bolivarian government and the Cuban
Revolution, vowing to bring them down in the name of his war against socialism. It has a
dynamic effect on his base, the core of his voters that need to stand firm in this permanent
election cycle.
Socialism as camouflage
Standing against socialism does impact Trump’s base. But this is not enough. Trump has
cleverly made “socialism” a code word for advancement of women and racial minorities. To
attack socialism is to attack the entry of women and non-whites into positions of power. That is
why Trump has been so vicious against four members of the U.S. Congress: Alexandria Ocasio-
Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib. Two of these women (Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar) are open about their socialism. All four women are non-white,
two are Muslim, one was a refugee, and one is Palestinian. Their bodies condense all that
Trump wants to attack—socialists, refugees, women, Palestinians, racial minorities. He goes
after them for their socialism but is, in fact, going after them for all these other parts of
themselves.
In mid July, Trump assaulted these four women, who are known as the Squad, on Twitter. Two
tweets in particular sharpened his attack. One tweet said that these women are “anti-Israel, pro
Al-Qaeda”, and that these “Radical Left Democrats want Open Borders, which means drugs,
crime, human trafficking, and much more”. The other tweet said: “We will never be a Socialist or
Communist Country. IF YOU ARE NOT HAPPY HERE, YOU CAN LEAVE!” At one of his rallies,
a chant broke out, “Send her back”, referring in particular to Ilhan Omar, who came to the U.S.
as a refugee from Somalia. The other three women were born in the U.S. Trump fed the racist
idea that non-white people were foreigners, a xenophobic attitude with deep roots in U.S.
history.
These four women have set the terms for bravery. Ilhan Omar continued to call for Trump’s
impeachment while Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that Trump was “angry because you can’t
conceive of an America that includes us”. None of these women had been in the U.S. Congress
before. They are a product of the anti-Trump sentiment and they embody the deep resistance to
Trump. In August 2016, Trump came to Detroit to campaign. Rashida Tlaib, who provided free
legal support for women at the Sugar Law Center, interrupted Trump’s speech. As she was led
out by the police, Trump called her an “animal” and told her to “get a job”. She did. She won a
seat to the U.S. Congress.
The trouble of running for President
139
The two social democratic standard-bearers for the U.S. presidency are Bernie Sanders and
Elizabeth Warren. Both are Senators and both argue for public education and public health.
They have come under fire from the establishment for their proposals for a public health system.
The Washington Post, for instance, wrote an editorial that said policies must be “grounded in
mathematical and political reality”. A marginal candidate for the Democratic ticket, John
Delaney, challenged Elizabeth Warren and Sanders during the omnibus debates. Neither
Elizabeth Warren nor Sanders attacked each other. They have decided to stand firm against the
attack on social democracy. Elizabeth Warren’s answer to Delaney was firm. “I don’t understand
why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for President of the United States just to talk
about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for.”
Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, and the Squad, seem to understand that politics is not about
reaching for the middle but about strengthening the base and allowing the base of support to go
out and drive an agenda. That was Trump’s method, and it worked. It might work again.
Particularly if the Democratic Party’s establishment flinches from Trump’s attack on socialism
and if it takes cover in a “moderate” programme. Democracy in these times has no room for
moderate agendas or nuance. The atmosphere of politics feeds off a sense that too much is at
stake for incremental policies. Bold ideas are needed. Trump understands that. So do Sanders,
Elizabeth Warren, and the Squad. For both sides, socialism defines the debate.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/environment/article29065815.ece
ENVIRONMENT
MAHARASHTRA COASTAL ROAD PROJECT
Nowhere road
LYLA BAVADAM
The construction site of the Mumbai Coastal Road Project near Amarsons Garden on December
16, 2018. Photo: Emmanual Yogini
(Facing page) The construction site of the Mumbai Coastal Road Project near Amarsons
Garden on December 16, 2018. (Above) At Worli Koliwada, the Koli fishing community protest
against the project, on February 6, 2019. The Bandra-Worli Sea Link can be seen in the
background. Photo: Emmanual Yogini
A photo exhibition protest against the project at the Worli Seaface on April 22. Photo:
Emmanual Yogini
The Maharashtra government seems determined to deal with Mumbai’s traffic woes by pushing
through the coastal road project despite serious environmental concerns.
ON July 16, the Bombay High Court quashed the Coastal Regulation Zone clearances given for
the construction of the southern section of the Mumbai Coastal Road Project, describing the
award of clearances as having been carried out with a “lack of proper scientific study”. For the
petitioners this was a victory though they realised that the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation
(BMC), the agency carrying out the project, would approach the Supreme Court, which it did on
July 22. A Supreme Court bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice Deepak Gupta
refused to stay the High Court’s decision and set the next date of hearing for August 20.
140
The High Court bench of Chief Justice Pradeep Nandrajog and Justice N.M. Jamdar clubbed
together 17 public interest litigation petitions against the project and in their 219-page order
said: “It is obvious that a serious lacuna in the decision-making process has occurred. The
lacuna is that neither [the] MCZMA [Maharashtra Coastal Zone Management Authority] nor [the]
EIA nor [the] MoEF [the Environment Ministry] took note of the fact that except for the
environmental impact assessment [EIA] study conducted by the consultants, all other reports
themselves informed the recipient of the reports that they were not based on complete and
exhaustive analysis of the data and material required to opine on the adverse environmental
impact.”
The total length of the coastal road is 29.2 kilometres, stretching from Princess Street in the
southern part of the island to Kandivali in the northern suburbs. It is being jointly built at a cost of
almost Rs.20,000 crore by the BMC and the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation
(MSRDC), and the stated purpose for the road is to ease the congestion on the arterial roads of
the city.
The BMC is responsible for the southern stretch of 9.98 km from Princess Street to Worli, at a
cost of Rs.12,721 crore. It is this sector that has come under fire from the High Court. Building
the road involves reclamation to create about 90 hectares (ha) of land. The MCZMA first gave
its green clearances on January 18, 2017. On May 11, 2017, the Union Ministry of Environment,
Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) also gave its approval. Work began in December 2018.
From an environmental point of view, the coastal road spells destruction. The 90 ha of land will
be created by dumping debris in the intertidal zone. This will effectively kill the ecosystem and
hinder the livelihood options of the fishing community. The intertidal zone is one of the most
ecologically diverse zones in ocean life. About 340 documented intertidal marine life species—
including crustaceans, local and migratory birds, annelids, molluscs, fish, sea cucumber and
even a type of coral—have been identified along the western coast of Mumbai, living in rock
pools, mangroves, sea grass, tidal flats and sandy shores. Many of these are protected under
Schedule I of the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972.
Baffling clearances
This is what makes the MoEFCC’s clearance baffling, especially the stipulation that the project
should be carried out within the framework of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, which
means that the coastal ecology would have to be restored to its original state once the road was
built. This will not be possible, and it is incredible that the MoEFCC thinks otherwise. Marine life
is notoriously fragile—anemones, for instance, are now rarely seen along the Mumbai coast—
and once destroyed there is no way to reintroduce or revive it. For example, it is not possible to
uproot a mangrove tree and replant it elsewhere as was suggested in a dubious rehabilitation
plan. Each mangrove bush has a spreading network of roots that sustains not only the individual
tree but others around it as well.
In its clearance, the MoEFCC also said the tidal action would not be affected by the
construction. Once again, this claim is dumbfounding. Debris dumping will alter the coastline,
which in turn will affect tidal behaviour and the lives of the fishing community. In the Worli area
alone, there are about 2,000 fishing families that are totally dependent on the sea for their
livelihoods.
In June, the BMC said that it would not only compensate the fishermen but was also readying a
detailed survey of the area (this after starting the project in December 2018). The corporation
said in an affidavit: “The corporation will form a Fisherfolk Rehabilitation Assessment Committee
141
to study the effect on the livelihood of fishermen that may occur due to the project, identify
project-affected fishermen and formulate policy for monetary compensation.”
The fishermen have rejected this. “Social Ecology of the Shallow Seas: A Report on the Impact
of Coastal Reclamation on Artisan Fishing in the Worli Fishing Zone” is a report brought out by
the Collective For Spatial Alternatives and written by the architects Shweta Wagh, Hussain
Indorewala and Mihir Desai. It says the reclamation is an “assault” on the economic, social and
cultural rights of citizens, fishermen in particular. The report says that practically the entire rocky
littoral zone (the shallow zone where enough sunlight penetrates the water to promote growth of
aquatic plants) and parts of the sublittoral zone off the coast will be damaged irreversibly, which
in turn will affect fishing.
If the coastal road does come about, it will certainly ease congestion but only temporarily. Past
experience has shown that expanding infrastructure is not a long-term solution. It is merely a
quick fix for the existing government to seemingly overcome problems and pat itself on its back
and leave the core of the problem for the next government to deal with. Mumbai’s Bandra-Worli
Sea Link is one such example. While traffic usually moves fast on the sea-spanning bridge
itself, the exits at either end on to land become bottlenecks. It was meant to handle 1.25 lakh
cars every day, but fewer than 50,000 cross over it now. It is a similar situation with the city’s
flyovers. More than 50 were constructed in Mumbai with the promise that they would be the
proverbial magic wand to fix the city’s traffic woes, but while long-distance traffic benefited, local
traffic below the flyovers was thrown into worse chaos.
Successive governments and administrations avoid the real solutions such as implementing
vehicular restrictions and improving existing public transport services. The suburban trains,
which service close to 45 per cent of Mumbai’s residents, serve commuters of the north-south
part of the city while the city’s iconic red buses, run by the Brihanmumbai Electric Supply and
Transport Undertaking (BEST), cover those of the rest of the city. Mumbai ran efficiently on the
local train services and the BEST. But for reasons best known to itself the government has let
the BEST become an ailing organisation and not encouraged expansion plans for the suburban
train network.
Aamchi Mumbai Aamchi BEST (Our Mumbai Our BEST), a citizen’s collective, said that the
BEST could be revived at a cost of Rs.2,700 crore, a fraction of what was being spent on the
coastal road, and the revival would benefit a greater chunk of the population. Instead, in a pre-
election gambit, the government has further subsidised BEST fares and even urged BEST
workers to stand at bus stops shouting out the revised fares as if they were selling wares at a
market.
Improving the services of the local trains and the BEST is definitely required and is a matter of
building on and expanding existing infrastructure rather than creating anything entirely new. The
coastal road will cater only to the relatively small segment of the population that uses cars,
especially since a Rs.250 toll is expected to be levied on some sections that will be managed by
the MSRDC, though not on the BMC section. This again raises the question, who will the
coastal road benefit? It is projected to carry 1.36 lakh cars daily. If one makes a rough estimate
that each car carries three people, that works out to about four lakh passengers. That is
nowhere near the 36 lakh passengers that the suburban trains carry every day. Plus, the local
trains service a much wider area of the city than the coastal road will. Six lanes of the eight-lane
road will be reserved for private cars and two for public transport, highlighting yet again
discriminatory planning. Additionally, the coastal road will most likely not allow two-wheelers and
142
three-wheelers. By the BMC’s own state of the environment report of last year, of the 33.5 lakh
vehicles in the city, over 20 lakh (that is, more than 60 per cent) are two- and three-wheelers.
Water transportation
In the sound and fury over the coastal road, one workable project is being ignored. For an island
city like Mumbai, it is a point of wonder that a water transportation project has not been
vigorously pursued. It would be not only cheaper but also gentler on the environment. When the
late B.F. Chhapgar, the legendary marine biologist, was asked why policies did not consider the
environment, he would reply, with his trademark wryness: “Fish don’t vote.” Cynicism aside, it is
an unalterable fact that huge infrastructure projects are not just detrimental to the environment
but are often of limited benefit to people as well.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/environment/wild-life/article29243683.ece
ENVIRONMENT WILDLIFE
WILDLIFE
India’s big seven
N. SHIVAKUMAR
The One-Horned Indian Rhinocerous has been regularly hunted for its horn as it is presumed to
be aphrodisiac. Here the cattle egrets keep company with an old male rhinoceros as it grazes in
Kaziranga National Park.
A young bull elephant enjoying a dust bath in the Dhikala grasslands of the Corbett National
Park in Uttarakhand.
A mother and calf navigating the cool but fast-flowing waters of the Ramaganga river in the
Corbett National Park.
Two young male Asiatic lions lead an attack on a far-off prey at the Gir national park of Gujarat.
Living in prides, lions usually hunt together to bring down large herbivores.
