From Smallpox to Covid-19: The history of vaccine passports and how it impacts international relations

 As the global administration of Covid-19 vaccines escalate, several countries, non-governmental organisations and private corporations have announced plans to introduce a system of Covid immunisation certificates to facilitate travel.

Called vaccine passports, these documents will essentially serve as digital or paper-based certificates enabling anyone vaccinated against Covid to move across international borders.
They are designed to provide a private and secure way of checking who has been vaccinated, allowing them to present proof of the same.

The verification process typically involves two steps. First, a vaccination site provides a digital record or certificate with details of a person’s vaccination. That person would then either scan the certificate or manually upload a verification number onto an app or a website. They could then present that app or code to airlines, restaurants or other establishments to prove their vaccination status.

Currently vaccine passports gaining traction include the European Union’s Digital Green Certificate, New York’s state-backed platform Excelsior Pass, Common Pass, an initiative from the non-profit Commons Project Foundation, and IBM’s yet-to-be-released blockchain enabled certificate. Along with several vaccine passports introduced by individual airlines, the international Air Travel Association (IATA) has also called on the 290 airlines that it represents to sign up for its IATA Travel Pass. Similar to choosing between several credit cards for payments, customers will be able to shop around for vaccine passes, using different ones to avail of various services.

Countries, trading blocs and airlines have stipulated their own parameters for these certificates, and a few will continue to require them in conjunction with a negative Covid-PCR test. However, despite those variances, the common consensus is that people in possession of a vaccine passport will enjoy greater access to freedom of movement across international borders than their non-vaccinated counterparts.

Earlier this year, an article published by the World Health Organisation (WHO) raised concerns surrounding the operational, ethical and diplomatic consequences of allowing certain individuals to avail of privileges that others face hurdles to access. Each country has its own definition of individual liberties and how they apply the use of these passports internally will vary in accordance with their laws and constitutions. As per a March 2021 research paper in the Lancet, failure to create a uniform system of vaccine passports to regulate cross-border movement could escalate diplomatic conflicts and widen the gulf between richer and poorer nations.

History of immunisation passports

The concept of requiring proof of immunisation to occupy certain spaces dates back to Edward Jenner’s development of the first known vaccine in 1796. Designed to inoculate people against smallpox, confirmation of having taken this vaccine was a prerequisite for travellers at the time, mostly pilgrims, entering towns such as Pandharpur in British India or going to Mecca for the Hajj. Continuing into the 19th century, this policy was widely implemented across the globe with the El Paso newspaper reporting that travellers entering the United States had to show either a vaccination certificate, a scar on the arm or a “pitted face” indicating that they had survived smallpox.

In an interview given to NPR, Sanjoy Bhattacharya, professor of history at the University of York, says the need to provide proof of vaccination intensified after the introduction of air travel in the 20th century. Till then, people infected with smallpox could easily travel to other countries and risk outbreaks in local populations. Thus, vaccination certification checks were enforced before travel “with forcible isolation at airports of any passengers considered to have dubious documentation.”

Vaccine certification checks are even codified under international law with the first protocols defined under the International Sanitary Regulations Act, adopted by WHO member countries in 1951. Since renamed the International Health Regulations (IHR) in 1969, this Act allowed member states to demand proof of vaccination as a condition of entry. While now yellow fever is the only disease specified in the IHR, the WHO has recommended that certain high-risk countries require travellers to provide vaccination certificates for diseases from which their population has not been sufficiently inoculated. For example, visitors to Pakistan and Afghanistan are recommended by the WHO to take adult doses of the polio vaccine before travelling due to the prevalence of the disease in those regions.

As of now, the WHO has maintained a stance against Covid vaccine passports citing the risk they pose in perpetuating global inequality, a lack of evidence on vaccine efficacy in terms of herd immunity and the su

Operational and Ethical Considerations

A number of scientific unknowns remain concerning for governments when evaluating the impact of Covid vaccines in stopping the spread of the disease. These include their efficacy in limiting transmission, especially for variants of the virus, the duration of protection offered by vaccination, the distinctions between different vaccines, whether or not booster doses are required, whether vaccines protect against asymptomatic infections and whether people who have antibodies should be exempt from vaccination. Simply put, no one knows how or if vaccines will prevent transmission and therefore organisations like the WHO and other human rights groups warn against the introduction of vaccine passports, lest people view them as an excuse for complacency. These uncertainties have the potential to cause serious diplomatic incidents especially if tourists from certain countries cause wide-spread outbreaks in visiting regions after being vaccinated via their national rollout programmes.

