Thursday, January 03, 2019
Breaking the stranglehold
There is scant focus on India’s secret shame: bonded labour
Last year, on December 22, an incident of bonded labour reached the national headlines, even if only for a fleeting moment. BJP president Amit Shah tweeted on the subject. A week earlier, 52 trafficked labourers had been rescued from a ginger farm in Karnataka where they had been made to work inhuman hours with little pay. Yet, for the most part, both the mainstream discourse and social media commentary miss the underlying phenomenon: bonded labour, India’s secret shame.
The practice was abolished under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 after the issue found a place in the Emergency-era’s 20-point programme. Four decades on, independent surveys and State government-led committees still point to its myriad forms. The Global Slavery Index 2016 estimated there to be 1.8 crore Indians in modern slavery, including bondedness, while the International Labour Organisation said there were 1.17 crore bonded labourers in 2014.
However, there has been no government-led nationwide survey since 1978, despite each district having been given Rs. 4.5 lakh for such surveys. Instead, the government relies on rescue and rehabilitation numbers: Since 1976, over 3.13 lakh people have been rescued, with Karnataka topping the list (nearly 66,300 people). This does not reflect the extent of the prevalence of bonded labour, as most labourers are not aware of the Act and turn to the authorities only when it becomes overtly violent.
Moreover, National Crime Records Bureau data show that not all cases are reported by the police. Between 2014 and 2016, they recorded just 1,338 victims, with 290 police cases filed — a stark difference from 5,676 rescues reported by six States in this period.
This becomes important given the structure of the disbursal of rehabilitation funds: Rs. 20,000 is given as immediate relief while the rest (which depends on the case) is given only after conviction of the accused. In these three years, only 28 cases (of the 334 in trial) saw judicial resolution, resulting in a conviction rate of just 32%. It is no surprise that the Centre has had to spend just Rs. 7.65 crore on rehabilitation in this period. Some patterns emerge. Traffickers continue to source labour in socio-economically backward districts, an example being Bolangir in Odisha. Tribals and Dalits remain vulnerable. Advances and small loans accompanied by promises of steady pay are tools of entrapment. Brick kilns, quarries, horticulture farms, shoe and plastic factories in metropolises are venues for this practice.
The Ministry of Labour says, “The root of the problem lies in the social customs and economic compulsions,” before listing a “multi-pronged” strategy which focusses solely on rescue and rehabilitation processes. However, a preventive measure, which must start with a survey, is missing. Creating financial access for vulnerable communities/vulnerable districts could help. Further, regulatory attention must focus on trafficking rings and sectors.
The writer is a Principal Correspondent at The Hindu’s Bengaluru bureau
Source: The Hindu, 3/01/2019
Religion vs religious nationalism
The starting point for anti-Hindutva politics must be the distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva. Else, it’s doomed
Any rigid secular approach, unrestrained by considerations of electoral politics, could only lead to disapproval of Congress president Rahul Gandhi’s demonstration of his religious faith and his characterisation of the Congress as a “party of Hinduism”. His approach has been widely termed “soft Hindutva”, and as an attempt to compete with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) in its game. Those who deride Hindutva and those who swear by it both consider Mr. Gandhi a poor imitator of it. Centrist politics by definition is vulnerable to criticism from radical perspectives of different hues — for instance, Marxist M.N. Roy, Dalit leader B.R. Ambedkar and Hindutva proponent, and later his assassin, Nathuram Godse, were all critical of Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas of Hinduism. What is worth a closer analysis in the current context is the suggestion that the invocation of Hindu symbols for electoral gains is Hindutva, albeit a softer version.
A clear trajectory
Mainstream Indian nationalism and Hindu nationalism shared a range of symbols and personalities during their formative decades, and distinguishing one from the other can appear a challenging task often. Consolidation of the Hindu society was a preoccupation of several reformists and leaders of the struggle for independence, who were not linked to Hindutva. In a classic essay written in the 1990s, at the peak of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement, historian Sumit Sarkar marked the stages of the evolution of Hindu nationalism in two distinct phases: first from the use of the word Hindu as a geographical marker to ‘Hinduism’, an attempt to codify the cultural and religious practices, and then to Hindutva. Swami Vivekananda was the seer of the first shift. “Of the Swami’s address before the Parliament of Religions, it may be said that when he began to speak it was of the religious ideas of the Hindus but when he ended, Hinduism had been created,” wrote Sister Nivedita, the Swami’s closest disciple. Three decades later Veer Savarkar, who invented Hindutva, did not merely seek to unify Hindus, but tried to achieve it by imagining the other as those who do not consider India their sacred land. While secular nationalism’s adversarial image was imperialism, the edge in Savarkar’s Hindutva was against Muslims and Christians. Vivekananda’s Hinduism had no enemy figure.