A young male Asiatic lion in the Gir National Park looks back at an escaped prey. In the dry
deciduous forests of Gujarat, food is not easy to find.
The leopard, known for its stealthy habits and camouflage techniques, is in its element when in
the jungles of Ranthambhore where it is extremely difficult to sight.
At Jawai, the Leopard is seen its lair which happens to be the hollow caverns in a hillock. In this
part of the world, the leopard is mostly nocturnal.
Short sized horns, a massive neck and alert eyes make the gaur look formidable.
143
Even when resting, the gaur can be easily identified by its immense athletic build and powerful
presence.
A male water buffalo with sweeping horns walks out wary after a mud bath in the Kaziranga
National Park. Buffalos love wallowing in liquid mud to get rid of insects.
The setting sun highlights the tiger’s orange hide with its emphatic stripes as it cools off in the
running waters of the Ramganga river in the Corbett National Park.
Short-tempered and irritable nature, the one-horned Indian rhinoceros stands its ground when it
encounters tourists on open-top Gypsy in the Kaziranga National Park.
The diversity in India’s jungles is spectacular. But seven iconic species are a big draw in wildlife
tourism.
The tiger is the totem for wildlife tourism in India as it brings in plenty of big bucks. In 2017-18,
the Ranthambhore National Park in Rajasthan had a revenue of Rs.33,77,28,080, which is
indeed impressive. Similarly, the tiger reserves in Madhya Pradesh—Bandhavgarh, Kanha,
Panna and Pench—earned 400 per cent more in tourism than what the State and Central
governments provide as their annual budget.
Akin to Africa’s “big five”—the elephant, the lion, the rhinoceros, the leopard and the buffalo—
India has the “big seven”, or seven beasts that are sacrosanct in their respective wilderness, the
vast vistas of grasslands and woodlands that nurture them.
Several of India’s wildlife sanctuaries were once hunting grounds of erstwhile maharajas, and
more than 50 of these have been designated as tiger reserves, collectively covering an area of
72,749 sq km. An announcement was made on July 29, International Tiger Day, that the tiger
population in India had risen to 2,967, according to the census conducted in 2018. Deaths,
however, continued at about 200 a year.
Does the tiger deserve so much attention? Is it hogging the limelight or is it silently helping the
other wild denizens of the forest as the uppermost animal in the food pyramid? B.C. Choudhry,
a wildlife veteran with 40 years of experience and a faculty member of theWildlife Institute of
India, says: “India’s impressive wildlife extends beyond tigers as the diversity in our jungles is
amazing. There are tiny frogs, turtles, spotted deer, sloth bears, leopards, wild elephants, one-
horned rhinoceroses, and so on. Let us try to move on from ‘tiger tourism’ and appreciate our
jungles as a complete entity.”
Mohit Aggarwal, CEO of Asian Adventures, a 25-year-old ecotour company, and a member of
the board of Asian Ecotourism Network, sees huge potential for “green ecotourism” in India.
Mohit says: “The big cats are easily the star attraction of most wildlife destinations in the world,
and India is home to four of the five true big cats: the tiger, the lion, the leopard and the snow
leopard. Unfortunately, we have lost the cheetah, one of the active hunters of the grasslands.
“But we have the Big-7 of wildlife and this can catapult wildlife tourism into the next level.
Wildlife tourism can boost India’s foreign exchange earnings and, at the same time, provide
conservation cover to India’s range of flora and fauna.”
144
Indian elephant
“Please slow down, there are elephants on the move,” warned our guide as we trekked in Silent
Valley. It is unbelievable how the behemoths, weighing up to 5,000 kg, can move so silently,
both as individuals and in herds. Equipped with soft but sturdy pads for walking, elephants are
wanderers of wild places, constantly on the move and munching fodder. They eat 400 kg of
greenery a day to keep them going, dumping dung that fertilises the forest floor and aids seed
dispersal.
The foothills of the Himalaya, where the Ramganga river meanders in the pristine jungles of the
Corbett National Park, is also an ideal place for elephants. The Ramganga and, forests and
grasslands merge to create an idyllic location for elephants as they chomp on the choicest
blades of grass or refresh themselves with dust and water baths.
“India’s much-fragmented forests host more than half of the endangered Asian elephants in the
wild. However, they are running out of space and time as the spread of human settlements is
creating concrete jungles and squeezing elephant populations into diminishing compartments of
woodlands. Those that survive are forced into areas of human activity in order to pass between
fissured forests, and sometimes they feed on cultivated crops, which gives rise to conflict. The
once harmonious relationship between elephants and people is breaking down. We need
solutions to secure elephant corridors and minimise human-elephant conflict,” says Dr Sandeep
Kumar Tiwari of the Asian Elephant Specialist Group.
Wild water buffalo
My first encounter with the buffalo was in 1988 and it was merely a glimpse. But in October
2018, we lingered around the same national park on the second day of our safari and managed
to see boisterous buffalos at dusk, crossing a large lake dotted with islands. The sun was above
the skyline, with minutes to go for the sunset. The still waters stirred as the big black buffalos
generated silhouettes as they waded towards an island for a night of cud-chewing and slumber.
Dr Rahul Kaul of the Wildlife Trust of India (WTI) says: “There is much more to India’s wildlife
than flagship species such as the tiger or the rhino. While conservation efforts dedicated to
these animals do have trickle-down benefits to other species that share their habitat, certain
species such as the wild buffalo require direct interventions for their very survival.”
Once found in abundance across north-eastern and central India, the species is now restricted
to north-eastern India, and a handful can be found in Chhattisgarh. The population is around
4,000 individuals and constitutes the largest population in the Indian landscape, accounting for
almost 92 per cent of the world population.
The WTI has plans to shift five female buffalos from Assam after the monsoons to replenish the
wild stock in Chhattisgarh, says Rahul Kaul.
Indian rhinoceros
The one-horned rhinoceros is the second heaviest of the rhino species in the world, next only to
the white rhino of Africa, and weighs about 1,400 to 2,700 kg. Standing six feet tall with a body
length of almost 10 feet, it is enormous and resembles an armour-plated bulldozer. The rhino is
powerful and plump with prominent folds of thick skin. The horn of the rhino, typically 20-61 cm
145
long and weighing up to 3 kg, is its bane. The rhino is regularly hunted for the horn as it is
thought to be an aphrodisiac. The one-horned rhino is rated as a vulnerable species by the
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
At the turn of the 20th century, its population dropped to 200 individuals. The century-old
Kaziranga Park was given the status of a World Heritage Site in 1985 for providing succour to
the survival of endangered wildlife, particularly the one-horned rhino.
Dr Bibhab K. Talukdar, the Chair of the Asian Rhino Specialist Group of the IUCN Species
Survival Commission and Asia Coordinator of the International Rhino Foundation (IRF), explains
that the protection of the rhino was possible only by preserving its habitat and ecology and
garnering the support of local villagers. There has been an increase in the rhino population from
600 in 1975 to 3,580 in 2019 because of better protection from poachers, surveillance against
natural and man-made threats and proactive habitat management.
Indian bison (gaur)
As the fourth-largest living land animal, the gaur, or Indian bison, is fighting a losing battle
against ecological devastation. Standing over six feet tall and tipping the scales at about 1,000
kg, it ranks only after the elephant and the rhinoceros in size. It is unique in many ways, having
a ridge instead of a hump along the spinal column. It “wears” contrasting white stockings on all
four legs, with a glistening ebony body to boot. Of all the wild cattle in the world, the gaur stands
top on the list as the ultimate ungulate. Equipped with a heavy physique, it resembles a trained
athlete on steroids. But the muscled monster is fighting a losing battle and dwindling in
numbers. India has 17 major cattle breeds that were domesticated thousands of years ago.
Strangely, the gaur has never been domesticated. Some scientists reckon that taming the gaur
is tough because it is a hunk of an animal fortified with strength and a short temper.
Dr Asad Rahmani, former director of the Bombay Natural History Society (BNHS), who has 40
years of research experience in natural history, says: “The authorities in India have to wake up
to the reality of the endangered status of the gaur. Even the Asian Wild Cattle Specialist Group
[AWCSG], established in the early 1980s with the goal to conserve Asia’s nine wild cattle
species, is closely monitoring its status. Its numbers have increased in some protected areas,
but the biggest threat today is the fear of epidemics like foot and mouth disease, rinderpest and
anthrax. While poaching is prevalent, habitat degradation is a problem. Long-time studies are
needed to provide authentic conservation methods for the Indian gaur.”
Leopard
The supple feline is neither spotted nor dotted but wears rosettes and is a cornered cat despite
the ability and agility to perform better than other big cats in the art of survival. Clever and
cunning, widely distributed, leopards can flourish in areas where other large carnivores cannot.
But poaching and reduction in prey have negatively impacted leopard statistics. Leopards are
killed in large numbers across the country on a regular basis.
Not easily sighted, these big cats lead a stealthy and secretive life, away from prying eyes. They
are flourishing in the thin thickets of Jhalana and the hollow hillocks of Jawai in Rajasthan and
have become tourist attractions.
Having experienced both these destinations, I was heartened to see that human-animal conflict
does not exist in these remote countryside locations.
146
Vidya Athreya, an ecologist with the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), has been working on
human-leopard interactions for more than a decade. She uses research findings to make
informed decisions on policy documents relating to human-leopard conflict management. She is
also a member of the IUCN Cat Specialist Group, and her work on the leopard in India has
increased awareness of large carnivores outside protected areas. She says: “As an adaptable
big cat, the leopard is able to reside and use human-use areas. Because of its greater
adaptability, the conservation efforts required for the leopard are different from tigers. Leopard
safaris in Jawai and Jhalana have evoked interest in the secretive life of the leopards, which
goes a long way in respecting the species.”
Asiatic lion
Although designated as a national park, three highways, a railway line and smaller roads criss-
cross the Gir lion sanctuary in Gujarat. Temples within the sanctuary draw thousands of pilgrims
each year, “trampling the tranquillity” of the park. The habitat faces forest fire risks. Last year,
the canine distemper virus caused two dozen deaths in the sanctuary, and this created panic
among naturalists and wildlife enthusiasts worldwide.
It has been more than six years since the Supreme Court passed a judgment directing the
authorities to guarantee a safe second home for the beleaguered Asiatic lion. The idea is to
translocate a selected pride of lions to ensure the long-time survival of the endangered species.
However, not much appears to have happened on the ground in spite of the huge sums that
have been spent to create a second home at Kuno National Park in Madhya Pradesh.
Dr Faiyaz A. Khudsar, lead scientist at the Yamuna Biodiversity Park in Delhi who has worked
for five years at Kuno, says: “The serpentine Kuno river sanctuary provides a thirst-quenching
lifeline for flourishing flora and fauna on both its banks. Over the years, all the 24 villages
located inside the sanctuary were relocated and rehabilitated outside the sanctuary for the
introduction of lions.”
“A second home will provide protection against extinction for the free-ranging lions, which is an
integral part of India’s unique and diverse natural heritage,” says Dr Ravi Chellam, a senior
wildlife ecologist who has studied the Asiatic lion for many years in the Gir forest.
Tiger
Tigers are designed to dominate the jungles with their ferocious hunting skills, and yet the tiger
is in deep trouble. From an estimated 40,000 animals in India a century ago, the number has
come down to around 3,000 in 2018. In recent years, there has been a steady upward trend, but
the fear of extinction in the wild lingers like a sword of Damocles. A World Wide Fund for Nature
and Wildlife Conservation Society (WWF-WCS) survey found that tigers have lost 93 per cent of
their historical range. In the last 10 years, tiger habitats have decreased by an alarming 45 per
cent.
The tiger is a charismatic cat that plays a pivotal role in the well-being and preservation of the
multiplicity of an ecosystem, be it the saline mangrove ecology of Sundarbans National Park or
the thick jungles of Dudhwa National Park or the dry deciduous forest of Ranthambhore. Well-
managed ecotourism in national parks and sanctuaries with increased visitor numbers keep the
poachers off, say experts.
147
Another view is that tourism needs to be encouraged so that young Indians at the forefront of
changing attitudes towards the environmental problems gripping the nation can find pertinent
solutions. Wildlife tourism in India is evolving and with social media it is spreading as millennials
seek encounters with “glamorous” wild animals.
The tiger conservationist Belinda Wright, who heads the Wildlife Protection Society of India
(WPSI), has been working with State and Central forest officials for decades. She and her team
have been instrumental in curtailing wildlife crime in India. While Belinda Wright is pleased that
the tiger population in India appears to be doing well, she says: “It is important that tigers are
recognised as an umbrella species and that their habitat is strictly protected so that all the
species that live in their domain are protected. India must safeguard its biodiversity to provide a
healthy environment for all living things, including humans.”
On the subject of wildlife tourism, she says: “Tiger tourism is booming in India, but sadly, there
is little respect or understanding of the importance of the lesser-known species that share the
tiger’s home. We must make every effort to convert this interest in the tiger to secure an
informed respect for our wild areas and all their inhabitants, big and small.”
N. Shiva Kumar is an independent journalist and photographer specialising in wilderness and