Furthermore, with several competing vaccination passes, the possibility of fraud is high. Researchers at cyber-security company Check Point have monitored hacking forums and other marketplaces since January 2021, when vaccine adverts first appeared. Everything from a vaccination certificate to a negative PCR test to a dose of the vaccine can be bought illegally online (it is unclear whether the doses offered are effective or not.)

Without a central database of vaccination records, a system that would be highly concerning to data-privacy advocates and national security hawks, not to mention a logistically herculean task, forgeries are inevitable. According to Check Point, countries can limit the number of forgeries by adopting a QR code system across all vaccine documentation. Even with those measures, however, barriers to implementation will exist for governing agencies and aviation bodies.

According to data published by IATA, international passenger traffic in 2021 is roughly 15% that of pre-covid levels yet one airline reports having as many agents on the ground as during peak summer levels because they have to check all the verification documents surrounding vaccination. However, despite these limitations, Professor Chris Dye, a leading epidemiologist at Oxford University stated on the Oxford University website that “an effective vaccine passport system that would allow the return of pre-Covid-19 activities, including travel, without compromising personal or public health, must meet a set of demanding criteria – but it is feasible.”

In addition to the practical limitations of a vaccination passport, there are ethical considerations in play as well. Currently, there is restricted access to vaccines worldwide, particularly in low-income and lower-middle-income countries. The WHO has warned that the inequitable distribution of the vaccine would deepen existing inequalities and introduce new ones as well. A WHO working paper outlining these considerations goes on to mention that “in the context of unequal vaccine distribution, individuals who do not have access to an authorised COVID-19 vaccine would be unfairly impeded in their freedom of movement if proof of vaccination status became a condition for entry to or exit from a country.”

Even within countries, certain groups are prioritised over others. In particular, low-income communities, rural populations, marginalised groups and younger people are less likely to be vaccinated than the general subset. “Beyond being a distraction from the task of vaccination, the pass could end up creating a two-tier society,” Israel Butler of the Civil Liberties Union for Europe, a human rights watchdog, told the Washington Post in response to the proposed system, noting that the passport had the potential of denying certain individuals’ access to public services.

However, legally, the precedent for vaccine requirements has existed in certain countries for over a century. In 1903, the government of Maine declared that no person without proof of smallpox vaccination was allowed to work at a lumber camp, a decision that was reinforced by the US Supreme Court in 1905, when it ruled that government entities could require vaccines for entry, service and travel, and that states could impose a fine on unvaccinated people. As historian Michal Willrich notes in his book Pox, this occurred around the time when Americans began to conceive of liberty not only as freedom from regulation, but also as freedom to meaningfully and actively participate in public life.

Similarly, public health professionals like Dr. Maya Peled Raz, an expert in health law and ethics at the University of Haifa, argue that with vaccine passports, certain trade-offs are necessary. “That may involve some damage to individual rights, but not all damage is prohibited if it is well-balanced and legitimate in order to achieve a worthy goal,” she told the New York Times. “It’s your choice,” she added of leisure activities. “If you are vaccinated, you can enter. As long as you aren’t, we can’t let you endanger others.”

Tit for Tat

In 2012, upon arrival in South Africa, 125 Nigerians were denied entry for lacking the required yellow fever vaccination documentation, of which 75 were sent home. The next day, Nigeria barred 28 South Africans from entering the country, and deported another 56 illegal immigrants. When searching through the annals of diplomatic history, examples like these are prevalent. According to a column by Max Fisher in the New York Times, countries tend to act in their own diplomatic interests, even when doing so would contradict logic or compromise morality.