The political rise of Hindutva has been directly proportionate to the success of its proponents’ attempts to equate itself with Hinduism.
The Gandhi-Nehru way
For Gandhi, Hinduism was the essence of his existence, but even the avowedly secular Jawaharlal Nehru was not dismissive of faith and tradition. The Discovery of India draws from sacred texts and beliefs; “though I have discarded much of past tradition and custom… yet I do not wish to cut myself off from that past completely,” he wrote in his will, asking for some of his ashes to be immersed in the Ganga.
The vertical rise and the horizontal spread of Hindutva challenge its opponents to devise new political idioms. A puritan view is that Hindutva can be challenged only with an unyielding secular paradigm, devoid of Hindu symbols. Those leaders and parties that are directly involved in electoral politics are more conflicted on these questions than those who have the convenience of a quarantined approach. In the early 2000s, when critics began to use the neologism saffronisation to describe the A.B. Vajpayee government’s policies that advanced Hindutva, within the Congress there was a debate on the wisdom of it. A.K. Antony and Digvijay Singh vehemently opposed the expression, arguing that it amounted to legitimising the Hindutva agenda given the cultural association of the colour saffron with sacrifice and renunciation. The Congress discontinued use of the word.
Other parties too have used Hindu symbolism and terminology. Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Lalu Prasad, whose mastery of electoral politics broke the Hindutva momentum in Bihar, connects his community to Lord Krishna. “Haathi nahin Ganesh hai, Brahma Vishnu Mahesh hai (this is not merely an elephant, but is Lord Ganesh; and Brahma Vishnu Mahesh)” was the Bahujan Samaj Party’s 2005 slogan referencing its election symbol, the elephant. Groups associated with the Communists Party of India (Marxist) in Kerala recently organised events around Ramayana month. “The Sangh has created a particulate image of Ram, that a majority of the faithful do not relate to,” said V. Sivadasan, CPI(M) State committee member, who was closely associated with the programme. “Given this context, it is the duty of the secularists to come in support of the believers who understand Ram different from the way the RSS (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) tries to make him. All secular people have this responsibility to help protect the plurality of faith that exists among religious people.”
Whether or not these attempts add up to a robust and credible challenge to Hindutva is an open question. However, the notion of ‘soft Hindutva’ is detrimental to anti-Hindutva polemics and mobilisation.
For one, it ignores the tactical components of electoral politics, which the moralist might dismiss as opportunism, for good reasons. What is more critical is that the notion of expressive faith as ‘soft Hindutva’ is an inadvertent endorsement of the Hindutva claim that it is equivalent to Hinduism. The proponents of Hindutva also acknowledge the existence of ‘hard’ and ‘fringe’ elements within its fold. Categories of soft and hard, being relative terms, trick moderates and offer an alibi to opportunists to side with the softer versions — Vajpayee against L.K. Advani, Mr. Advani against Narendra Modi, and who knows, perhaps Mr. Modi against Yogi Adityanath in the future?
Any equivalence between Hinduism and Hindutva, conversely, is taken to mean that any criticism of Hindutva is an attack on Hinduism. That one could be accused of being anti-Hinduism for questioning the logic of building a temple on the site of a destroyed mosque at Ayodhya draws from the logical premise of likening Hinduism to Hindutva. To take another example, the Hindu American Foundation claimed recently that even the questioning of ‘Brahminical patriarchy’ is a an act of Hindu-phobia.
To Hindutva’s advantage?
And most consequentially, any polemical negation of the wall between Hinduism and Hindutva makes the transition from the first to the second easier. It could even encourage believers to consider Hindutva their natural political abode, if they sense hostility in the anti-Hindutva camp. If non-Hindutva platforms expect temple-goers to explain their conduct, that is not an enticing recruitment pitch. The fact is that there are numerous people who visit temples and even believe in vastu, astrology, tantra, etc. while still being secular in a political and public context.