travel.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/science-and-technology/article29075512.ece
AEROSPACE
Lasers tell the distance between spacecraft
R. RAMACHANDRAN
As each spacecraft passes over, say, a large mountain, it is drawn a bit downward by the extra
gravitational force. This leads to a sequence of increases and decreases in the separation
between the two satellites. Photo: D. Schütze and G. Heinzel/AEI, Hannover
Researchers have measured the distance between a pair of satellites 200 km apart with an
accuracy of one-fifth of a nanometre (1 nm is a billionth of a metre)—about the size of an
atom—by bouncing laser beams between them. This will be useful to both map out the earth’s
gravitational field with ultra-precision and detect gravitational waves produced by violent
astrophysical events.
Large geophysical changes, such as large earth movements, massive ocean currents or glacial
and ice-sheet transformations due to climate change, can, in principle, be detected by
measuring tiny changes in the earth’s gravitational field. The collaboration behind GRACE
Follow-On (GFO), a space mission run by NASA that was placed in orbit around the earth in
May 2018, and the German Aerospace Center (DLR) has now demonstrated a technique for
making such measurements with unprecedented precision. The team detected gravity-induced
changes in the distance between two earth-orbiting satellites by bouncing laser beams between
them.
GFO is a successor mission to the GRACE (Gravitational Recovery and Climate Experiment)
mission, which was run by NASA and the DLR and flew from 2002 to 2017. In the earlier
experiment, GRACE included two spacecraft on a 450 km circumpolar orbit. Their separation of
148
around 200 km was measured by bouncing microwaves between them combining with GPS
measurements of orbit parameters.
When the satellites passed over a region of the earth with slightly stronger or weaker gravity,
the spacecraft experienced a small change in their separation. The follow-on mission has now
measured gravity-induced changes by measuring the inter-satellite distance using interference
of laser beams, and thus to far greater precision.
The major challenges of such measurements in space include maintaining a stable frequency
for the laser, correcting for distance variations not caused by gravity, say by spacecraft drag due
to atmospheric turbulence, and cutting out the intrinsic noise arising from laser operation. The
direction of the laser beam must be continually adjusted to keep it on target. According to the
project leader Gerhard Heinzel of the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics (AEI),
Hannover, for two satellites that are about 200 km apart, the beam tracking keeps the laser
locked on to a spot that moves by no more than a metre.
Changes in distance as tiny as 200 picometres (1 pm is a trillionth of a metre) between two