The EU has long maintained a policy of visa reciprocity, an objective that the Union pursues in a proactive manner in its relations with non-EU countries. This means that when the EU is considering lifting visa requirements for citizens of a non-EU country, it takes into consideration the visa requirements imposed by that country on EU citizens. And while OECD countries are commonly known to have high entry requirements for citizens from Asia and Africa, those latter regions have the highest levels of entry restrictions themselves. A 2017 analysis of global dynamics in visa reciprocity show that only 21% of countries have asymmetrical visa requirements, with levels of reciprocity increasing exponentially since the 1990s. If a global system of vaccine passports is introduced, countries may determine which passports they accept on the basis of which countries accept theirs.

The notion of quid pro quo diplomacy in regard to Covid vaccine passports is perhaps best exemplified by China, who recently announced that it would expedite entry for foreign nationals who had received a China-made vaccine. This move has caused concern amongst several countries that do not offer the Chinese vaccine but have students and workers who were based out of China before the pandemic. Nicholas Thomas, associate professor of health security at the City University of Hong Kong, speaking to Foreign Policy, attributed this policy to China’s desire to bolster the standing of Chinese vaccines internationally. No vaccine from China has yet been approved by the WHO, and according to Thomas, this move would aim to “ensure that Chinese vaccines remain the preferred choice” for governments globally.bstantial operational challenges that such a system would present.

Regional power dynamics

The EU-backed Digital Green Pass would allow vaccinated EU citizens to travel freely within Schengen borders. However, while in theory freedom of movement within the EU is a fundamental priority, the process of establishing a standard for entry has been fraught. Countries such as Greece depend heavily on tourists, with tourism accounting for 20% of the nation’s GDP. Other EU nations such as Germany and France are less dependent on tourism and are therefore reluctant to ease restrictions. How to balance those interests has been a challenge for the trading bloc, which, while announcing the Green Pass, conceded that ultimately the decision of who to allow in or out would remain within the purview of individual nations. These discrepancies could prove challenging for countries such as Hungary which has largely been dependent on China-made vaccines. Under the Digital Green Pass scheme Hungarians travelling within the EU will still likely be reliant on the result of negative PCR tests to enter other countries. On that matter, Minister of the Hungarian Prime Minister’s Office, Gregele Gulyás, stated that “on the basis of reciprocity Hungary will not accept the certificates of countries which do not accept those of Hungary.” Sentiments such as these, while largely to be expected, will compromise the legitimacy of the EU, and undermine the very tenants of its existence.

Within Asia, Singapore and Malaysia attempted to establish reciprocal business travel bubbles in order to facilitate travel between the two countries, but that policy failed to significantly boost the targeted industries. Tourism is a core industry for much of ASEAN, with 51 million interregional visitor arrivals in 2019. Companies such as Air Asia have led the push for regional vaccine passports, citing the need to resume travel in order to enable operations and remain afloat. However, like with the EU, establishing regional standards may prove tricky, with several countries lagging behind on vaccination efforts and possessing different standards for vaccines than those of its neighbours. Singapore-based independent aviation analyst Brendan Sobie recently remarked to Nikkei Asia, that the regional vaccine certificate “will need to be pursued in tandem with other initiatives such as a multilateral pan-ASEAN air travel bubble in order to have a meaningful impact,” while acknowledging it is “a good first step in helping facilitate the resumption of travel between ASEAN countries.”

The haves and the have nots

While rich countries such as Canada have secured the majority of vaccine doses – Canada has 10 doses per citizen – others like Libya and Madagascar have yet to receive a single dose. Hippolyte Fofack, the chief economist at Afreximbank remarked to Rueters, that even if Africa had 100 billion dollars, it would be unable to access enough doses of the vaccine. Because the supply of vaccines is still limited, nations in Africa are reliant on wealthier countries to donate excess vaccines in order to meet domestic needs.

In February 2021, South Africa and India put forth a proposal to the World Trade Organisation to temporarily waive intellectual property rights around products that would contain and treat Covid-19 until herd immunity was achieved. This, they argued, would enable countries in the Global South to manufacture vaccines as soon as possible and confront shortages in supply. The proposal faced criticism from pharmaceutical companies, who argued that it would stifle innovation and restrict future advances in medicine and technology. However, access-to-medicine advocates countered that most of the research behind the Covid-19 vaccines was funded either by charities or national governments. Despite that, and despite the fact that the proposal had the support of more than 100 nations, countries home to major pharmaceutical companies such as the US and the UK, prevented this proposal from moving forward.

