A new edifice for reservations

The massive mobilisation(assembling,संघटन) of Patels in Gujarat in their agitation for their inclusion in the caste-based reservations scheme as Other Backward Classes (OBC) raises vital questions on affirmative action. For decades, political parties, the media and society at large have avoided serious debate on the promotion of equal opportunity in an iniquitous(sinful,wicked,अन्यायपूर्ण), caste-ridden society practising discrimination(unfair treatment,भेदभाव) by birth for centuries.

All societies face serious challenges on account of discrimination and institutionalised inequality. The United States has its African-Americans and Indian Americans, Europe has its Gypsies, Australia has its Aborigines, and China has its non-Han minorities. But nowhere in the world are inequality by birth and moral neutrality to such discrimination so institutionalised as in Indian society. Centuries of artificial division of society into hundreds of castes, the denial of education for all but a few “upper” castes, an unbreakable linkage between caste and occupation, institutionalised untouchability and absurd(illogical,बेतुके) notions(opinion,मत) of “impurity”, the long-entrenched tradition of endogamous marriages within a sub-caste, and serious prejudice against mixed marriages are all that have made the Indian caste system the most heinous(wicked,जघन्य), oppressive(suppress,दमन) and intractable form of discrimination and inequality by birth.

Styming opportunity

Even a cursory understanding of our society exposes the link between caste and poverty, and the denial of opportunity based entirely on circumstances of birth. The future of a vast majority of children born in our society can be reasonably predicted at the time of birth merely by assessing the family’s economic status, parental education and caste. The child’s innate(natural,सहज) ability, ambition and hard work, in most cases, are irrelevant to her future. Not only is this an unjust, oppressive monstrosity in this day and age, but also a large majority of the nation’s gene pool is also wasted by this denial of opportunity, and the nation’s state of poverty and backwardness are perpetuated. Given these circumstances, caste will have to be an important factor in determining eligibility for affirmative action policies. However, the unimaginative way in which reservations have been implemented has led to several, undesirable consequences(result,परिणाम).

Most of the benefits of reservations have gone only to a few, better educated, well-off elites(specific,विशिष्ट वर्ग) among the communities eligible for reservations. When you see the background of youngsters recruited to the civil services, or those admitted to medical schools, the Indian Institutes of Technology, the Indian Institutes of Management, national law schools or other courses that give real opportunities of vertical mobility, we see a pattern emerging. Though reservation is applicable to the poor and the rich, or the illiterate and the educated in caste groups equally, in reality, most benefits accrue(receive,प्राप्त होना) to the children of those who already have the advantages of education, career and wealth. In most selections to/in premier institutions in higher education or recruitment to high-end jobs, it is the children of Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service officers and other senior officials, the progeny of Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLA), Members of Parliament (MP) and the other political elite, and the offspring of successful professionals and businessmen who dominate the scene in communities eligible for reservations.

Polarisation and politics

This skewed benefit has paradoxical(self contradictory,विरोधाभास) consequences. The poor, disadvantaged Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) and OBCs are mostly on the fringes(outer boundary,बाहरी सीमा) and continue to remain mired(get stuck,फॅसा होना) in poverty and backwardness, as they cannot compete with children from more advantaged backgrounds in their own communities. Therefore, there is enormous(big,विशाल) pain, suffering and angst often resulting in despair and which triggers(active,सक्रिय) violence. Most of the poor in disadvantaged sections are sullen(illnatured,बदमिज़ाज़) and angry as their lot does not seem to improve irrespective of ability and hard work. At the same time, the communities excluded from reservations harbour animosity(feeling of ill will,दुश्मनी की भावना) and prejudice against the castes included in the reservation category. There are also several poor and semi-literate families among castes not categorised as SCs or OBCs. When a child in such a family is overtaken by an obviously wealthy child enjoying caste reservation, the resentment(bitterness,नाराजगी) created has a snowballing(increase rapidly,तेज़ी से बढ़ना) effect. This caste polarisation is accentuated(emphasis,जोर देना) by the political mobilisation of caste groups for voting. Given this complex process, short-sighted politicians and caste-based leaders can easily provoke primordial(early days,आदिम काल) loyalties and arouse animosities based on caste. We have seen many instances of caste mobilisation for and against reservations. In recent years, the Jat-Gujjar-Meena agitations in Rajasthan are too well known to bear repetition. Now, the agitation of Patels, the largely successful and entrepreneurial community in Gujarat, one of India’s most vibrant States, only illustrates the need for rationalising reservations.