satellites about 220 km apart could be measured accurately with the system, according to the
first results that have been published in a recent issue of “Physical Review Letters”.
“The laser link is kept alive without any interruption for hundreds of orbits around the earth,
while the spacecraft chase each other from pole to pole at speeds of more than 25,000 km per
hour,” Heinzel said. The capability points to laser ranging becoming the future technique for
space-based earth measurements.
MEDICINE
High BP and high risk of heart attack
R. RAMACHANDRAN
Contrary to common belief, high systolic and high diastolic blood pressure (BP) are both
strongly and independently linked to risks of heart attack and stroke, according to a new
research study led by Kaiser Permanente. The findings have been published in a recent issue of
the “New England Journal of Medicine”.
In a large study, which included more than 36 million BP readings from more than one million
people, both the “upper” systolic and the “lower” diastolic BP readings independently predicted
the risk of heart attack or stroke. The results run counter to decades of research indicating that
high systolic BP is more likely than diastolic pressure to result in adverse outcomes.
“This research brings a large amount of data to bear on a basic question, and it gives such a
clear answer,” said the lead author Alexander C. Flint, a Kaiser Permanente stroke specialist.
“Every way you slice the data, the systolic and diastolic pressures are both important.”
According to him, the current retrospective study is “the largest by far of its kind”, which
analysed 36 million BP readings taken during outpatient visits between 2007 and 2016 from 1.3
million adult Kaiser Permanente members in Northern California.
Systolic pressure measures how hard the heart pumps blood into arteries. Diastolic pressure
indicates the pressure on the arteries when the heart rests between beats. Decades of research
149
have shown that high systolic blood pressure is more likely to result in adverse outcomes. As a
result, cardiology guidelines and risk estimation tools focus on the upper number, with some
experts arguing that the diastolic number might reasonably be ignored, Flint said.
After adjusting the data for possible confounding factors, the researchers found that while
systolic pressure has a greater impact, both systolic and diastolic pressures strongly influenced
the risk of heart attack or stroke, regardless of the definition used for high blood pressure
(140/90 mm versus 130/80 mm mercury). The finding that systolic and diastolic hypertension
have similar impacts on risk at the lower threshold of 130/80 provides independent support for
recent changes that were made in the American College of Cardiology and American Heart
Association guidelines, Flint said. It also conforms to the findings from the National Institutes of
Health’s Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial, known as SPRINT.
“Controversy has long persisted about whether systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure,
or both contribute to cardiovascular risk,” said the senior author Deepak L. Bhatt, executive
director of Interventional Cardiovascular Services at Brigham and professor of medicine at
Harvard Medical School. “This analysis using a very large amount of longitudinal data
convincingly demonstrates that both are important, and it shows that in people who are
otherwise generally healthy, lower blood pressure numbers are better.”
PHYSICS
Solar panel that unfurls automatically
R. RAMACHANDRAN
A polymer sheet representing a solar cell opens from a folded form (inset) to a flat disk with 10
times the surface area. The process is autonomous, requiring no power source but just a rise in
temperature. Photo: T. Chen et. al. Physical Review Applied (2019)
Inspired by a toy known as Hoberman sphere, researchers led by Kristina Shea of the Swiss
Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), Zurich, have developed an origami-like design for a solar
panel that could be folded away compactly on a spacecraft and then expanded rapidly and
deployed to harvest sunlight for power. Based on what is known as “shape-memory polymer”
that responds to temperature changes, the structure can unfold to increase its surface area by
ten times in just 40 seconds, without any power source to drive the process.
The concept could be used for creating sheet-like structures that undergo rapid changes in
shape, from tents to roofing canopies. Deployable structures in the form of compact sheets and
membranes that can unfurl have a variety of potential applications in architecture, energy
generation and robotics.
Such structures are typically made from thin, flexible sheets, and the unfolding is effected
through a mechanical framework. The engineers Kristina Shea of ETH and Chen, an ETH
graduate student, had previously built mechanical structures that changed shape using shape-
memory polymers. Since such a material becomes stiff below a particular temperature, it can be
bent and locked into a specific structure by cooling. At higher temperatures, the material
becomes soft and will return to its initial state. In fact, shape-memory polymers that respond to
150
temperature changes have been used to make sheets that self-fold into boxes, pyramids and
other shapes.
The device the team created is a circular frame holding a disk-shaped sheet. It has a rigid
framework made from hinged joints which use a mechanism devised by the engineer Chuck
Hoberman for use in shape-changing architecture. The toy Hoberman sphere is a compact ball
when closed but opens into a much larger spherical shell. Much like the petals of a flower, the
sheet folds into a compact spiral using the so-called “flasher” origami principle. By
computationally optimising the folding pattern to best fit within the framework of 20 Hoberman
hinges, the Kristina Shea-Chen team was able to achieve an efficiently packed and quickly
unfolding structure.
The structure could be compacted by increasing the temperature beyond the polymer’s
transition temperature of 35ºC to 40ºC and could be locked in by cooling it to room temperature.
Warming the structure in 40ºC water opened it up again. What was originally a 25-cm diameter
opened into a 79 cm diameter sheet in less than 40 seconds. In a solar-cell application, the
shape-memory polymer sheet could be coated with a photovoltaic material, although it is
conceivable that shape-memory materials might be devised with photovoltaic properties, said
Kristina Shea.
If one used a shape-memory polymer whose transition temperature is what you get when the
material gets warmed by solar radiation, the unfolding transition could be triggered, she said.
https://frontline.thehindu.com/books/article29059938.ece
BOOKS
The scourge of violence
SHELLEY WALIA
At a protest in Ahmedabad on June 26 against the lynching in Jharkhand of Tabrez Ansari, who
was tortured and forced to chant “Jai Shri Ram”. Photo: SAM PANTHAKY/AFP
A timely, eloquent series of interviews that interrogate the correlation of violence with gender
discrimination, white intolerance, unilateral state power, politics, art and climate change.
POLITICIANS across the globe have sunk to a new low, resorting to new levels in the inordinate
incitement of a malleable public willing to accept the media hypnosis and brush all opposing
views under the carpet. It is a pandemic assault on public discourse on freedom and equality.
In Violence: Humans in Dark Times, Brad Evans and Natasha Lennard engage in a timely,
eloquent conversation with thinkers such as Gayatri Spivak, Henry Giroux, Jake Chapman and
Simon Critchley, interrogating the correlation of violence with gender discrimination, white
intolerance, unilateral state power, politics, art and climate change. As the general mood
indicates, we cannot overstate the fact that in the last few years, apathetic conservatives, worn-
out liberals and cynical radicals have blurred the debate.
The media, in times of rigid political and ethnic affiliation, remains under siege with the public
discourse on diversity and multiculturalism virtually disappearing. The authors draw attention to
the power of dealing with political disparity and the obligation of engaging in some form of active
dissidence against politically charged racist thuggery.
151
As Theodor W. Adorno, the German philosopher, emphasises, thought must “ceaselessly point
out the utter barbarism of the hegemony of capital, patriarchy, and the state”. To protest, to
resist, to tell people what they least want to hear becomes our urgent moral responsibility. The
interview with Gottfried Helnwein, the artist who grew up in post-war Vienna, makes a plea for
“standing up, rebelling, resisting” and not “surrender to violence by domesticating its
appearance and not addressing its visual realities head-on”. It is hoped that “violent aesthetics”
will succeed in opening up the political debate in which democratic ideologies will ultimately
prevail. Out of a crisis is born hope; in the words of Evans, “to bring out the best of us we have
to confront the worst of what humans are capable of doing to one another.” In short, there is a
need to confront the intolerable realities perpetrated by violence in this world.
The intellectually stimulating and provocative exchanges collected in this book point towards
“how the increasing expression and acceptance of violence—in all strata of society—has
become a defining feature of our times”. Knowledge of the Holocaust, for instance, becomes the
provocative past that artists such as Alfredo Jarr from Chile, Bracha Ettinger, a visual artist and
a philosopher, and Gottfried Helnwein have lived through or confronted in their daily life.
The interview on “The Violence of Forgetting” draws attention to the notion of the erasure of
history when “ignorance and power join forces”. Here Henry Giroux confronts the raw realities of
suffering and addresses “the politics of ignorance and the intellectual conditions that give rise to
systems of oppression”. The power and awareness created by an educated public could be one
viable solution to the cultural amnesia afflicting the world today.
The nightmare of history brings us face to face with the persistence of violence generated by the
discourse on disparities and the assertion of racist supremacy that disallows the marginalised a
viable space to live and have the right of speech. He draws attention to the past in order to bring
awareness about the social responsibility of speaking out against an offensive narrative that
discourages dialogue, an important ingredient of a progressive society committed to the
promotion of critical thinking, economic welfare and freedom of expression.
These are indeed sinister times that impel the need for structures to launch a counteroffensive
against the onslaught of a neoliberal agenda based on valorising one ideology over another.
Indeed, we need to undo violence by bringing critical thought to bear on the very idea of this
scourge that has haunted civilisation through the ages. The book undertakes a passionate
depiction of the insidious sense of unease and the daily risks that we and our dear ones have to
face in this world. Violence feels omnipresent and all-enveloping. An antithesis to democratic
liberal values, it has slowly become endemic to our very condition.
Normalising violence
The in-depth exchanges in the book examine the idea of violence, facing it head-on by naming it
and then finding some solution, thereby compelling a responsible citizenry to develop a
congenial and peaceful environment acceptable to all. The ruin of public welfare in the name of
private enterprise, the renaissance of predatory market forces, the growth of ethnic minorities
and the worldwide aggression of autocrats and powerful nations leave the world in a democratic
conundrum where violence and state control is legitimised in the name of economic
development and the preservation of a mythical past. The odds are indeed stacked against
migrant minorities and radical thinkers who are inclined to expose lies and lay bare the hidden
agenda of the dominant neoliberal discourse.
152
The natural response of anger for violence stands wiped out through the corporate controlled
political discourse casting a spell of “normalising the violence”, a dehumanisation visible in the
commercially marketed media that hypnotically adapts the public psyche to the existence of
aggression in everyday life. With the idea of pluralism crushed, a violently dark world is
overtaken by the reality of a post-truth “Trumpism” of lies, distortion and propaganda, forcing a
damaging narrative in complete disregard for environmental degradation and climate change.
Through a major part of her life, the philosopher Adrian Parr, Director of the Taft Research
Centre, has found this indifference as inherently “inseparable from the vice grip that capitalism
has on our lives and political imaginations”. The neoliberal landscape, she argues in her
interview, is underpinned by the “deployment of the language of perpetrator-free disaster as not
only a form of violence but also a crime against humanity, which demands no less”. Though, to
an extent, we are all involved as perpetrators or victims, some are understandably more guilty
than others. The crime in question is indeed “an existential one that is committed against the
very experience of being human”.
The erosion of egalitarianism and freedom through unprecedented challenges from anti-
humanist forces pushing democratic institutions to the brink of failure is effectively put into
operation through the dilution of the progressive and social significance of liberal arts that dare
to ask the right questions; the historical and political sensibility in creative writings, in radical
music and political art remains eternally suffused with a deep concern for a climate of
intolerance, fear, exclusion and hatred. A liberal mindset must flourish to nurture human life and
spirit through the act of creative imagination and a capacity to confront our dark history.
As Jake Chapman says in his exchange with Evans, in the chapter titled “The Violence of Art”:
“While violence is presented as the excluded object, it is the prime mover of human history… all
violence is bad, while reserving exclusions—like ‘just’ war or keeping peace. And yet there is
another form of violence that is creatively destructive. This is the violence we can talk about in
the context of art, for while art offers a critique of the former, it engages in the latter.” The raw
realities of mass violence and death form the staple of Chapman’s art, a creative quest for
“understanding our cosmic insignificance” and our finite existence.
However, many under the spell of the state apparatus and its ideological prejudice choose to
remain oblivious of the role of art and the social sciences and its opposition to the narrative of
empty jingoism, of the battering of despised communities and the dismantling of existing
institutions as is apparent in the Brexit conundrum or the American attack on democratic
institutions. Undoubtedly, the violence expressed in the debased language of United States
President Donald Trump is used to not only drive home a political message but to appeal to the
common multitudes who are culturally inclined to applaud rhetoric couched in muscular
coarseness. The unleashing of racial hatred and police violence no longer disturbs millions who
applaud the ruling Republicans for their robust policy of “America first” with its unashamed
international interventions and martial aggression.
The politics of silence collaborates with sycophancy and racial or religious prejudice, producing
an environment of violence and mayhem so well depicted in masterpieces of art and music.
Intellectual vacuity casts a long and dark shadow over public life. The happiness of humanity is
subverted at the altar of white supremacy which seeks to promote the calculated short supply of
liberal regulations, liberal values and liberal education. Evans’ interview with Richard Bernstein,
professor of philosophy at New York’s New School for Social Research, reiterates the public
lack of the essential drive to stand up against the violence of modern mass politics and arouse
153
within us the indefatigable urge to resist the status quo and escape the mundane, or stand up
against the violence of modern mass politics. Bernstein emphasises “the intellectual, rather than
the physical dimensions to violence, including structures of violence like the Black Lives Matter
and anti-Dakota Access Pipeline movements”. In the absence of this activism, we all fall prey to
irrationality, resentment, xenophobia and the relentless yearning for fear-inducing power.
Often, the physical harm or killing are our “only paradigm of violence”, argues Bernstein. And
this frequently “blinds us to other forms of violence that involve humiliation and suffering”. The
mobilising of ignorance and prejudice through a retrogressively shoddy education system,
persuading the public to cut itself off from the wisdom of philosophy and the arts, and replacing
it with the vulgarity of commerce and the daily dose of a deplorably mediocre media leaves the
system in a dismal state of consensual politics.
It is imperative, therefore, to halt the runaway course of democracy towards an increasingly