Generally, vaccines are produced by private companies that sell them domestically or to foreign governments withthe resources to pay a premium for them. In some cases, producers will make provisions for access in certain markets in exchange for early development funding or for allowing production to occur in a certain country. This system primarily benefits rich nations capable of developing the vaccine themselves or paying for early access. It also bodes well for middle-income countries like India and Argentina that have indispensable domestic manufacturing capacity. However, poor nations that are unable to compete in the open market are dependent on either participating in (often unethical) clinical trials or relying on hand-outs such as the complex vaccine sharing scheme, COVAX. Neither option is preferable. Countries that have enrolled citizens in early vaccine trials will still face long delays in receiving vaccine doses and those reliant on the COVAX scheme are required to pay widely fluctuating prices up-front while also assuming the entirety of the risk if the vaccine fails. With the introduction of vaccine passports, citizens from these countries will be restricted from international travel, especially those who are not digitally integrated.

Creating a passport that would benefit privileged groups will also pose a significant risk to vulnerable populations fleeing war or economic hardship. According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, including marginalised groups in vaccination programs is “key to ending the pandemic.” Yet while some refugee host states like Jordan and Lebanon are including refugees in their vaccine rollouts, several others are not. An estimated 9 out the 10 people living in the poorest states in the world may not receive the vaccine until 2022. If vaccine passports become a pre-requisite for travel, those people will be unable to seek asylum unless receiving nations put in place policies that would allow them to be vaccinated at the point of arrival.

Further reading

Interim position paper: considerations regarding proof of COVID-19 vaccination for international travellers by th WHO

The Passport by Sara Dehm

Challenges in ensuring global access to COVID-19 vaccines: production, affordability, allocation, and deployment

 Written by Mira Patel

Source: Indian Express, 15/04/21

Examining the Supreme Court’s approach to Rohingya deportation

 Under the non-refoulement rule, states are prohibited from expelling or returning refugees, asylum-seekers, or other persons within their effective jurisdiction to any country where there exist substantial grounds for believing that they would be subjected to torture or arbitrary deprivation of life.The judiciary enjoys an uneasy relationship with international law. While on occasion, courts have made use of international law, including treaty and customary law to enlarge the scope of domestic rights (e.g. Puttaswamy), on other occasions, they have failed to consider the import of such rules. A striking illustration of the latter is the Supreme Court (SC) order rejecting a plea filed on behalf of Rohingya refugees detained in Jammu seeking to stop their deportation to Myanmar. The Rohingyas are a Muslim minority in Myanmar. Following a 1982 citizenship law, they were rendered stateless and have since been subject to persecution. However, from 2016, Myanmar’s army began clearance operations against the Rohingyas, involving mass murder and rape, triggering an exodus to neighbouring countries. In 2020, the International Court of Justice indicated provisional measures against Myanmar for alleged prima facie violations of its obligations under the Genocide Convention.

The plea before SC was motivated by reports that 150-170 Rohingya refugees detained in Jammu were going to be deported to Myanmar. The petitioners sought to argue that the deportation of Rohingyas to Myanmar, where they faced threat of persecution, would be contrary to the rule of non-refoulement under international law, which has been recognised by two high courts as part of the right to life under the Constitution.

The government opposed the petition on the ground that the non-refoulement principle was only applicable to signatories and that since India was not a signatory to the Refugee Convention (RC), it would not be required to adhere to it. It also argued that there were ensuing security ramifications.

Under the non-refoulement rule, states are prohibited from expelling or returning refugees, asylum-seekers, or other persons within their effective jurisdiction to any country where there exist substantial grounds for believing that they would be subjected to torture or arbitrary deprivation of life. Although the rule initially evolved in the context of the RC, it has subsequently been read into other international human rights law instruments such the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Convention against Torture. The rule has been recognised not only a rule of customary law, but has also arguably been recognised as a peremptory norm. This means that not only does the rule of non-refoulement bind non-signatory States, it also permits no exception. Notably, in the past, India has recognised the customary character of this principle at international forums.