The only politics that benefits from associating Hinduism to Hindutva is Hindutva. The practice of Hinduism, even when it is exhibitionist and for political ends, is not Hindutva — soft or hard. Hindutva stands out for its conceptual clarity, leaving little scope for a spectrum within it. A manifesto for any durable anti-Hindutva politics is still a long way away, but its singular starting point is an assertion of the distinction between Hinduism and Hindutva. Anything else is doomed.
varghese.g@thehindu.co.in
Source: The Hindu, 3/01/2019
Think Big, Act Wisely And Show Results
At different times, we face different problems. At the individual level, they relate to health, emotions, relationships, marriage, children and career. At the national level, they pertain to poverty, unemployment, social unrest, education and corruption. These problems often bring us sorrow and pain. Yet, when honestly analysed, we find that their root cause is almost entirely a lack of proper thinking and acting. Wrong thoughts lead to a defective world vision and a chaotic relationship with it. The result is false expectations and disappointments at every step. If only we improve our thinking, we can mend our homes and make the world a better place to live in. Alas, many choose to suffer rather than to think! Caught up in the mesh of wrong thinking, their mental states are often coloured by prejudices and narrow-mindedness. The solution is to think big, act wisely and show results. The foremost need is for right thinking, leading to a clear vision of life. We should remove all barriers of pettiness and think big. Big things are achieved by first daring to mentally conceptualise them. Man dared to think that he could fly like a bird and the first flying machine was invented. He dared to think that he could reach the moon, and behold ... he landed there! Nothing is impossible for the one who thinks positive. Our thoughts can either bind us and make us small, or free us. So why not think big? This pertains not only to the individual but to the nation as well. Think about what is beneficial for the nation, what will bring forth national good. Swami Chinmayananda learnt the scriptures from his teacher. He turned his mind to how he could pass on this knowledge to people of the nation and the entire world. This is “Thinking Big”. Swami Vivekananda spent restless nights in America thinking of the welfare of India and the world. After “Thinking Big” through proper vision, one should then strive hard to act wisely. Swami Chinmayananda said, “Plan out your work, and work out your plan.” To act wisely is to act with proper understanding and a good attitude. The famous Serenity Prayer by Reinhold Niebuhr presents this beautifully: “God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.” Sri Rama knew which situations to accept and where to take action. Without complaint or mental agitation, he accepted his exile in the forest for 14 years as the call of Dharma. However, when his wife Sitaji was kidnapped, he made a huge effort to get her back. Keep your head calm and balanced and act efficiently to show results. Strive to become a better human being and let the results be seen in the transformation of your personality. Purity, efficiency and wisdom should steadily grow. The result of our work should reflect in our environment and lead to harmony, beauty, and prosperity in society. Use all available opportunities to harness this inner potential, learn to break all barriers in thought. Use every opportunity to learn the secret of right action. Finally, get inspired and achieve greatness in the world within and without. We can. We must. We will. The writer belongs to Chinmaya Mission.
Source: Times of India, 3/01/2019
Wednesday, January 02, 2019
What is inflation targeting in economics
This refers to an approach to monetary policy where the primary mandate of a central bank is to manage the rate of price inflation in the wider economy. Economists who support inflation targeting believe that a stable inflation rate is essential to keep the economy fully employed while protecting the value of the currency at the same time. Central banks with an explicit inflation targeting mandate usually have a target range of inflation. They try to keep inflation within the target range by adjusting the economy’s money supply. The policy of inflation targeting, which was first introduced in some European countries in the 1970s, became a popular approach in the 1990s.
Source: The Hindu, 2/01/2019
People no country wants
Assam is sitting on a volcano of suffering and conflict. On test is the mettle of India’s democracy.
When the sun went down on 2018, the doors closed for one million residents of Assam who were unable to file their claims to prove that they are Indian citizens. The claims of the three million who were left out of the National Register of Citizens (NRC) will now be examined by the Foreigners’ Tribunals.
Assam, meanwhile, continues to battle the throes of a uncertain tumult. Through a complex and tortuous process with no parallels in any other part of the country — and few if any in the world — millions of Assamese residents were called upon to produce documents that prove that they are Indian citizens.
It is not often remembered that not just Punjab and Bengal, but also Assam, was partitioned in 1947, when after a referendum, Sylhet district was transferred from Assam to Pakistan. Migration from Sylhet and other parts of Bengal to Assam had continued until then for two centuries, fuelled by land-hunger and the attraction of creating farm-lands in the vast virgin forest tracts and river islands, and encouraged by the state. The cataclysms of Partition and the Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971 spurred fresh migrations into Assam.