violent tomorrow. The environment, subsumed in violence of fear and hatred, cannot be glossed
over in a world where democracy has gone awry. It is hoped by the philosophers and artists
interviewed in the book that those who are elected to govern must take cognisance and uphold
the institutions of democracy based on the creation of a dependable, free and participatory
socialist movement. In the days to come, the Western world must awaken to the reality of
inadvertent violence and rouse a serious national debate on what comprises aggression, who
perpetuates it, and why.
Violence is, undeniably, an overwhelming plague in any civil society. Bullying and persecution,
war and terrorism, sectarianism and climate degradation are serious crimes against humanity
that persist in our daily life. At this perilous moment in history, our actions and our readiness to
not only speak up but also critically examine ourselves and our positions will determine our very
survival. We cannot afford to remain subservient, uncritical and unimaginative recipients of an
intellectually vacant politics of violence and malevolence sweeping the globe in collusion with a
bloated, morally corrupt, corporate neoliberal agenda.
The insights inspired by the conversations “bring out the best of us” as well as enable us to
“confront the worst of what humans are capable of doing to one another”. The “intolerable
realities of the world” cry out for a solution with a compassionate and creative vision that does
not “simply end up creating more anger, hatred and division”. A thoughtful exploration of the
outlook of eminent thinkers on the normalisation of violence and its antidotes, the book through
its philosophical rigour of dialogue rendered in robust and lively prose provides, in the words of
Alana Massey, “a creative space large and fertile enough to lay the groundwork for an
actionable hope”. It is indeed a timely alarm.
BOOKS
Woven with dreams
ZIYA US SALAM
A delectable anthology of Urdu ghazals in Roman transliteration (and translation) of poets from
the late sixteenth century to the present.
The noted 18th century poet Khwaja Mir Dard spent all his life in Delhi, unlike Mirza Rafi Sauda
who left the city because of frequent Maratha attacks. Born in 1721, he passed away in 1785. In
between, there were three major invasions of Delhi. In 1739, Nadir Shah raided the city on Eid,
154
turning its lanes and by-lanes into rivers of blood. A little more than two decades later, Ahmed
Shah Abdali attacked the city. And there were the depredations of the Marathas. Dard refused
to leave the city. He, as Anisur Rahman states in Hazaaron Khwahishein Aisi, was a
“theoretician of the Muhammadi path and fashioned himself in the image of the Prophet
Muhammad, appointed by God as His messenger on the earth”.
The fate of the last abode of this highly respected Sufi poet, whose expertise in music defined
his tenor and metre, is not much better than the times he lived in. True, there is no armed
invader today, but Dard’s tomb, at the junction of Old Delhi and New Delhi, sits amidst
improvised urban dwellings, some grotesque, others merely inconvenient to passers-by. Goats
graze around the tomb, boys play with marbles, some even try climbing the pole in the middle of
the tomb. Dogs in the crowded neighbourhood slink around in the hope of pieces of meat
thrown to them from the homes. The tomb seems to be a favourite haunt of drug addicts.
Odd as it may appear, two centuries ago Dard himself had spoken of the ephemeral nature of
life and the helplessness of man. He wrote: “Tohmatein chand apne zimme dhar chale/ Jis liye
aai the so ham kar chale/ Zindagi hai ya koee toofan hai/ Hum to is jeene ke haathon mar
chale… Shamma ki maanind hum is bazm mein/ Chashm-e tar aai the, daaman tar chale.” (I put
on myself many a blame, before I left/I only did for what I came, before I left/ Is this life, or a
rough storm I suffer?/ In life’s term, I was life’s claim, before I left/I lived here like a lamp, as long
as I lived/ With tears I came but earned shame, before I left.)
If Dard’s tomb is a sign of the times, Momin Khan Momin’s last resting place, which has
couplets engraved on it, is a comment on the poet who was fortunate enough to learn under
Shah Abdul Aziz, whose imprint can still be seen on the country’s madrasa education. Today,
Momin rests in the dargah of Aziz’s father, Shah Waliullah, the 18th century Islamic reformer
who is said to have been instructed by the Prophet to work for the uplift of the community.
Momin, though, was a poet of romantic love. Anisur Rahman says: “The lover in his poetry is
one of amorous disposition; he expresses his love along with lust, and sees lust as a part of
life’s romance.”
Then there is the most unfortunate Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar, who did not get two
yards for burial in his beloved homeland. After the failed first war of independence in 1857, he
was exiled to Rangoon, where he was denied even a ceremonial tomb. When the revolt failed,
Zafar saw three of his sons and grandsons killed and their heads displayed at the Khooni
Darwaza, not far from the Red Fort. Zafar learnt the intricacies of poetry under Shah Naseem,
Zauq, then Ghalib. With the anguish that he experienced in his personal life, love for him was
not without a hint of melancholy. For him, a heart that had experienced no sorrow could not
know the depth of love. Rahman reminds us, “For him, composing poetry was cultivating a
difficult art that called for perseverance and devotion. This also explains his choice of multi-
syllabic lines and difficult qaafia and radeef.” Rahman reproduces a Zafar ghazal that talks of
love and sadness: “Baat karni mujhe mushkil kabhi aisi to na thi/Ab hai jaisi teri mehfil kabhi aisi
to na thi” (It was never so very hard to speak, but now/Your assembly was never so bleak, but
now).
Between Dard, Zafar and Momin, Rahman gives us a slice of life. In reality though, they are only
part of the life of Hazaaron Khwahishein Aisi, a book so gently unfolding that you are persuaded
to recall the opening of the petals of a flower, hour by hour, day by day. Here, the fragrance
spreads page by page, age by age, poet by poet. A seasoned academic, literary critic and poet
that he is, Rahman brings into play long years of using the pen as a brush. In his brief
introductions to each poet, he acts like a room boy in a hotel who draws the curtains aside and
155
opens the windows in the morning. Rahman, though, does not confine himself to merely
opening the window to the poets’ lives; he paints their lives with his words. The poetry he
chooses to string together this collection would have been read by millions already, but the
treatment he gives to the poets can be done only by a handful.
He reserves his best when talking of Faiz Ahmad Faiz, a 20th century icon whose work
continues to inspire Urdu lovers and those who read Urdu poetry in Roman script. With a
delectable mix of ironies, Rahman writes of Faiz: “A torchbearer of the Progressive Writers
Movement and a committed Marxist, Faiz was one of the few poets to strike a delicate balance
between arts and ideas and emerge as an icon. He was a votary of free expression, democratic
values and a world order based on sociopolitical justice. The stages of his development show
how his craft matured—from romanticism to social realism, and then to a deeper awareness of
the larger human predicament. Faiz exploited the traditional symbols of Persian and Urdu poetry
to add new implications to them and broaden the frontiers of meaning.” Such brevity, such
precision.
After such an introduction, Rahman springs a surprise. He chooses not to give us “Mujhse pehli
si mohabbat mere mehboob na mang”. Instead, he dishes out, “Aai kuchh abr kuchh sharaab
aai/Us ke baad aai jo azaab aai (Let some clouds gather, let some wine flow/ Then come what
may when I’m all aglow). Talk of a poet-critic’s idiosyncrasies!
Head over heart