SC, in a terse order, did not engage with the issues involved. It observed that India was not a signatory to RC and noted that there were serious objections raised as to whether the treaty could be used to interpret constitutional norms. The court overlooked the contention that the non-refoulement principle was recognised in other instruments (to which India is party), and had, in any case, acquired a customary character and would bind a non-signatory State. SC thus failed to appreciate that treaty law is not the only source of international law and that a State could acquire obligations under customary law. This oversight is striking, and the UN Special Rapporteur, who could shed light on the applicable international law norms, was not allowed to make any submissions.

The court also noted that the government had raised security concerns. While RC recognises national security as a limitation to the rule, the norm has evolved beyond the convention and arguably admits no exception. However, even under RC, such security threats are required to meet an objective criterion standard. In other words, the security threat has to be objectively examined on a case-by-case basis. It is difficult to appreciate how the detained Rohingyas, which include children and women, would en masse constitute a security threat. SC finally noted that the detained Rohingyas should not be deported unless the prescribed procedure is followed. The procedure prior to deportation is for Myanmar to confirm that the detained individuals are its citizens. As previous experience demonstrates, this would not pose any difficulty. Unfortunately, the consequences for the deported Rohingyas may be far graver.

Jay Manoj Sanklecha is an advocate practising in Mumbai and holds an LLM in international law

Source: Hindustan Times, 13/04/21

Quote of the Day April 13, 2021

 

“Education is the best friend. An educated person is respected everywhere. Education beats the beauty and the youth.”
Chanakya

“शिक्षा सर्वोत्तम मित्र है। शिक्षित व्यक्ति का सभी जगह आदर होता है। शिक्षा सुंदरता और यौवन को भी मात देती है।”
चाणक्य

What are Dark Sirens?

 A team of scientists have recently found a way to solve cosmological tensions through dark sirens.

What are Dark Sirens?

The Dark Sirens are nothing but gravitational waves from neutron stars or black holes. The Dark sirens can be picked up by gravitational wave detector but not by ordinary telescopes.

What are the Cosmological tensions that can be solved through Dark Sirens?

The Cosmologists have been facing the crisis that the universe is expanding, and it cannot be deciphered how fast it is moving away. This is mainly because, different ways of measuring Hubble’s constant provide different results.

Hubble Constant in simple terms

When the Universe is moving away from the earth, the relationship between speed and distance between the earth and the universe is called Hubble Constant. Here Universe can be any celestial body, a star, or a black hole. The Constant has been named after Edwin Hubble who first calculated the value of Hubble Constant in 1920.

How will Dark Sirens solve Cosmological crisis?

When massive neutron stars or black holes smash together they release huge amount of energy sending out gravitational waves. The LASER Inferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) has been listening to such massive crashes since 2015. Based on the sound heard, LIGO will help the scientists calculate how far they happened.

Recently, the discovery of dozens of Quasars have also given hope of determining Hubble’s constant.

Way Forward

The LIGO detectors are expected to get an upgrade over the next five years. The European and the US facilities were recently joined by the Kamioka Gravitational Wave Detector in Japan. Also, an Indian detector is to go online in 2024. With these advancements, the scientists will be able to pinpoint where exactly did the Dark Siren crash happen. And such predictions will be four hundred times better than the current detections.

Melting of Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier “Doomsday Glacier”

 The researchers from the University of Gothenburg, Sweden recently used an uncrewed submarine to go under the Thwaites Glacier to make observations. According to the researchers, the melting of the glacier is worse than previously thought.

The Thwaites Glacier is also called “Doomsday Glacier”. It has been a cause of concern for a long time as it has high potential to speed up the global sea level rise.

Thwaites Glacier

The Thwaites Glacier or the Doomsday Glacier is 120 km wide at its broadest. It is spread over 1.9 lakh square kilometres. It is fast moving and has been melting in the recent years. The glacier has high potential to raise the world sea level by more than a metre. According to researchers, the amount of ice flowing out of the glacier has doubled in the past thirty years.

