Spotlight

New Delhi, 19 June 2021

BJP Covid Strategy

TIME TO PROFESS EMPATHY

By Sagarneel Sinha

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s popularity has taken a hit due to the devastating second Covid-19 wave. The timing not too good as the BJP government completed seven years in power. Although the wave has been declining, the sufferings of those families, who lost their dear ones to the pandemic, won’t fade away soon. It will take time to heal. And the ruling party would need to do damage control.

Amid all this, if one looks at the narrative of the ruling party, it appears that the Modi government has done no wrong in tackling the virus. True that such a pandemic happens once in a century and it’s not possible for any government to completely stop the spread of the virus, but how can the BJP escape the fact that the Centre was complacent about tackling the fight against the virus in the country?

If this question is asked, the usual response from the BJP leaders and spokespersons is that the Opposition-ruled States were complacent too and health is a State subject. Agree that health is a State subject and the Opposition-ruled States like Kerala, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Punjab, Delhi, etc failed to curb the spread of the virus, but what about BJP-ruled States? From Karnataka to Gujarat and from Madhya Pradesh to Uttar Pradesh, the deadly second wave of the virus was visible there too. The saffron party leaders can’t run away from these facts by just pointing to the failures of the rivals.

Since the BJP came to power in 2014, the problem of the party is that it still behaves like an Opposition party where the party spokesperson on a routine basis only criticises the Opposition parties, particularly the Congress. It’s absolutely fine for the BJP to do so as it’s a part of politics but the problem lies when the party fails to admit its own mistakes. BJP leaders spent more time condemning Congress party’s unofficial President Rahul Gandhi’s ‘silly’ tweets, which lack proper consistency on crucial issues and are aimed more at ridiculing Modi day and night.

Here’s the main problem. BJP is the ruling party and citizens look towards Modi to solve their issues, particularly during such a crisis. Undeniably, these hopes took a hit during this second wave but the BJP, as the ruling party, has more responsibility to address these and should have acted. Unfortunately, the leaders and even some Cabinet ministers were more interested in denouncing Rahul, wherein the effort was not necessary given that his credibility within his own party is low.

Recently, Modi in his address to the nation course corrected the vaccination policy by announcing its centralisation drive. The PM blamed some of the Opposition-ruled State governments without naming them for repeatedly asking for decentralisation of the programme. He was correct that these States without even checking their own ability asked for decentralisation. It is when they realised it wasn’t possible for them, they started blaming the Centre together for creating a mess, reversed their stand and wanted Centre to take control.

There is no denying the fact that it was inappropriate of Modi not to admit even once for the mess-up of the vaccination programme. That the Centre had to give in to the State gov government’s demands does reveal that it was lacking a proper vision at the national front. Modi’s address, which otherwise was a fine, dealt with the vaccine issue hesitatingly. It would have been better for him to openly acceptthe errors committed by his own government and show confidence of making amends.

Unfortunately, the present dispensation thinks that admitting own flaws will affect the image of the government. Mistakes do happen. Why does the government believe that it can’t commit mistakes? Last year, Modi himself apologised to the nation during the time of migrant crisis. Apology for a blunder doesn’t diminish the image. It only shows the commitment towards honesty. But, this government believes more in strength, and the BJP IT cell too loves to create the narrative that the Modi government is a very strong one.

Agree that power is necessary for running a government but every issue can’t be solved through showcasing strength. Empathy is required too. If one looks at the languages of BJP leaders, particularly spokespersons appearing daily on noisy TV debates, one realises that sensitivity is missing from their statements. That these party spokespersons, despite seeing pyres of thousands of dead bodies in the crowded crematoriums, still debate and try to compare the low death rates of the country with other countries of the world. At this time, such comparisons sound hollow and cruel too for those who lost their dear ones.

This lack of empathy is seen in BJP’s approach with its allies — and this has reduced the NDA to just a merely existing body. In the present Modi government, there are no Cabinet ministers from the NDA constituents. The only non-BJP minister is RPI(A)’s chief Ramdas Athawale, who is a Minister of State. There is a buzz of a Cabinet reshuffle, where, if the reports are to be believed, the Modi government is expected to include some NDA constituents in his Cabinet. If the rumour turns true then it is a right step by the BJP towards accommodating its allies, who have been ignored long and feel disappointed.