It is clear that at present most of the benefits of reservations flow to a few well-educated families in the upper strata. Real poor families among SCs, STs and OBCs are largely on the margins. The poor among Other Categories (OC) are resentful and frustrated, and tend to blame reservations for all their problems. The current form of reservations and zero-sum approach have deepened caste divisions without helping the truly poor, deserving children to advance in life. Most Indians — from castes included in reservation or excluded — feel betrayed. We need an urgent, earnest, honest, national debate, and a creative sensible, pragmatic response. Opportunities for all disadvantaged children, equity, fairness and common sense should be the guiding principles in evolving a more rational model of reservations.

Case for dis-reservation

First, while caste will continue to be the mainstay of reservation policies, the benefits should flow to the vast majority of underprivileged children from deprived castes; not to a few privileged children with a caste tag. Families of public officials of a certain rank — IAS, IPS, other Central and State civil services, present or former MLAs, MPs, other senior politicians — certain high income professionals like physicians, chartered accountants, managers above a certain rank in the private sector, and businessmen and others above a certain income should be dis-reserved. In other words, once they have received a significant advantage of reservations, they should be able to ensure opportunities for their children and vacate the space for the truly disadvantaged children in their own caste groups. The argument that financial or professional success does not end discrimination, and therefore they should forever enjoy reservations is fallacious(fraudulent,दोषयुक्त) and self-serving. The logic of reservations is that educational and employment opportunities will reduce discrimination in a modern economy. The state has only the power to give these opportunities. If education, job and income do not mitigate(lessen,कम) discrimination, then the rationale for reservation collapses. If reservations do help in upward mobility, then what more can we expect in life other than an IAS, IPS officer, MLA, MP or a cardiac surgeon? It is easy to identify families which have substantially benefited from reservation by virtue of position, rank, profession, education, children’s school and income. Once these families are dis-reserved, the truly poor and disadvantaged sections among reserved communities will get a helping hand in both higher education and jobs.

Affirmative steps

Second, we have to address the anger and aspirations of poor families among unreserved communities. Jats, Patels and other obviously successful communities who are poor are easily angered by what they see as an unjust system. With the Supreme Court ruling of 50 per cent ceiling on reservation quotas, no further reservation is possible. But intelligent, creative, fair and practical ways of giving the poorer children among OCs a helping hand are possible and necessary. For instance, parental education and the school the child attended are two sure indicators of poverty and the backwardness of a family. If parents have not had education beyond school, and if the child goes to a government school or a low-end, ramshackle(damaged,जर्जर) private school, it is a sure sign of a lack of adequate(enough,पर्याप्त) opportunity. Such a child, however bright, cannot compete with the privileged son of a high official or wealthy doctor going to an expensive private school. And yet, our so-called “merit” system treats a 90 per cent score of the privileged child as better than the 80 per cent score of a poor girl in a rural school. If reasonable weightage is given in marks to such underprivileged children in the category of OC — an addition of marks decided by a group of experts — it will give added opportunity to poor OCs without raising reservation quotas. At the same time, true merit is not compromised and there is always an aspirational level they have to meet. Third, no child with ability and desire should ever be denied opportunities for higher education on account of poverty or birth. Scholarships, free tuition, soft loans and other mechanisms must be strengthened, so that a bright child can reach for the stars irrespective of his or her family’s social or economic status.

Once these three steps are in place, most of the distortions in the reservation policy will vanish(disappear,लुप्त). There will be far greater harmony and little incentive to polarise society or provoke primordial loyalties. Most of all, the really disadvantaged will have a genuine opportunity to rise to their potential. Unfulfilled potential is the greatest sin in our society. Once we eliminate much of this scourge, we can reduce reservations by one or two per cent each year. Within a generation, discrimination by birth will be a thing of the past, and reservations will not be necessary. Simultaneously, the state can encourage market mechanisms for equal opportunity in the private sector.