From the late 1970s, a sporadically violent movement against “foreigners”, by people who saw themselves as “original inhabitants”, rocked the state. The current updating of the NRC is in fulfilment of the agreement reached by the agitators with the Union government, that persons who migrated after 1971 would be identified and deported.
The Supreme Court in 2007 ruled that it was not the duty of state agencies which charged a person with being a foreigner to prove their claim. Instead, it was for those who claimed citizenship to prove that they were citizens. This turned on its head natural law that a person is innocent until proved guilty. Resultantly, impoverished and often unlettered people were required to garner official documents — such as of birth certificates, land-ownership and voters’ lists — to establish their citizenship credentials. The majority of indigent rural people anywhere in the country would be unable to prove their citizenship because birth-certificates were rare; many did not attend school and migrated for work or were married as children; land records are poorly maintained, and in any case, many are landless, or unrecorded tenants or encroachers on government land; and voters’ lists are replete with omissions. The underlying chauvinism of the process was exposed also by official orders, again ratified by the SC, which exempted “persons who are originally inhabitants of the State of Assam” from any “further proof or inquiry” for automatic inclusion in the NRC. The “original inhabitant” is nowhere defined, but in practice original inhabitants are taken to exclude people who speak Bengali, Nepali, Hindi or Santhali, even if they have lived in Assam for generations.
The labyrinthine NRC authority is not the only agency empowered to identify non-citizens in Assam. In fact, three parallel processes, mostly dependent on low-level bureaucratic and police discretion, run side by side in what poet Manash Bhattacharjee aptly describes as the “sniffer-dog” idea of the state, hunting down “foreigners”.
One of these “sniffer-dog” processes began in 1997 when, on the pretext of extensive revision of electoral rolls, the Election Commission, without any due process, marked 3.70 lakh voters as doubtful, or “D-voters”. This stripped them of voting rights, and their cases were referred to the Foreigners’ Tribunal. Election officials continue to identify persons they regard to be “doubtful”. The Assam Police Border Organisation deputes police officials in many police stations who also identify people they regard to be possibly non-citizens, and refer their cases to Foreigners’ Tribunals.
People who don’t speak Assamese, and are not from indigenous tribes, are in this way beleaguered from all sides. They do not know when challenges to their citizenship may come, from the NRC executives, election officials or the local policeperson. In 2006, the Police Border Organisation referred Ajbahar Ali, a small farmer in Kheluwapara village in Bongaigaon district of western Assam, to the Foreigners’ Tribunal. When he answered the summons from the tribunal he learnt that the tribunal in an ex-parte judgement had already declared him a foreigner. He was whisked away from the tribunal directly to a detention centre inside a jail. His wife Balijan Bibi sold their farmland, cattle and the only cell-phone they owned to pay a lawyer to challenge the order to get her husband released from detention. Their older son, Moinul Haque, travelled to the Guwahati High Court to hear the judgment, while his mother waited anxiously at home for his news. He returned the next morning only to inform his mother that the court has rejected their plea. Balijan Bibi didn’t speak much, just asked her son to take rest. After a while, he found her hanging from the ceiling.
Months later, our Karwan e Mohabbat team visited their family. The children’s father was in a detention centre with no prospect of his release, their mother was dead, and their land and all they owned sold. There are at least 28 suicides of people who had lost hope of proving that they were citizens of this country, and found no reason to live.
This is the collective tragedy of millions of religious, linguistic and ethnic minorities in Assam. No light is visible even in distant horizons, because the Union and state governments are silent about what the fate will be of those who in the end are declared to be foreigners? Over a thousand are housed indefinitely in hellish detention centres, in flagrant violation of constitutional guarantees and international law. But if the numbers tomorrow run into possibly millions, where will they be detained?
The Indian government is not even negotiating an extradition treaty for the return of these persons with the Bangladesh government. If they are to continue to live in India as non-citizens, are we not manufacturing a Rohingya-like situation, forcing people to live without rights or security in the country which refuses to own them?
At stake, however, is not just their destinies. On test is the mettle of India’s democracy, its sense of justice, its inclusiveness and its humanity.
Source: Indian Express, 2/01/2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)