Yet, Rahman presents a collection where the head rules over the heart. Taking off with
metaphysical beginnings, wherein he gives space to the likes of Quli Qutb Shah and Mirza
Mazhar, he changes gear effortlessly in the section titled “Towards Enlightenment”. It is here
that he shows some of his best insights and sharpest wit as he takes the readers to the worlds
of Mira Rafi Sauda, Khwaja Mir Dard and Mir Taqi Mir. It proves a healthy appetiser for the
section “Romance of Realism” where he finds space for InshaAllah Khan Insha, Asadullah Khan
Ghalib (he takes the title of the book from Ghalib’s couplet), Momin and Dagh Dehlavi, the Delhi
poet who lies buried in Hyderabad. In a neat delineation he clubs Mohammad Iqbal with Jigar
Moradabadi and Firaq Gorakhpuri in the “Advent of Modernism”: it is a choice that will raise a
few eyebrows, as Iqbal fans consider him over and above such classifications.
Many more eyebrows will be raised over the inclusion/exclusion of some modern-day popular
poets. However, for such naysayers, each of the poets included here will have many more
nodding in agreement. Hence, no hard feelings in finding Bashir Badr Zehra Nigah, Ahmad
Faraz, Nida Fazli and Shahryar under the same umbrella. As a poet, each has/had his/her own
limitations. Yet each is/was capable of whipping up a storm, even to cajole the ennui-ridden to
strive, to run. To Rahman’s credit, he has avoided including Javed Akhtar in the section. Many
others, unable to discern between the ephemeral nature of film lyrics and timelessness of
poetry, would have succumbed to the temptation. He deserves praise for the selection of poets
in the Beyond New Poetics section, too. It is pleasing to see Perveen Shakir get space. It is a
moment of vindication to find Aftab Husain here, and one of unalloyed joy to see Sarwat
Hussain, who passed away at the young age of 47. Hussain lent simple words great profundity,
enabling a common reader to experience the crests and troughs with the ease of a seasoned
sailor.
So, is everything fair and fine with this book? Well, almost. While Rahman’s transliteration
makes the cut, there are moments when one wishes he had used a different spelling for an
Urdu word in Roman script. For instance, “thhe”. He spells it as the English word “the”. It is
confusing. Same for words like “baithho” (sit down). Also, he does take a few liberties with facts
156
of history, such as when he talks of Zafar’s sons having been hanged at Delhi Gate. It was both
sons and grandson. And it was at Khooni Darwaza, not Delhi Gate. But these are minor
blemishes.
It is disappointing to find Zauq missing in the collection, more so when his pupil Zafar is there.
There seems no justice for Zauq in this world, in his lifetime, or even in death. A contemporary
of Ghalib, Zauq would have had more accolades coming his way but for the brilliance of his
younger rival. Then in death, his fate was worse than that of Dard. His last resting place in
Delhi’s Paharganj area could not even be located! This for a man madly in love with Delhi, who
wrote: “Humne maana ki Dakkan mein hai bahut qadre sukha; Kaun jaaye Zauq par Dilli ko
galiyan chhod kar.”
The worst was the lot of Mir Taqi Mir, who lived through some of the most stressful times in the
history of Delhi, though he found solace late in life in Lucknow. But the city of nawabs has
chosen to forget him. Today, a railway line probably runs over his burial place. Thankfully,
Rahman reminds us of the criminal neglect.
BOOKS
Mapping herstories
ABHIRAMI GIRIJA SRIRAM
R. Vatsala. Photo: s.r. raghunathan
A kaleidoscope of conversations with 17 Tamil women on their writerly selves and how they
pursue their craft against all odds.
IN 1929, the writer Virginia Woolf famously wrote: “A woman must have money and a room of
her own if she is to write fiction; and that, as you will see, leaves the great problem of the true
nature of fiction unsolved.” In a 1996 interview, the journalist Shobha Warrier reminded the
writer Kamala Das of something she had once said about “the pathetic condition of a woman
writer who does not even have a writing table. The dining table has to serve as her writing table
once it is cleared.” To which Kamala Das responded: “I was thinking about the middle-class
woman who plans to become a writer. I was talking about myself, of course. There was only the
kitchen table where I would cut vegetables, and after all the plates and things were cleared, I
would sit there and start typing.… Then I would sit for hours and hours while the house was
asleep because nights became my domain. I could find freedom only at night when I could
ignore my family and become an independent person. I felt like myself only in the quiet hours of
the night” (emphasis added).
157
Reading the frank, freewheeling, personal-political narratives of 17 women writers of Tamil
Nadu in Lifescapes, almost a century after Virginia Woolf’s ground-breaking A Room of One’s
Own was published, it is impossible not to be struck by how their days and lives are so utterly
unlike that of their male counterparts, constantly crowded and circumscribed as they are by the
expectations and duties of work and domesticity even today. As the curators of Lifescapes, K.
Srilata and Swarnalatha Rangarajan state at the very outset: “Economic necessity, familial
politics and the pressures of domesticity can cast long shadows on women writers. For many
women writing in Tamil, attaining any sort of writing life is like a miracle, since it is accomplished
against the odds of everyday life.”
In its attempt to map the complex factors that influence women’s writing lives, Lifescapes keeps
returning to roost on the question of balance between the home and the world, between the
worlds of work and creativity. After all, Tamil literature has been preoccupied since the Sangam
age with the binaries of “aham”, the inner feminine space characterised by love, and “puram”,
the outer masculine space characterised by public life, politics, governance and war. While the
poet and journalist Kavin Malar admits that it is “a big struggle to sustain the state of mind that
makes for poetry”, the Auroville-based poet-educator R. Meenakshi avers: “I feel as though
words are constantly bubbling inside me, ready to come out like water from an aquifer.…
Though poetry calls out to me in all kinds of places, at all odd hours, it is only sometimes that I
am able to write. Most of the time poetry appears like a shadow, interwoven with everyday
activities. Sometimes, it leaves traces, at other times it fades away completely.”
The poet, teacher and essayist Thi. Parameshwari says in her interview: “When I was working in
the Connemara Library, I found that hundreds of women had published books. These women
usually have one book to their credit, that would have been published when they were between
the ages of eighteen and twenty-four, which is when most women get married. No one knows
what happened to these women writers. I suspect that they abandoned their literary aspirations
once they were mired in domesticity.” Even as she has consciously opted to converse with
society as a writer, the poet Ilampirai makes no bones about how she locates herself vis-a-vis
the larger community of women writers: “I think women write as distinct individuals. I have been
to gatherings of women writers, but these efforts are difficult to sustain. Life situations, day jobs
and responsibilities get in the way.”
‘Ahampuram’
The 17 writers interviewed in Lifescapes come across as confident, articulate and socially
engaged, with a keen awareness of their role models and their audience. Even as they draw
inspiration from classic Sangam literature, they bend and break the old watertight binaries of
“aham” and “puram” to better resonate with the realities of their own lives. As the poet
Perundevi asks: “What do you mean when you say aham/puram? We are living in times in
which distinctions like inner and outer spaces bleed into each other and exist in a confused,
intermingled state.” Her question impels the authors to coin the portmanteau word
“ahampuram”, which conveys both an alternative space “that holds paradoxes and
contradictions” and the matrix of subaltern concerns, gender and ecopolitics in Tamil women’s
writing today.
If writers such as Bama and P. Sivakami have forged a “subaltern counter politics” (to use
Nancy Fraser’s term) by connecting the dots between the self and society and challenging both
caste and patriarchy in one fell swoop, poets such as Sakthi Jothi, Sakthi Arulanandam, Malathi
Maithri and Sukirtharani articulate a powerful earthy ecofeminist politics, an “udalarasiyal” (body
politics) that equates the “aham” of blocked creativity with the “puram” of the degraded
158
environment. A writer as celebrated as Salma confesses to sometimes feeling compelled to
blue-pencil her writings in accordance with the policies of her political party, an “internal self-
censorship mechanism” of sorts. The poet-turned-politician Thamizhachi Thangapandian says
the landscape of her writing, “glistening with the sweat of my labour and echoing the birth pangs
of my freshly ploughed land”, allows her to escape her life and self, however momentarily.
Lifescapes is valuable for the sheer shapeshifting range of contexts that map contemporary
women’s writing in Tamil Nadu. It acknowledges that for women, writing is an urgent and
necessary political act. It inquires about gender and authorship in Tamil in ways that normally
elude academic writing. Intimate and inspirational, it is a rich resource of writerly herstories not
only for those interested in the question of gender but also for those who simply want to
understand what it means to be a writer today. The late-bloomer engineer-turned-writer R.
Vatsala puts it succinctly: “I feel I can make a difference, so I write.”
https://frontline.thehindu.com/other/letters/article29049965.ece
OTHER LETTERS
Letters to the Editor
Karnataka
The Cover Story (August 16) on the political drama in Karnataka blew the lid off the BJP’s moral
high ground. The race for the 2019 election exposed the hypocrisy of many political parties.
Debates on people’s issues were wittingly given a go-by in the campaign. The ruling party’s
dangling carrots lured many opposition candidates. While campaigning, Narendra Modi’s public
claim that 40 of the TMC MLAs were in the BJP’s basket was an unsavoury way to deflate the
opposition. Democracy was taken for a ride, and all eyes were fixed on the hefty purse and the
bonanza electoral victory would bring.
Mumbai’s star hotels have been hitting the headlines for all the wrong reasons. Karnataka
witnessed the ugliest ever horse-trading. That Congress could not keep its flock together made
things easier for the change of guard to take place. No one took seriously the BJP’s denial that
it had little role to play in rocking the boat. Yediyurappa’s behind-the-scenes drama came to
light swiftly.
C. Chandrasekaran, Madurai, Tamil Nadu
WHAT was enacted in Karnataka and Goa was repulsive without even a fig leaf of democratic
principles to cover it. In comparison with the MLAs of the present day, who can be bought, sold
and resold, one feels that the MLAs of yesteryear were angelic. The BJP could succeed in
Karnataka and Goa for the time being, but indications are aplenty that these misadventures will
end up as pyrrhic victories for the BJP.
Ayyasseri Raveendranath, Aranmula, Kerala
IT is unfortunate that the BJP is out to destabilise non-BJP governments by hook or by crook
(“Devious designs”, August 16). It managed to bring down the Congress-JD(S) government in
Karnataka by enticing a few Congress and JD(S) MLAs to stay away when the confidence vote
took place. The BJP became the ruling party with a thin majority pending re-election to the
vacant seats. Defection politics has won once again!
159
In Goa, the BJP managed to entice 10 Congress MLAs to defect to the ruling party. In all these
instances, the voter is cheated as his/her choice of a candidate from a political party stands
nullified when an MLA lured by money and power defects to another party.
It is time for Parliament to amend the anti-defection law so that any defection automatically
disqualifies that person and he/she has to seek re-election. That could make party, hopping
more difficult.
D.B.N. Murthy, Bengaluru
THIS is with reference to the article “Leadership vacuum” (Cover Story, August 16). There is no
need to look far to find the reason for the Congress party’s dismal performance in the Lok
Sabha elections of 2014 and 2019. The ego of the members of the Nehru-Gandhi family was
the reason. When Manmohan Singh, one of the best economists in the country, was appointed
the Prime Minister in 2004, the economy improved, and the Congress party got a majority in the
2009 election. Manmohan Singh became Prime Minister again. Unfortunately, in his second
term, he was widely seen as being remote-controlled by the Gandhi family. As a result, the party
lost to the BJP in 2014. It is clear that even senior leaders of the party feel that it cannot survive
without the stewardship of the Nehru-Gandhi family, but people of the country no longer have
faith in the family. The Congress Working Committee must accept this fact.
Ashok K. Nihalani, Pune, Maharashtra
THE senior Congress leader Karan Singh’s remark that a delay in electing a new president of
the party will only make matters worse cannot be brushed aside. Rahul Gandhi should have
taken the lead and listed out a few probable names for the leadership. Certain State leaders of
the Congress have said that only a member of the Gandhi family can keep the flock together.
This possibilty has not only added to the confusion in the party but kept the field open. Any
further delay in filling the post will only spell doom for the party.