Nitish Kumar has been miffed with the BJP leadership for not accommodating his party in the Union Cabinet. To be fair, before the 2019 Lok Sabha polls, BJP did accommodate JD(U) by ceding its own five seats. But, Nitish's discontent is reasonable too. Similarly, Uttar Pradesh- based Apna Dal (S) leader Anupriya Patel, who was earlier a minister in the first Modi government, is unhappy for not giving her party respect at both State and Centre level. She recently met with Home Minister Amit Shah, who also happens to be the NDA chairman and so did Sanjay Nishad from Nishad party, another small ally in UP, to urge them to look beyond their own members and leaders.

Clearly, mere lip service of practising coalition dharma isn’t enough. That’s the reason BJP, which once championed practicing coalition politics, is today facing allegations in the Modi-Shah era for sidelining its allies. The situation of NDA has changed with the gigantic rise of BJP and some allies make unreasonable demands too, but the saffron party must listen to the grievances of its allies and pay more attention towards the feelings of citizens. It has to look beyond its approach of only winning elections and forming governments. It must put sharp focus on a political approach based on empathy. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 18 June 2021

G7 Changes Gear

NEW DELHI HITCH-HIKES

By Dr D.K.Giri

(Prof. International Politics, JIMMC)

The G7 Summit in Cornwall, the Southeast coast of England was significant on more than one count, unlike in the past. The Summit turned a new page with active return of the United States to the table, as it was emaciated by latter’s vacillation under the tumultuous tenure of Donald Trump. It made a bold and historic proclamation of formation of a ‘coalition of democracies’ against autocracies. The Summit named China the main adversary as a system-threat. And New Delhi, at the behest of the UK, backed by France and the US, seamlessly hitch-hiked to the G7 caravan.

The Summit made some serious decisions on the emerging international issues, that were listed mainly under three rubrics in the 25-page communique issued after three days deliberations from 11 to13 June. They were the 3Cs of current concerns of heads of seven countries gathered there -- China, Covid and Climate change.

G7 comprises seven advanced economies, which are all liberal democracies marked by pluralism and representative governments. The grouping began as an informal, ad hoc arrangement. In the wake of oil crisis in 1973, US Secretary of Treasury George Shultz called a meeting of Finance Ministers of Germany, France, Britain to discuss collaborative actions to deal with the situation. The meeting was held in a library building in Washington DC. So initially the group of 4 was called the Library group. In mid-1973, on US’ suggestion, Japan was included in the group to make it G5. Then two more countries joined the group-- Italy in 1975 and Canada in 1976, to make it G7.

In 1998, following the transition of the Soviet Union into democratic politics, Russia was invited to join the group. Again in 2014, in the wake of Russia annexing Crimea, its membership was suspended and later terminated. Other countries are invited as guests from time to time in order to ‘deepen the expertise and experience’ around the table.India has been attending the G7 meetings since 2003 as a special guest.

The countries invited to the Summit included India, Australia, South Korea and South Africa. There was some hint at expanding the group to 11 and call it D11, but no such decision was taken. However, the more expanded group called G20 will meet in Italy next month. This Group includes India and China as well. It will be interesting to watch how China will be treated in this meeting.

G7 obviously targeted China mentioning it four times in its final communique. Beijing has sharply reacted. The spokesman of the Chinese embassy in London said, “The day when global decisions were dictated by small group of countries are long gone”.

The Summit in Cabis Bay was mainly to build a coalition of democracies to counter the growing influence of China. This was in keeping with the fresh initiative taken by Joe Biden for consolidating democracy in the world. Soon after he took over, he has been sounding out to US allies and partners to organise a World Democracy summit. The G7 countries reiterated their resolve to deepen democracy, “We will harness the power of democracy, freedom, equality, the rule of law, and respect for human rights to answer the biggest questions and overcome the greatest challenges”.

Biden revealed the ‘push-back China’ strategy when he said, “democracies are in a contest with autocracies, G7stood united anew in its democratic values.”. The G7 said, “We will promote our values including by calling on China to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms”. This is the point of entry for India into this coalition. Prime Minister Narendra Modi, digitally addressing the session on Open Societies and Open Economies, highlighted India’s civilisational commitment to democracy, freedom of thought and speech. He pointed out “authoritarianism, terrorism, violentextremism, disinformation and economic coercion as big challenges facing the world today.”

New Delhi has to leverage its political assets for buildingcoalition against external aggression and economic coercion. Although Modi did not mention China in his speech, it was obvious,coinciding with  G7’s reference point.

But New Delhi will have to walk the talk. India has had the largest number of internet shutdowns in 2020. India is getting a bad press internationally for slapping sedition cases, arresting those questioning official policies, raiding offices of newspapers and social media. These do not bode well for India’s unsullied image on democracy and human rights. In a way, it is good that India is shedding off the image of soft-State, but the transformation should manifest in maintenance of law and order, apprehending and punishing the economic offenders, criminals, and fending off external threats and bullying, not in going after dissenting voices.

