Spotlight

New Delhi, 4 November 2023

The Identity Trap

By Rajiv Gupta 

Most people who have gone through a job interview will be familiar with the question, “Tell me about yourself” where the interviewee is expected to summarise why she/he is the perfect match for the position. When we meet people socially, we are trying to understand what kind of a person the other individual is so that we can decide whether we should socialize with him/her. 

We have multiple ways in which we can identify ourselves; by religion, by caste, by nationality, by gender, by age, by profession, by education, by our political leanings; you get the idea. Some of these we inherit, like gender, religion, caste, etc., while we acquire or develop others. Which of these identities do we feel strongest about? The effect these identities have on our choices of friends, careers, where we live, etc. is something that has assumed very different dimensions today as compared to a few decades ago. Let me explain. 

I was born and grew up in what was Bombay (now Mumbai), living in Delhi, male, Hindu by birth, engineer by training, educator by profession, amateur baker, cheesemaker, avid reader, etc. How should I describe myself? It depends on the situation. If I am in a job interview, I would likely present my education and experience credentials. If I am at a party, I would be more inclined to let my interests define me. In what context should I let my religion or caste define me? 

Strange as that question sounds, ethnicity, religion, nationality have become defining attributes of some people in today’s world. We all belong to some ethnic and religious group, including atheists. This is a given. The difficulty arises when we let such group membership define our total persona. Political parties have tended to use the ethnic/religious/national identities to polarise the population with the sole purpose of winning elections. People find themselves in an identity trap that is not of their making, and which is not easy to escape. This is a global phenomenon and has been seen to assume greater currency in the last decade or so. 

In my opinion, when we state our identity using one or more defining attributes, we are expressing membership in a group, whether social, professional, or political. This membership can be fluid as in the case of groups representing a specific interest, such as a book club, or photography club. We may belong to such groups as long as our interest lasts, and typically we are not emotionally invested in such groups. We do not go on a warpath against members of other book clubs. 

On the other hand, belonging to certain groups based on religion, caste or region can, and sometimes does, evoke strong emotions including hatred for people who are not part the group. It is the intensity of this emotion that is exploited by politicians for their own benefit. We see examples of this in conflicts throughout the world such as the Israeli-Hamas conflict in the middle east. 

I believe majority of the people do not feel strongly about their ethnic/religious identity that it should lead to hatred and violence. However, if they are manipulated into believing that their group is under attack from people from other groups, i.e., people from other religions, castes, nationalities, regions, etc. it can cause some people to react violently. Such people forget their multi-dimensional identity which includes their education, profession, interests, and focus on the identity that they have been led to believe is under attack. 

Once a person starts to believe that the core dimension of his/her identity is under attack, then other things become unimportant. Even if people in the “outgroup” may have a lot in common with us in terms of education, profession, interests, etc., all these factors pale in comparison to the dominant identity identifier. This is the identity trap that I refer to in the title of this article. It occurs when we let others define ourselves. 

The dangers of such a trap are a polarised population, lack of meaningful political and civic discussion, and a general mistrust and animosity among otherwise peaceful people. I am not suggesting that people will not have differences with others in a democracy. In fact, a healthy democracy should encourage debates among people. When these debates are issue-based, they are good for society, but when there is no discussion but only acrimony, and sometimes, violence, the result can be a fractured society. 

The solution for such polarisation will come from a realisation that we cannot, and should not, be defined by a limited set of identity attributes, least of all those that tend to evoke high emotions and prevent us from being able to reason through a situation. Religion, ethnicity, nationalism are some of the hot button issues that have been exploited by those who seek to manipulate us. 

It is somewhat ironic that not many people are as actively involved with local issues, either at the level of the town, or city or community. The local issues have a much greater direct impact on most citizens and residents of an area as this may include civic services such as water, education, roads, electricity, transportation, etc. 

However, these issues do not attract the same level of emotional investment as do broader, national level issues such as the ones I have mentioned in this article. That does not mean that there will be total agreement on the local issues. What we tend to have is more apathy on the local issues. Logically there should be more active participation of more people and discussion on the issues since the impact on our lives is more direct and visible. 

Getting people involved in the local issues could also lead to a little better understanding of differences between people. These differences are not necessarily inherited differences, but differences that are the result of their life experiences, which include choices they have made. Perhaps this will promote a healthier appreciation of diversity among our fellow earth inhabitants. 