Previous Studies about Doomsday Glacier

According to a 2019 study, a fast-growing cavity was discovered in the glacier that sized two-third of the area of Manhattan. The cavity is growing mainly due to the warm water detected below the glacier. This warm water has been found at two degrees above freezing point at the Grounding Zone or Grounding line of the Doomsday Glacier.

Grounding point or Grounding Zone of Glaciers

The Grounding line of a glacier is the place below the glacier where the ice transits between resting fully on bedrock and floating on ocean as an ice shelf.

The Grounding line retreats when the glaciers melt and lose weight. This in turn exposes more of the underside of the glacier to the seawater. As the exposed surface area increases, the melting of the glacier increases.

Key Findings of the new study

The recent findings made by the Sweden researchers are the first measurements performed beneath the glacier. The submarine sent to go under the glacier was called “Ran”. It measured temperature, strength, salinity, and oxygen content of the ocean currents that go under the glacier. With this data, the researchers have mapped the ocean currents beneath the glacier.

There are three inflows of warm water beneath the glacier. Among them the damaging effects of one of the currents had been underestimated in the past.The main concern according to the study is that warm water is approaching the pinning points of the glacier from all sides.

Current Affairs:April 13, 2021

 

India

• President appoints Sushil Chandra as the Chief Election Commissioner in the Election Commission of India
• VP releases commemorative postage stamp in memory of former Chief of Brahma Kumaris Rajyogini Dadi Janki
• 1 crore plants along national highways geotagged across the country: Environment Minister Prakash Javadekar
• Centre extends ceasefire pacts with 3 Naga insurgent groups by a year
• Sonu Sood appointed brand ambassador for Punjab’s COVID vaccination drive

Economy & corporate

• Minister for Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Dr Jitendra Singh launches 75 series Pension awareness to mark 75 years of independence
• Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal launches trade facilitation mobile app of Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT)
• Factory output, measured in terms of Index of Industrial Production (IIP), contracts 3.6% in February 2021
• Consumer price index (CPI)-based inflation rises to 5.5% in March
• No meals in domestic flights with a duration of less than two hours

World

• Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan launch construction of trans-border trade center named ‘Central Asia’
• Norway raises alarm over unhindered exploitation of dual use technology by Pakistan
• Tropical cyclone Seroja rips across 1000 kilometers stretch of Western Australia
• International Day of Human Space Flight celebrated on April 12; commemorates the historic space flight that Yuri Gagarin took on 12 April, 1961.

Weaponising faith: The Gyanvapi Mosque-Kashi Vishwanath dispute

 There was something incongruous about the moment when I read the news on April 8 that the district court in Varanasi had directed the Archaeological Survey of India to conduct a study of the Gyanvapi Mosque. This day also happened to be Kumar Gandharva’s birth anniversary. It was hard to resist playing his composition in Raga Shankara Sir Pe Dhari Ganga. There is a moment where he adds an extra “gang” before “Ganga”. The resulting “ganga/gagana”, is one of the most incandescent moments in all of Indian music — that extra Ganga literally drenching you in the full freshness and redemptive flow of the Ganga. It is always tempting to follow this exuberant rendition of Shankara, with another more meditative one — Pandit Jasraj’s Shankara. He sings “Vibhushitanaga Riputammanga”, the penultimate shloka of Panditraja Jagannatha’s Gangalahari. Reading the news of the Gyanvapi order, while these played in the background, almost felt like a defilement, a reminder that the spontaneous and erumpent spirituality of Hinduism was about to be again derailed by sordid politics.

The Gyanvapi order combined with the Supreme Court’s willingness to entertain a plea challenging the Places of Worship Act (Special Provisions), 1991 is going to open another communal front. In the case of the Gyanvapi Mosque, there is no real dispute. It is widely accepted that parts of the Vishwanath temple were destroyed and its walls may have been raised on the plinth of the temple. One also does not have to deny that many Hindus experienced and have a consciousness of Aurungzeb’s reign as being characterised by religious bigotry. Historians can debate the context and the motives of Aurangzeb’s actions, and the complexity of his rule. But minimising the significance of his actions has always been a little historically incredible and politically disingenuous. If we rest the case for secularism in contemporary India on establishing Aurangzeb’s liberal credentials, then secularism will indeed be on rickety foundations. It will also legitimise Hindutva resting its case on Aurangzeb’s credentials. Secularism will be deepened if it lets history be history, not make history the foundations of a secular ethic.