Minister for External Affairs Jaishankar participating in the Ministerial meeting of G7 earlier on had said, “opensocieties and personal freedoms require careful nurturing. It must be on guard against fake news and digital manipulation”. It is true that anyone spreading disinformation that causes social disharmony, conflicts and harm, should be brought to book. The harmless fake news could be ignored by the State and be left to the internet users to decide for themselves. The media handles could also have some mechanism for factcheck etc.

On Covid, G7 endorsed the US initiative for a thorough probe into the origin of the virus. It said, “We call for a timely, transparent, expert-led and science-based, WHO-convened phase-2 Covid-origin-19 study including as recommended by the experts’ Report in China.” Even WHO has called upon China to help in the renewed investigation, but it remains defiant. Beijing suggested that covid virus was found first in USA, then it changed to Italy, and one of its studies suggested it came from monkeys in India which were fighting amongst themselves for water etc. China then said, it originated simultaneously in many counties but Beijing was first in reporting it. However, despite China’s diversion and disinformation, the probe is back on the front burner.

G7 promised to raise $12 trillion on pandemic recovery plan. It also promised to supply 1 billion doses of vaccines to the world. But this is too little as the world needs 11 to 12 billion doses.Only 0.3 per cent of the vaccines has gone to the poorest in the world. Perhaps India can fill the void, if the IPR on vaccine is waived. India supported by South Africa made this request. France has also called upon the fellowG7 members to help India access raw material for vaccine production.

It was resolved to enhance the climate finance. The G7 said, “we reaffirm the collective developed countries’ goal to jointly mobilise $100 billion a year from public and private sources through to 2025 in the context of meaning formitigation actions”. It was also agreed to scale up technologies and policies to speed up the transition away from unabated coal capacity. This issue could be further firmed up in the UN Climate Change Conference (COP-26) in November.

The other major decision was to build an alternative to Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) which created a debt-trap, by a project called Building Back Better for the World, acronymed B3W. India is inclined to join this initiative as it had refused to be a part of BRI.

To conclude, the bugle has been blown by the G7 to counter China. India is a part of the march. It better play its part resolutely strategically. --INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Events & Issues

New Delhi, 17 June 2021

Union of States

NOT TRADE UNIONS

By DrS.Saraswathi

(Former Director, ICSSR, New Delhi)

WestBengal Chief MinisterMamata Banerjee has called upon “Opposition parties” to band together to prevent the BJP from “destroying federalism” and playing “dirty politics”. She proposed the formation of a “Unionof States” to stop the “BJP from bulldozing State governments run by other parties”.

It is culmination of the cold war between theBJP and the TMCthroughout electioneering in West Bengal and thereafter.Strong words have been used, and politically significant terms like federalism and union of Statesused in this call which seems to have been made with a purpose. 

The term federalism does not appear anywhere inthe Indian Constitution. India is already   declareda Union of States in Article 1 of the Constitution.

The CM seems to have meant united action by political parties and pressure groups opposed to the BJP toremove it from power. States form a joint familyfor this purpose.The call was made after her meeting withBharatiyaKisanUnion leaderRakeshTikait atthe Bengal Secretariat who alsopraised thisCM as“a fit candidate for PM”.

Aftera spectacular victory in West BengalAssembly election, the TMC has been emboldened with extraordinary confidence to speakof a “union” against the Union government. It isrevival of theidea of forming a united front tried many times before General Elections.

Theidea hasgainedvigoureversince thesteady loss in the strength of the CongressParty,State after State, removing it from the status of being the main opposition to the BJP.Farmers’ protest,which has some potential to escalate as an all-India movement because of all-India impact of farm laws anddue to motivated political party support and calculated propaganda is serving as auniting factor.

“In a federal structure,there shouldbe aUnion of State governments. If anyState is harassed,    then other States would fight for it. Every Chief Minister (of non-BJP ruled States) should stick together. I would urge every opposition party to unite (against the BJP) to save democracy”, said Mamata.

State and State government are terms used interchangeably, but these are not synonymous.    States are immaterial social objects, organisations, whereas government is an apparatus made of groups of people vested with power to control and govern the State at a particular time.  Government is the tool with which State power is employed.