I am not naïve enough to think that this will be easy. Citizens may not be ready to take interest in local politics with the same interest that they have shown in national politics. However, we will not know unless we try. And what we should ask is whether we are better off with people lacking a voice in their own governance or are we ready to try something different. I know where I stand in this matter. I would like to define my identity. What about you?---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 3 November 2023

Religion & Violence

AN INDIAN PERSPECTIVE

By Dr D.K. Giri

(Secretary General, Assn for Democratic Socialism) 

There are verses in the Bible (Ecclesiastes 3:7-8) which prescribe war. The Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu quoted the Bible while justifying the ongoing war Israel has unleashed on Hamas following the savage terrorist attack by Hamas on 7 October. It is in order that we read those verses, “There is a time to tear apart and a time to sew together. There is a time to be silent and a time to speak. There is a time to love and a time to hate. There is a time for war and a time for peace.” 

Similar tenets can be found in other world religions that can be interpreted to legitimise war or any kind of violence. In Hinduism, the great epic Mahabharata is primarily the description and justification of war between righteous and the evil what is called ‘Dharmayudha’. In Islam, it is jihad which means a holy war waged as a religious duty against the infidels. 

In popular terms, many Islamic fundamentalists resort to violence against the so-called enemies of Islam. Hamas, Islamic jihadists in Gaza are precisely following this doctrine. Hamas Covenant comprising 36 articles all of which promote the basic Hamas goal of destroying the state of Israel through jihad, the Preamble of the Covenant states that, “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” 

In India, bombs exploded on 29 October in a religious convention of Jehova Witness (JWs). Over 2000 people had gathered in a small town in Kerala to pray and listen to sermons. Quite unbeknown to them, the bombs suddenly went off killing two worshippers and injuring over 40 of them. A former Witness who disagreed with the strictly orthodox interpretation of the Bible which makes them boycott elections, forsake any activity driven by nationalist symbols or spirit, refuse blood donation etc. The person triggering the bombs thought the Witnesses were a threat to and a burden on the country. Hence, he wanted to eliminate them. A section of the press was attributing the explosion to Hamas. It is not worth speculating. Investigations are underway. 

The lesson to draw from the above instances is the challenge of placing religion in public life and international relations. The next step is to establish India’s perspective on religion in governance and internationalism so that we could conduct our diplomacy and articulate reactions to religious violence in our country and across the world. 

Under Marxism, the dominant belief was to push religion completely into the backburner of governance. Karl Marx had famously said that “religion is the opium of the people”. In European democracies, religion played a predominant role as churches controlled the state until they were separated organically from each other. In India, it was called secularism which meant for the state, equal respect to and equal distance from all religions. Whether that strategy is practicable is a matter of debate. I have written consistently that it was not. Secularism in India came to be understood as anti-religion which would not appeal to the public. People simply could not give up their religious practices or utterances. 

Martin Luther King was at ease with the rhythms of the pulpit and he used Biblical language to supreme effect. As a clergyman and the son of a Baptist pastor, he was entitled to do so. But it does not always sit comfortably with others. The UK Prime Minister Tony Blair was embarrassingly messianic. President Obama’s religious assertions were not so vapid, they reflected a mission. Perhaps the most infamous use of a word with religious subtext in recent years was when President George W Bush deployed crusade after the attack of 9/11 to describe the war on terrorism. Indian political leaders use religious metaphors in most of their speeches. The trend has become more evident in recent times. 

The question that arises is whether politics is a secular business or a sacred trust. In fact, it could be both. Mahatma Gandhi displayed the combination of the two in his lifetime. The only departure or rider to Gandhian approach to religion could be identifying the mediating principles when religion and politics collide. Mahatma Gandhi was essentially a pluralist. While affirming his abiding faith in Hinduism, he respected, accommodated, and even embraced the practices of other religions. 

Remember, the multi-faith prayers in his meetings. And the famous words that define his multi-religious approach, “I do not want my house to be walled in on all sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the culture of all lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.” 

Let us elaborate the critical need of mediating principles in resolving the conflict between religions and politics, which is causing sporadic violence across the world. We need not take the Marxist approach of derecognising religion. That is not practical. We also could not embrace the theocratic approach which is based on faith and multiple interpretations. Someone critically defined faith as ‘the ability to believe in something you know is not the case’. So, without verifiable evidence one could not formulate plans on the basis of faith. 

Look at the interpretations and divisions of perspectives in all religions. In India, Christians constituting 2.5 per cent of population have over 200 denominations; Muslims are bitterly divided mainly between Shias and Sunnis, there are Bohras, Ahmedias and so on. Hindus again do not have a single text and have multiple Gods, several castes. So, no religion has a single perspective. 