These efforts should be coupled with a vigorous(energetic,सशक्त) national effort to improve school education outcomes. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act is mostly a failure in enabling a real opportunity for all children. Guaranteed outcomes in schools and access to real quality school education to every child irrespective of birth and poverty are at the heart of a society promoting equity, opportunity and egalitarianism(equality,समानतावाद). It is time we address the challenge of reservations honestly, openly, fairly and innovatively. We cannot bury our heads in the sand forever like an ostrich.

Read more »

Media trial most foul

The ‘nation’ (euphemism for a television channel that demands answers from participants in its newsrooms) dedicated itself to Indrani Mukerjea and the Sheena Bora murder virtually the whole of last week.

The saga(story,कहानी) with its twists and turns provided fodder(food,चारा) to the media in general and television news channels in particular like nothing else in the recent past. There was breaking news every half hour, breathless newsroom debates on what might have prompted the famous wife of media baron Peter Mukerjea to allegedly kill her own daughter (with help from her ex-husband and her driver) and dispose of the body in a forest area near Mumbai. And worse, lead a seemingly normal life for three years.

The crime, as some put it, was no doubt the ‘mother of murders’, and it deserved the huge media attention because it involved a celebrity and there were many Hitchcock-ian plots and sub-plots, beginning with the disclosure that the murdered young woman was Indrani’s daughter, not sister as the world had been made to believe.

The media trial, the aim of which was ‘justice’ for Sheena, began in all earnest in television studios — only an irresponsible, terrible woman could pass off her children as siblings, they said; she gave them in adoption to her parents; their school certificates listed their grandparents as guardians; papers were waved at viewers, school teachers revealed that the grandparents had accompanied the children to school and that Indrani had not visited her children for years, as she went around changing husbands and climbing the social ladder… the details emerged in a breathless torrent(flood,बहुतायत). A well-known journalist came on air to claim that Indrani had told him that she had been molested by her stepfather. Other sections of the media asked if her so-called children could perhaps be her siblings too.

In the heat and dust raised by the issue, it just did not matter that under the law one cannot disclose the identity of a victim of sexual crime. Sensationalism knew no limits, with some reports claiming Indrani ran away with a man when she was just 15. No consideration for the fact that she was a juvenile(immature,किशोर) when the incident allegedly happened. No consideration either for Sheena’s right to privacy when speculation was rife(fill,भरा) on who her father was. Everything, it seems, is fair in love, war and breaking news.

If indeed Indrani and her accomplices committed the crimes, they deserve exemplary(strict,कठोर) punishment. But is sitting in judgment of a woman for her personal choices in private life warranted? Here, it must be said to the credit of at least one TV news channel that the anchor presented a ‘contrarian’ view when she said that the murder and the other aspects of Indrani’s life need to be separated.

Was Indrani an irresponsible mother who distanced her children and went in search of the ‘good’ life as is alleged? If yes, abandoning(leave,छोड़ना) them or putting them in an orphanage would have been so much easier than going through the elaborate process of giving them up in adoption to her parents and ensuring their safety and education.

Adoption allowed

In fact, the practice of couples with daughters adopting a grandson to pass on the family wealth and to have their last rites performed by him is not unheard of in India. Besides, it is not difficult to believe that a young mother with an uncertain future would give her children her parents’ name, for both economic and social security. Strangely, Siddhartha Das, the alleged father of her children, has not been pilloried(criticize,आलोचना) as much as Indrani. Where was he when Sheena and Mikhail were growing up? The man, who seems to have waited for the media to discover him while his daughter’s gruesome(ghastly,horrific,वीभत्स) murder virtually set the nation on fire, has alleged that Indrani can do “anything for money”. All the more reason, one would think, that he should have ensured they were safe and not left to her or her parents’ care. The arrangement put in place by Indrani seems to have suited him all these years.

Did Peter Mukerjea know that Sheena was Indrani’s daughter as reported? If anyone should be outraged(anger,गुस्सा) with Indrani for not revealing this, it is Peter and Rahul Mukerjea, who has said he was in a relationship with Sheena. Honestly, it is none of anybody else’s business. Willingly or otherwise, Indrani’s parents, Sheena and Mikhail were okay with the arrangement for over 20 years. Sheena is supposed to have disclosed her relationship with Indrani to Peter (he claims he did not believe her) only because of her mother’s objections to her affair with Rahul. She did not do so for 10 years after Indrani’s marriage with Peter. (One wonders, though, why Indrani should have lied to her husband when people close to her family in Guwahati seemingly knew that Sheena and Mikhail were her children.)