But there is no incongruity between accepting that a temple could have been demolished in the 16th century, and believing that the status quo on the shrines must be maintained. It’s hubris for me to think that Lord Shiva needs my protection. Yes, one can acknowledge a history of conflict, and believe at the same time that a new social contract has been written. In some ways, the Places of Worship Act, 1991 is a good expression of that thought. It freezes the status quo of all disputed religious properties as they were in 1947.

In the past, the destruction of religious shrines may have been the function of state power. But modern India cannot repeat the same logic. We cannot say that because political power has changed hands, so must the power to define the religious landscape. The demand that Kashi or Mathura be returned is exactly that. It is a raw assertion of majoritarian power. Now that power has passed to the majority, it must claim back or avenge wrongs committed five centuries ago. There is also a deeper logic. The purpose of reclaiming these shrines is not religiosity. Bhakti for Kashi Vishwanath has not been impinged or diminished by the existence of the Gyanvapi Mosque. The purpose of claiming it back is to claim that Hindus have power qua Hindus and they can now show Muslims their place. The purpose is not to craft a connection with Shiva or Krishna, the purpose is to permanently indict minorities. It is to use a sacred place of worship as a weaponised tool against another community.

The new spate of lawsuits will stoke communal fires. Most political parties will be caught like deer in headlights, not knowing which way to turn. The fact that they are not defending the Places of Worship Act will further send a signal that the Indian state cannot make a credible promise to minorities. It is also an indication that Hindutva in its present form can never be satiated; it is an escalation of power that constantly demands more. Yesterday was Ayodhya, tomorrow Kashi, the day after Mathura. It has been emboldened by the lack of resistance amongst Hindus and the increasing isolation of minorities. In the guise of settling a score with Aurangzeb, Hindutva wants to commit hara-kiri on the Indian Constitution, individual freedom and minorities. Alas, we will let this pass too, with a judicial seal of approval to boot.

Panditraja Jagannatha, author of Gangalahari, is a fascinating figure. He was from Andhra. He spent time with Dara Shikoh before reaching Benares. He was a phenomenal poet, aesthetician, and polemically engaged with Appaya Dikshita. The details of his biography are obscure. Legend has it that he fell in love with a Muslim princess. P K Gode’s monumental two-volume Studies in Indian Literary History, one of the most meticulous sources on Indian literary figures, argued for the plausibility of the story, based on 18th century sources. This legend was the basis of a Tamil film Lavangi (“His lover’s name”) and a Marathi play by Vidyadhar Gokhale. There are different variations of the legend.

It is said that the Gangalahari is connected to this love story. For marrying a Muslim, Jagannatha was declared an outcaste when he went to Benares. Even the Ganga receded and did not receive him. He composed the Gangalahari to appease Ganga. With each shloka, the water rose one step on the ghat to receive him. I have read dozens of Hindi introductions to the Gangalahari. It is interesting how the story changes. In some versions, Jagannatha wants to be received by the Ganga so that he can be cleansed of his sins of marrying a Muslim. This is the more recent and more communal version. But there is an older version that held sway for a long time.

In this version, the Brahmins have declared him an outcaste. But after he recites the Gangalahari, Ganga rises and receives both him and his lover in its embrace, putting a seal of approval on their union. The sin was not his love, it was making him an outcaste. What speaks to the majesty of “pinaki mahagyani”, as Kumar Gandharva called Lord Shiva, or the purifying power of Ganga more? Moving on to build an inclusive, prosperous India? Or being intoxicated by a majoritarian fantasy of revenge? Looks like we are opting for the latter, and no Ganga will rise to redeem us of this sin.

This column first appeared in the print edition on April 13, 2021 under the title ‘Ganga and Gyanvapi’. The writer is contributing editor, 

Source: Indian Express, 13/04/21