In such a context of religions, how can it ever become the base for nation building? We have seen Pakistan splitting away from India on account of religious difference; Muslims creating their own state. Why did then Pakistan split and Bangladesh emerge as a separate country?  The war between Israel and Hamas has to be seen from a religious angle and countries react accordingly. It is clear from the statements made by both parties and objectives scanned from their manifestoes, that the fight is a religious one not about territory. That is dangerous and should be called out. 

Then we accept the premise that religion should not be the basis of governance or statehood, but it is an inalienable part of human life. There is a provision of human right enshrined in the United Nations Declarations which is called ‘Freedom of Religion and Belief’ (Article 18 of UDHR).So, we must defend it. But whenever a religious or any belief conflicts with politics defined by the Constitution of the country, the latter should prevail. That is the mediating principle. The Constitution of a country that reflects the acceptance and aspirations of each individual citizen, each faith group, non-believers should be supreme. The political leaders and citizens must be wary of this mediating principle while conducting and managing religions. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

REWIND

New Delhi, 2 November 2023

FAIR POLL AND OFFICIAL PLANES

By Inder Jit

(Released on 23 April 1991)

One aspect of free and fair elections has not received the attention it merits. Hardly any party has raised the question in regard to the use of Air Force planes by the Prime Minister for promoting his party’s poll prospects. One’s thoughts in this context go back to 1979 when, prior to the 1980 poll, one witnessed a raging controversy over the use of the official planes by the Prime Minister, Mr Charan Singh. The BJP leader, Mr L.K. Advani, then strongly protested to the Chief Election Commissioner, Mr S. L. Shakdher, against the “gross misuse of Government machinery for electoral ends at the level of the Prime Minister.” Immediate provocation for the controversy was provided by Mr Charan Singh’s visit to Andhra Pradesh by an Air Force plane. The controversy again erupted prior to the 1984 poll when Mr N.T. Rama Rao then Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, requested the use of a Government helicopter for electioneering. But the then Chief Election Commissioner, Mr R.K. Trivedi, refused permission on the ground that he was not the only Chief Minister to be denied the privilege. The Prime Minister alone, he asserted, was permitted to use official aircraft for electioneering.

The CEC has again ruled that the Prime Minister alone can use official aircraft. Is his stand fair? But before the question is answered, we would do well to take a look at the convention and its background. Nehru, according to Durga Das in his well-known memoirs “India--- from Curzon to Nehru and After”, was initially against using IAF planes. He did not think it proper for him to travel for his election campaign in the planes he used for official purposes as the Prime Minister. At the same time, however, “neither he nor the Congress Party could afford to charter a plane for the purpose.” The then Auditor-General, thereupon came to the ruling party’s rescue and salved Nehru’s conscience by devising a convenient formula. “The PM’s life”, he said, “must be secured, against all risks and this could be assured best if he travelled by air. Air transport would avoid the need for the large security staff required if he travelled by rail. Since it was the nation's responsibility to see to his security, the nation must pay for it.” (Train journey, it was argued, would entail posting security men all along the route!)

An equally obliging bureaucracy gave formal shape to the idea and a committee of senior officers recommended as early as in 1951 the use of the IAF planes by the Prime Minister “for official as well as other types of journeys.” The committee argued and the Government agreed that even though the Prime Minister undertakes tours for electioneering as a party leader, the business of Government does not come to a standstill. It was, therefore, the responsibility of Government also to provide adequate facilities which would enable the Prime Minister to attend to Governmental functions even while on tour. The new rule then framed enabled the Prime Minister to use IAF planes by paying the Government only the normal fare charged by the civil airlines for transporting a passenger. Thus, by contributing a bare fraction of the total expenses incurred on his countrywide electioneering, Nehru was able to acquire a mobility which multiplied a hundredfold his effectiveness as a campaigner and vote catcher.

Authoritative sources also draw attention to a few other facts. The Prime Minister now uses the official aircraft under certain rule, framed in 1968 during Mrs Gandhi’s Government. These provide, first, that “in the case of the Prime Minister it is necessary that even on occasions that he or she has to undertake journeys mainly for reasons other than official duties, he or she would be able to travel by aircraft for the due performance of his or her duties as head of Government as well as for reasons of security. Second, in the case of such non-official tours payment according to certain scales has to be made by the Prime Minister or other non-officials who travel with him. (The Prime Minister is required to pay a very nominal cost; one passenger fare by a scheduled commercial airline between two points.) Third, the Prime Minister has full discretion to take any other passenger as considered necessary by him. Fourth, for officials who have to travel with the Prime Minister, “the concerned Ministry or Department makes the payment.”