K.R. Srinivasan, Secunderabad, Telangana
Cow vigilantes
THIS is with reference to the article “Victim as accused” (August 2). Instances of cruel treatment
of animals are increasing. Many old cattle are made to walk long distances or are crammed into
trucks for transit in many States. Some sustain injuries while being loaded or off-loaded or die in
transit. They are provided with water and fodder only rarely during their long journeys. Hence,
the laws pertaining to cattle may be implemented only to stop such cruelty to animals. For the
general welfare of the country, there must be an end to mob lynching. One hopes that it is
brought to an end through the united efforts of both the Centre and the States.
A.J. Rangarajan, Edison, New Jersey, U.S.
Our origins
THIS has reference to the review of Tony Joseph’s book “Early Indians” (“Of India’s genetic
roots”, August 2). Thanks to the science of genetics, the question of ancestry of all the people of
the world has been settled once and for all. I feel that the author could have made the book
more accessible to lay readers by presenting more examples. Certain Dravidian outfits will be
disappointed to read that Dravidians are also migrants to India, even though their migration was
160
“pre Aryan”, and that Dravidian languages have their roots in Elam (present-day Iran). The book
is a blow to those who interpret history through the language of religion and politics.
S. Neelakantan, Salem, Tamil Nadu
https://frontline.thehindu.com/other/obituary/article29074542.ece
OTHER OBITUARY
OBITUARY: SUSHMA SWARAJ
Sushma Swaraj: Compassionate to the core
VENKITESH RAMAKRISHNAN
Sushma Swaraj. Photo: Manvender Vashist/AP
Geeta, a deaf-mute Indian woman who was rescued from Pakistan at Sushma Swaraj’s
intervention, breaks down during a condolence meeting in Indore on August 7. Photo: PTI
Father Tom Uzhunnalil, a priest from Kerala who was kidnapped in Yemen and later released,
greets External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj in New Delhi. A file picture. Photo: R.V.
MOORTHY
Sushma Swaraj (1952-2019), the bright star of the Sangh Parivar, was known for her awesome
political and individual connect and humanitarian streak.
THE demise of former External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj (February 14, 1952–August 6,
2019) virtually marks the evanescence of a particular brand of political and organisational
practice that the Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS)-led Sangh Parivar had cultivated and
advanced from 1977, in the post-Emergency period. The Sangh Parivar had taken what was
termed then in its inner circles as a “calculated risk”, which involved liquidating its political arm—
the Bharatiya Jana Sangh (BJS)—and merging it with the Janata Party, a conglomerate of
political and social forces that rallied against the draconian Emergency imposed by the Indira
Gandhi-led Congress regime. The conglomerate comprised ideologically disparate entities: left-
of-centre socialists; the middle-caste identity politics-oriented Bharatiya Lok Dal, with a strong
base among the agricultural communities; and the Congress(O), a strident advocate of right-
wing economic policy.
It was the Sangh Parivar’s understanding that its representatives in this conglomerate should
contain bright, young leaders who should be able to navigate smoothly through the ideological
crosscurrents in the Janata Party, building relations with all segments of the ideological
spectrum even as they worked steadfastly to ensure the primacy of the Sangh Parivar’s
Hindutva-oriented political and organisational agenda. Many veteran activists of the Hindutva
combine remember how a triumvirate of young, bright leaders emerged during that period and
went on to become important players in later years after the Sangh Parivar split the Janata
Party and formed the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in 1980. The much-talked about triumvirate
comprised of Pramod Mahajan, Sushma Swaraj and Arun Jaitley. All three were educated, had
affable manners in social interaction, were manifestly modern in their thinking but were deeply
rooted in and committed to Hindutva. Above all, the star triumvirate possessed superb political
and organisational manoeuvring skills.
161
Pramod Mahajan died in 2006—shot at and fatally injured by his brother Pravin Mahajan—and
Sushma Swaraj passed away on August 6 in New Delhi. Arun Jaitley, the third component of
the triumvirate, has practically retired from active politics citing ill health, making himself
unavailable for any official position after the 2019 Lok Sabha election, which marked the return
of the Narendra Modi-led BJP-National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government.
Discussions within the echelons and outfits of the Sangh Parivar often revolve around the star
triumvirate who emerged in the late 1970s and went on to have an important say in party
affairs—at times literally controlling and guiding it—for as long as two and a half decades. “In
individual terms, the first 25 years of the BJP, since its formation in 1980, can only be termed as
the Atal Bihari Vajpayee-L.K. Advani years, and in this period, the most dynamic and illustrious
second line comprised Sushma Swaraj, Mahajan and Jaitley. And on account of their
remarkable intellectual, political and organisational capabilities, they shot up through the ranks
to the topmost positions in the party and in the governments formed under the party’s
leadership. Many of those who emerged later and became all powerful were, for long, mere
hangers-on in the durbars of the triumvirate. Equally significantly, many of those who have
sought to follow and emulate the intellectual and social networking skills of the triumvirate are
mere pretenders,” a veteran RSS activist based in Meerut told Frontline after Sushma Swaraj’s
death.
This Sangh Parivar veteran, as well as many others of his ilk, are of the firm view that Sushma
Swaraj was one of the front runners for the prime ministerial post in the period immediately
following the shock defeat of the Vajpayee-led BJP in 2004. “Indeed Advaniji was there as the
primary candidate, but there was a large section within the Sangh Parivar that was of the view
that Sushmaji had greater reach and acceptance amid the non-BJP political class and the
people. In fact, many of us had rated her, at that juncture, as second only to Vajpayee. The Wall
Street Journal had called Sushmaji India’s best-loved politician, when she was External Affairs
Minister in Modi’s first government, but we knew it right from the 1970s that Sushmaji’s connect
with the people can only be termed awesome and phenomenal.” This aspect of Sushma
Swaraj’s political and individual personality has been most talked about after her demise and
that too in relation to her 2014-19 tenure as the External Affairs Minister.
The happenings recounted in this connection included the manner in which Sushma Swaraj
helped several Pakistanis when they had to come to India for urgent issues, including medical
emergencies. The case of the toddler Rohan, who was born with a congenital heart defect, is
particularly highlighted. Rohan had a Pakistani mother and an Indian father. Pakistani doctors
were not able to address the toddler’s medical issues, and Rohan’s mother sought a permanent
visa to get her son treated in India. The family got documents prepared to come to India but
visas were not issued. Then the mother, Mehwish Mukhtar, appealed on Twitter to Sushma
Swaraj and she responded, thus helping the child embark on long-term medical care in India.
Former Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy has warm recollections of Sushma Swaraj.
Talking to the media, he recounted how she played a key role in the evacuation of 46 Kerala
nurses from Iraq in July 2014. “As a Minister, she went out of her way to give the then Kerala
government all support consistently for over two weeks even as hostilities were building up at a
major scale in the West Asia region.” Chandy said Sushma Swaraj was active on the issue and
that she was informed past midnight that the Air India flight, which went to pick the stranded
nurses, was not able to land there. “She told me she would call back in 15 minutes, and in just
that much time she had managed to get landing permission for the aircraft and to airlift the
nurses to safety,” Chandy added.
162
This correspondent too had a couple of similar experiences in relation to Sushma Swaraj’s
interventions as the External Affairs Minister. A clutch of people who were either stranded in
hostile international circumstances or were unjustly detained in foreign lands were brought back
safely through these interventions. A couple of Sangh Parivar insiders that Frontline interacted
with after her demise said that this humanitarian streak was a part of her nature right from her
college days in Ambala in Haryana, where she was born.
They had been associated with Sushma Swaraj from those days and had seen her grow
politically under the tutelage of her RSS activist father Hardev Sharma and equally Hindutva-
oriented mother Laxmi Devi. They remember her outstanding oratorical skills in college and later
as a lawyer in the Supreme Court, since 1973, and also as a politician. She got close to Swaraj
Kaushal, whom she married later, through the anti-Emergency movement. Swaraj Kaushal was
a close associate of the socialist leader George Fernandes, who was tortured by the Indira
Gandhi regime. She became a Cabinet Minister in 1977 when the Janata Party, under the
leadership of Devi Lal, was elected to power in Haryana in the first election held after the
Emergency. By the mid 1980s, however, she had moved to national politics and was firmly
entrenched by the mid 1990s. She had a brief stint as Chief Minister of Delhi in 1998 when the
State unit of the BJP was facing a tough challenge from the Congress and its redoubtable
woman leader Sheila Dikshit. This gamble, however, did not work in favour of the BJP. The
party lost that election to the Congress.
The BJP and the Sangh Parivar leadership once again forced her into a gamble in September
1999, when she was asked to contest against the then Congress president Sonia Gandhi from
the Bellary Lok Sabha constituency in Karnataka. The seat had always elected the Congress
candidate since the first general election of 1951-52. Sushma Swaraj took up that challenge and
even apparently learnt passable Kannada, addressing public meetings in the language. She did
not win this contest; she gave Sonia Gandhi a tough fight and lost narrowly. Despite the defeat,
she was taken into the Vajpayee-led government of 1999-2004. She served in different
capacities, including as Minister of Information and Broadcasting, Health and Family Welfare,
and Parliamentary Affairs. After the second successive defeat of the BJP-NDA in the 2009 Lok
Sabha election, she was made the Leader of the Opposition, replacing Advani.
While all this track record is valued greatly within the Sangh Parivar, what a large number of
activists highlight as the epitome of Sushma Swaraj’s patriotic fervour is the manner in which
she responded to the 2004 shock defeat of the Vajpayee-led BJP-NDA. At that time, political
circles in the national capital were agog with talk about Sonia Gandhi becoming Prime Minister
after leading the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) to victory in that election.
Responding to this possibility, Sushma Swaraj proclaimed that if it ever happened she would
tonsure her head, drape herself in white sari, sleep on the floor and eat only roasted grams.
“She made this proclamation to make clear her protest at a foreign-born becoming the Prime
Minister. She knew it was a big struggle for the nation’s honour and pride. This gesture of
Sushmaji is what is valued within the Sangh Parivar more than anything else,” said the Meerut-
based leader.
Years later, when her humanitarian actions and initiatives as External Affairs Minister became
internationally appreciated, Sushma Swaraj famously tweeted: “Dushmani jam kar karo par itni
gunjayish rahe, phir kabhi hum dost ban jayein to sharminda na hon….” (Practise enmity
fiercely, but let there be this much leeway that, one day if we become friends again, one should
not feel ashamed.) It is a moot question whether Sushma Swaraj’s “extremist” reaction of 2004
will fall within the limits that she herself prescribed in the tweet.
163
There is a stream of opinion even within some sections of the erstwhile Sangh Parivar, including
some of the followers of Pravin Togadia, former international president of the Vishwa Hindu
Parishad, that Sushma Swaraj’s humanitarian streak had become rather vociferous and
community-neutral after she decisively lost in the BJP’s prime ministerial candidate race to
Narendra Modi and his team in the run-up to the 2014 election. So much so, she was trolled by
Hindutva cyber warriors for helping Pakistanis and Indian Muslims. It is also pointed out that her
“awesome and phenomenal connect with the people” sometimes manifested as associations
with questionable entities such as the Reddy brothers of Bellary, known for their track record of
illegal mining in Karnataka, and Lalit Modi of the Indian Premier League scam fame. These
accusations against Sushma Swaraj have not become concrete cases deserving punitive
action.
Beyond all these, however, Sushma Swaraj’s overall track record as a politician who emerged
during the grave challenges of the Emergency will be largely remembered by the adjectives
strung together by Jaya Jaitley, her long-standing fellow social and political activist: dedicated
politician, effective parliamentarian, excellent orator, competent administrator, compassionate
Foreign Minister, a caring sister, a friend, a good wife and mother.
164