In 2017 also, in the preparatory stage of 2019 election, Mamata Banerjee, along with KCR of Telangana, was keen on forminga Third Front. She wanted strong States by transfer of many subjects from Union list to State list. She said that the Centre should keep only four departments under its control – defence, external affairs,currency,and railways - and focus on diplomacy,defence, national security, and national highways.

Indiais declaredin the Constitution as a union of States and not federation of States. It hassignificant unitary and non-federalfeatures also such as a strong and indestructible centre,   single Constitution that is flexible, single citizenship, integrated judiciary, All-India Services, emergency provisions granting powertothe Centre to override States, right of President in the case of bills reserved for his consideration by the Governor of a State,and veto power over bills passed by a State legislature that limit the autonomy of States.

In the uneven development of different parts of the nation then and which still continues, to establish freedom, equality, and justice, the authority of the Centre has to prevail.

Ambedkarhas stated that there are two crucial provisions that make India a “Union of States”.  One is that it was not born out of an agreement among States like the American federation; and another is that States cannot secede from the union.The division of States is made for convenience of administration. Suggestions to declare India as afederal republic of autonomous units were expressly rejected in the Constituent Assembly.

Still, States are not appendages to the Centre. Federalism in the Indian Constitution, in the words of the Supreme Court in SRBommai case (1994) “is not a matter of administrative convenience, but one of principle – the outcome of our own process and a recognition of ground realities”.Read along with Ambedkar’s elucidation, it becomes clear that the Union of States, which may be deemed Indian model of federation -- has been adopted as a basic principle.

It is often described as an indestructible union of destructible States. That is why it has been possible in our country toreorganiseStates, redraw State boundaries, bifurcate and trifurcate   states, and form new States. States cannot secede from the Indian Union while in federal States like USA or Pakistan, States can secede.

Bengal CM’s call is for a Union of States and the appeal is to non-BJP ruled States and not for all States. It brings in political party affiliation as the qualification to join the Union and take part in united action. The target for change is notthe Constitution, but the ruling party at the Centre.  Such a Union obviously will not be needed once the ruling party at the Centre is changed.

Harold Laski, whose books are prescribed as textbooksin political science, raised doubts over the survival of federalism as an approach to political organisationin the context of the US. But, federalism survives and is going strong at national, sub-national and international levels and demands attention and changes. There are varieties of federal governance in different countries across the world like cooperative federalism, competitive federalism, and coercive federalism.

Regional parties have become vociferous in claiming more say in governance in recent decades as they have become key players in deciding governmentformation at the Centre and States after many elections. Social diversities are at the base of the multiparty system giving rise literally to hundreds of political parties. Coalition governments at the Centre with no party winning majority of LokSabhaseats led to increasing influence of regional and even local parties thereby increasing demands of State governments ruled by regional parties.

Demand formore autonomy for States as a practical solution, as a right, as political necessity,  and as logical politics in the context of coalition governments are the newfactors workingin  Indian federalism. StrongState leaders have emerged, many ofthem better known and even  morepopularnationally than many ministers at the Centre.Such leaders, who cannot aspire for  leadership of the entire nation, but able to play a vital role in national politics in coalition governments are keen on claiming more powers for State governments and more say for States in national issues. They tend to come together and form a  “Union”.

Union of States are not trade unions to play apolitics of demands and threats, strikes and bandh,  non-cooperation and boycott and try to undermine laws and regulations. Opportunistic unions  will not serve national interests. Unions mustassumea high moral stature if they have a genuine cause to come into existence. The country does not need mere protestors to what the Centre  does.---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)

Open Forum

New Delhi, 16 June 2021

Free Vaccination

EASIER SAID THAN DONE

By Dhurjati Mukherjee

The Centre will start rolling out free vaccines to all States for those above 18 years from next Monday. However, the big question is whether this time round it would have done its homework thoroughly. More so, as to achieve its target of fully vaccinating its adult population of around 94 crores,by year end, it will have to step up the average daily vaccination levels close to five times from what has been achieved from January 16 to June 7. This possibly appears an impossible task and experts are unanimous on this point.

States such as Uttar Pradesh may need a nine-fold jump in daily vaccinations, Bihar over eight-fold and Tamil Nadu, Jharkhand and Assam over seven-fold. Five of the country’s most populous States in terms of 18 plus population face the task of raising the daily vaccination levels five-fold or more. 

According to census projections, it would need to administer further 170 crore doses in the remaining 231 doses of the year. That would require an average of around 75-80 lakh doses a day (weekends included), a nearly five-fold increase over the average so far. Vaccinating such huge population is not merely a challenge of supplies. It would mean adding many more vaccination centres than have been used at any point in the vaccination drive and finding the extra personnel needed to man them and to administer the doses.