Various Opposition leaders have strongly criticised the convention over the years. Independent observers anxious to see democracy strengthened are also far from satisfied. The considerations which make it necessary to permit the Prime Minister to use the official aircraft for electioneering all over the country apply equally to the Chief Minister within the boundaries of his own State. Like the Prime Minister, the Chief Minister does not cease being a Chief Minister when he undertakes journeys for reasons other than official. He, too, needs to be able to travel by official aircraft for the due performance of his or her duties as head of Government as well for reasons of security. Understandably, the issue did not arise during Nehru’s time. He was his party’s principal campaigner and there were no Chief Ministers belonging to the Opposition who wanted official aircraft. However, much water has flowed down the Jamuna since, we have now not only Chief Ministers belonging to the “Opposition” but also convenient and fuel saving helicopters.

Again, is it fair to allow the Prime Minister alone to use official aircraft virtually for a song? In the last Lok Sabha poll, the use of official aircraft had enabled the, then, Prime Minister, Mr Rajiv Gandhi to address election meetings in about 300 constituencies. In sharp contrast, the Opposition leaders were nowhere near Mr Gandhi’s record, reminiscent of the hurricane poll tours undertaken by Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi. A question that arises is: Should not official planes also be available to the top Opposition leaders? Without exception, the Opposition leaders answer in the affirmative. One top leader argued: “Once the poll is announced, the Prime Minister’s status and privileges must change in favour of equality with the other party leaders. If security is an overriding consideration, it must be extended to the leaders of the other recognised parties. In the US, all the Presidential candidates are provided equal facilities.”

Clearly, there is need to study the whole matter afresh in the light of conventions in other democracies. In the UK, the Prime Minister does not use official transport for election campaigning. In a classic case, Attlee campaigned in his own car driven by his wife and accompanied by merely one detective! (Interestingly, Mr Gandhi drove the car in Amethi.) In Canada, use of official aircraft by the Prime Minister for party purposes is acknowledged on all sides as an unfair advantage and, therefore, avoided. In the USA, the President can utilise the Air Force plane as assigned to him for his poll campaign. However, he has to reimburse the Air Force for its use on actual cost basis. In India in 1967, Mrs Gandhi used IAF planes for her 46-day poll campaign round the country and paid for it no more than Rs 8,650. During the mid-term poll in UP early in 1969, she was charged Rs. 6 and a few odd paise for a 20 minute helicopter ride from Deoria to Kasia, an air distance of 20 miles. The road distance of about 30 miles would have cost between Rs 20 and 25 by a taxi, if available.

The use of IAF or official planes does not necessarily spell victory, as shown by the defeat of Indira Gandhi in 1977 and of Charan Singh in 1980. (Tragically, Mr Charan Singh failed to implement as Prime Minister his own earlier plea that identical facilities should be made available to the Opposition parties in all fairness.) Nevertheless, the Election Commission should have had the good sense to ensure equal opportunity to all the parties in the poll battle from the word go. Even now, it should allow the use of Government aircraft and helicopters to the national parties when two former Prime Ministers are in the poll fray. The IAF can surely spare for a few weeks at least five or six of its transport aircraft and an equal number of helicopters. The poll should not only be fair. It must also be seen to be fair. The Chief Election Commissioner, Mr Seshan, who seems keen to ensure a free and fair poll, can still set up a new and healthy convention. He has the power to do so. --- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 1 November 2023

Cry For Caste Census

WILL GOVTS USHER CHANGE?

By Dhurjati Mukherjee 

The demand for caste census is picking up steam in theseAssembly electionsby almost all Opposition parties. The need for equitable opportunities for the OBCs, including the extremely backward castes (EBCs) is increasingly becoming part of campaign strategy. As against this, the BJP has chosen to skirt the issue saying it will divide the country. Will the voter get any wiser?  

Early this month, the Congress Working Committee promised a government led by it will conduct a nationwide caste census as part of the normal decadal census which was due in 2021, would find the number of OBCs, remove cap of 50% reservation for OBCs, SCs and STs through an Act of Parliament, and finally, offer 33 per cent quota to women lawmakers, including a separate quota for OBC women, at the earliest.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi did put it simply: “it would set a new paradigm of development in the country as it will establish the actual status of the OBCs, Dalits, the Adivasis and the poor…Today, two Indias are being created — one for the Adanis and the other for everyone. The caste census will clearly show the kind of people and the number of people in India. This is not a matter of caste or religion, it is a matter of poverty.” 