Frontline Magazine (The Hindu Newspaper) August 17, 2019 - August 30, 2019 (Volume 36, No. 17)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Frontline Magazine (The Hindu Newspaper) August 17, 2019 - August 30, 2019 (Volume 36, No. 17)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Frontline Magazine (The Hindu Newspaper) August 17, 2019 - August 30, 2019 (Volume 36,

Empty shikaras at Dal Lake on August 3. Photo: Anando Bhakto

Fear of the unknown

Kashmiris prepare for hard times

Leaders suspect foul play

Tourism sector condemns ‘Economic blockade’

Local scribes explore Af-Pak angle

On August 4, as this reporter travelled along the Srinagar-Anantnag highway, India’s

Cut off from the world

Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami. Photo: Anando Bhakto

Interview with Mohammad Yousuf Tarigami, CPI(M) MLA.

Will abrogation of the special constitutional provisions guaranteed to Jammu and

What is the RSS’ larger objective with respect to Kashmir?

M.K. Raina. Photo: Sandeep Saxena

Does it not also go against the Instrument of Accession?

At the same time, does it not compromise India’s position internationally?

And we also have the tradition of Sultan Zainul Abidin.

Can they go back?

Does it not also go against the Instrument of Accession?

At the same time, does it not compromise India’s position internationally?

And we also have the tradition of Sultan Zainul Abidin.

Can they go back?

Demand for Jammu state

Muslim countries quiet

Interview with Sitaram Yechury, CPI(M) general secretary.

Article 35A was a live wire

‘New era of peace’

— Jawaharlal Nehru in the Lok Sabha on June 26, 1952.

An old demand: trifurcation

President’s Order unconstitutional

Kashmir’s Legislative Assembly is not emasculated. It is castrated. Financial Bills cannot be

Ignored, will of the people

To Nehru’s knowledge he proposed to a British Minister, Patrick Gordon-Walker, accession to

What is the way forward?

Jammu and Kashmir ranked 11th

Child Sex Ratio

BJP’s main charges

“Even if the above statement of comparative strength is taken as approximately correct, it is

U.N. Security Council

The 192-page book, priced at Rs.200, is available online at

https://publications.the hindugroup.com/bookstore/ It is also available at The Hindu Lounge,

Approver in the case

The High Court added:

Storage levels in dams

It is evident from instrument (thermometer)-based observations that the planet’s average

Impact of climate change

The magnitude of extreme rainfall events is predominantly controlled by the increased

What is happening to our monsoon?

Realised changes in the climate over Kerala

Dr Abhilash S. is Associate Director, Advanced Centre for Atmospheric Radar Research

A combination of political marginalisation of Kashmiris and a perceived insult to their religious

*Names changed to protect their identity.

Excerpts from the interview he gave Frontline.

Will the latest repression in Kashmir lead to a spurt in militancy?

Will there be a mass rejection of electoral exercises?

Grounds for appeal

Have you made a damage assessment of the situation now?

Yes, we will keep pushing that point. There is no way out.

Muslims not consulted

CCS Rules do not categorise teachers, whether of schools, colleges or universities, as

Rules for teachers

Draft NEP celebrates faculty autonomy

Curbing freedoms to associate