Therefore, it’s necessary that there is close coordination between Centre and the States and that there is a task force set-up or the existing Raisina Hill-centric one revamped, which enables proper monitoring of the vaccines’ supply and distribution. It needs to be noted that Prime Minister Modi made the announcement of Centre’s decision to buy 75% of jabs from vaccine makers, including 25 per cent of the State quota, and give it for free, following strictures of Supreme Court on the differential pricing in purchase of domestically manufactured vaccines. 

The apex court had raised serious doubts about the Modi government’s liberalised vaccine policy of “fixing higher prices as a competitive measure” and stated that it’s the responsibility of the Centre and not the States to provide free vaccination. The bench headed by Justice Chandrachud said the Centre’s policy of allowing vaccine manufacturers to charge the States’ higher rates violated the fundamental right to equality, as did its policy of providing free vaccination only to those aged 45 and above. The court underlined that this year’s annual budget had set aside Rs 35,000 crore exclusively for vaccine procurement and wanted to know how it has been spent.

The present cost of free vaccination would come to around Rs 45,500 crore and to make a modest recovery of expenses, only those who can afford to pay can get the jab from private nursing homes. Unfortunately, though the Centre chose to ignore experts’ advise on pandemic control and vaccination of maximum population through development of health infrastructure. Diverting maximum resources towards this end, specially by shelving the Central Vista project by at least a year or two, would have been the right decision.

This was a demand among others raised in a joint letter by 12 Opposition leaders to Modi as also a group of 187 eminent persons, who pointed out that “it is shocking that the GoI has neither welcomed the suggestions (of Opposition leaders) nor created a truly national task force comprising all parties, State governments, experts and civil society to tackle the unprecedented situation India is facing”. It too had regretted the Government outsourced procurement of vaccines to States, resulting in “differential and exorbitant rates”.

While the sticky issue of free vaccines for all stands resolved and the Centre giving in, it would also need to consider seriously the large number of children in the country who could be affected by the pandemic. Our current vaccination policy extends to cover all those above 18 years. There is need for herd immunity level of 80% to contain the epidemic. It is impossible to achieve this level by vaccinating only those above age 18. Thus, India must urgently draw up plans to vaccinate children under 18. The question that arises is how long will fear of Covid keep children away from schools, given that parents, children, teachers, educationists, nutritionists and paediatricians are all alarmed by the adverse effects on children’s well-being.

With vaccinations still moving in a rather slow pace in the past two months and unlikely to pick up steam from July, there are fears that the incidence of the pandemic may not be curbed in rural and semi-urban areas. However, even here an internal government projection for August and September shared by a source put the monthly number of Covishield doses at 100 million out of 200 million for all the three approved shots combined, as claimed by the government.

The official figure of those who contracted the disease had reached 30 million (widely believed by experts to be a gross under estimate) and deaths exceeding 300,000. Meanwhile the The New York Times had suggested last month that actual Covid infections in India could be 20 to 26 times the government figure and the death count could be 5 to 13 times the official toll.

A section of experts are talking of a third wave as official warnings have surfaced of this possibility. Though the magnitude of its impact is yet to be ascertained, its incidence is likely to impact children. The fear is perpetuated by the shocking slippage in vaccination coverage and the shortages of vaccines for adequate and fast protection of the virus. Moreover, the fear factor may restrict mobility and social and economic engagement and sentiments of consumers may not be back to normal in the coming months. 

The problem in the country is that the Modi administration being seen as heavily centralised, there is little scope for professionals to air their independent views, even in internal meetings. It is said Modi does not entertain other’s views and professionals and experts have just to carry out orders. In such a situation, what is needed is a decentralised system where views of experts are given due cognisance and there is no diktat from the top.Note that in the United States, it is a renowned expert Dr Anthonu Fauci, who is taking decisions relating to the pandemic and related issues.

Advice of experts needs to be given topmost priority and a communication drive launched that could clear misconceptions and effectively tackle such pandemics or other types of disasters. While vaccination has to be enhanced with not even 15% of the population vaccinated as on date, it is also necessary to ascertain whether a booster dose would be necessary within 12 months of full vaccination, as predicted by Pfizer CEO.In all, pragmatism is the need of the hour, which sadly has been lacking in governance so far. There is need to go beyond ad-hoc decisions and take a holistic view of building the country’s health infrastructure. The government would do well to remember, a stitch in time saves nine.---INFA

(Copyright, India News & Feature Alliance)