The neglect of OBCs by the ruling dispensation has been well manifest, though a section of analysts is not in favour of this caste-based approach. Such a census would obviously expose those who are at the bottom of the ladder and the need to bring them into the mainstream of life and activity. This hasn’t been done over the years and development opportunities have been cornered by the rich and middle-income sections. 

It cannot be allowed to continue for long. High growth is, no doubt, necessary but its benefits must reach the bottom tiers of society. The media focusses only on accelerated growth but not about equitable sharing of benefits of development. Why should there be such a wide gap in incomes of urban and rural class or between the upper castes and EBCs? These are, no doubt, daunting questions which have yet to be analysed and strategies in this regard adopted. 

It is a fact that most chief ministers who have been repeatedly returned by the electorate in the last two decades or so have delivered high growth or at least significantly higher than their predecessors. But the question arises how much of this growth percolates to EBCs or the EWS? While tall claims are made by the Centre about mega welfare schemes, a precise answer of how many have benefited is elusive and country’s poor continue to languish in poverty and squalor.

The impoverishment of masses is reflected in recently released 2023 Global Hunger Index (GHI) where India ranked 111th out of 125 countries, slipping four places since last year. With a score of 28.7 the GHI, India has a level of hunger that is serious. In 2022, India ranked 107. 

There are thus welfare schemes galore being announced for the poor and the EWS. For example, the Congress is reaching out to the electorate promising gas cylinders for Rs 500 each to beneficiaries of the Ujjwala scheme in Rajasthan, in Madhya Pradesh it promises Rs 1500 per month for women, in Telangana the promise is of Rs 2500 every month. The BJP instead prefers to highlight the strides the country has taken under Modi’s leadership, including infrastructure development, while calling itself the biggest proponent of OBCs. Not to forget the sharp focus on the Ram temple. 

The BJP also speaks of GDP growth of the economy. However, though it may give an overall picture of the economy, it doesn’t reflect the economic conditions of the poor or the state of development of villages, speciallyin backward districts. Not even in the Economic Survey that is presented in Parliament, is there a reflection of the state of improvement of the backward districts or of the lower castes, the STs and the Dalits. 

There is a tendency to paint a somewhat false picture of the progress of the country based on incomes of the super-rich, the rich and the upper sections of the middle class. Politicians and planners are very well versed with this, both at the Centre and in States. That is why questions have been raised what portions of government, even private, jobs are occupied by the EBCs or the EWS or what is the percentage of enrolment of these categories in post-graduate institutions. 

Added to the widespread economic deprivation, there is also manifest of social deprivationled by it, resulting in centralisation of power at Central and State levels leaving the gram panchayats virtually having no say in matters of development of the village. Everything is dictated from the top and the vision of panchayati raj, involving the people at the grassroot level,turns out largely to be a misnomer. 

The upper crust of politicians and bureaucrats feel that panchayat members are not educated enough to plan or develop their village. How this process can be changed, and true decentralisation ushered in is a big challenge. Only when women and lower caste members become educated and assertive, things may change. But this process shall take a long time. The poor are deprived of benefits such as money for building a room or a toilet or even the designated amount for a day’s work. There are reports that around 40-50% of the funds released are siphoned off by influential political leaders at the village level. 

The ground situation at grass-root level is totally dichotomous with the grandeur and pomp that was demonstrated during the recent G-20 summit in New Delhi. India is totally different. Modernisation of airports, building palatial auditoriums, allowing corporate entities to build five-star styled nursing homes and the likes are not the picture of development that we see in metros. To understand the real picture, politicians need to concentrate more on remote villages and see reality. 

There has been a tendency of some State governments to increase the number of districts, which obviously is not the solution. Posting bureaucrats in these districts who are expected to promptly carry out orders from the central or state authorities does not solve the problem. The real answer needs to be found at the grassroot and ensuring that adequate benefits reach the impoverished through better governance and a decentralised socio-economic order, as visualised by Mahatma Gandhi and emphasised by many others.   

There is need to think of an alternative strategy of cooperation where development from below becomes the motto and the underlying principle. The strategy of top-down approach must be discarded, and the people must be the centre of planning and development. Once the noise and dust settles down of the elections, it would be worth a watch to see what progress the caste census will make. ---INFA 

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)