If Indrani indeed hated her children and wanted to leave them behind in her race towards a good life, why did she bring Sheena to Mumbai? Keeping her in distant Guwahati would have been safer. From media reports, it is clear that Sheena shared a fairly good relationship with Peter and her stepsister Vidhie (Indrani’s daughter from her second marriage). She and her brother Mikhail were very much a part of their mother’s good life. Even their grandparents reportedly benefited from Indrani’s newfound prosperity. She is said to have spent crores of rupees on renovating their house and setting up a business for her father.

The root cause of the whole issue is supposed to be Indrani’s unchecked ambition — that she wanted too much too soon, that she was dying to become famous and influential. But being ambitious in a competitive world is certainly not a crime. And the fact that Indrani was married several times or wanted to taste social success cannot be held against her.

It is for the criminal justice system to punish the people involved in the murder of Sheena Bora. But a no-holds-barred parallel trial by the media is not only unfair journalism but borders on vigilantism(watchful,सतर्कता). No one can dismiss the media’s stellar(major,मुख्य) role in ensuring that justice was done in cases such as the Jessica Lal murder, but that does not give it the right to cross the line of propriety in this one.

Read more »

Small-town girl, Doon school boy

There are facts; and then there are urban myths some of which through sheer(absolute,नीरा) repetition over a long period of time attain the status of facts. And they become so deeply ingrained(deep rooted,अन्तर्निहित) in our psyche(soul,मन) that we simply assume them to be true. One such myth is playing out right now in sections of the Indian media, especially on television channels, in relation to the Indrani Mukerjea-Sheena Bora case. As much as there is shock and horror over the incident, there appears to be even more shock that such a thing could have happened in “high society”.

Commentators appear to be struggling to comprehend how “normal” people like themselves — educated, successful, urbane and rational — could be capable of doing something so horrid(bad,offensive,भयंकर). The debate is marked by a tone of incredulity(disbelief,अविश्वास). Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)’s Shaina NC, appearing on a talk show, likened the descent of such a class of society into criminality to kalyug. Note the emphasis on adjectives — “respectable”; “society’s upper crust”; and “glamorous” — that have been used to describe the Mukerjea-Bora clan, and it is not hard to see where these commentators are coming from.

The sting lies in the unspoken subtext. For, what they are really saying is that such conduct would have been perfectly understandable if the dramatis personae had been from “lower society” (they are like that after all) but “these guys” are expected to behave differently. There is a hint of cultural racism, and it flows from our deep-seated elitist assumptions about how classes behave or should behave.

In this imagined understanding of class behaviour, the well-heeled and the clever — the supposedly “respectable” faces of society — are credited with sanity, civility, and rational thought while the “great unwashed” are seen as unruly, irrational, dysfunctional and primitive. They are the “plebs(one of The common people,जनसाधारण)”, you see, and often they know not what they are doing. “But how come people from our own circle — our golf partners, club mates, cocktail circuit buddies — have stooped to their level?” is the question that has pundits struggling to get their head around.

There have been attempts even to highlight the differences in class backgrounds of Indrani and her husband Peter Mukerjea, with the former described as a “small town girl” and the latter as “this Doon School educated guy”, suggesting that this makes his actions more surprising than hers.

TV channels have sought to defend their wall-to-wall coverage of the case on the ground that the intent is to expose the “criminality” creeping(slowly moving,धीरे धीरे बढ़ता हुआ) into even the upper class of society implying, that it wouldn’t have been such a big deal if this had happened in a poor ghetto(slums,बस्ती) as down there they are used to this sort of things.

The fact is that the notion(opinion,धारणा) of upper class “respectability”, as against the “licentiousness” of the hoi polloi(common people,जनसाधारण) is an urban myth akin(similar,के समान) to the idea of racial superiority. Outside the realm(land,area,क्षेत्र) of pop sociology and half-baked theories there is no empirical(experiential,अनुभवजन्य) evidence to show that particular classes — posh or otherwise — behave in a particular way. There is no such thing as a “typical” behaviour of either the upper classes or those at the other end of social and economic hierarchy(classified,वर्गीकरण). The belief in “herd” mentality, whereby certain behaviour patterns are assigned to people depending on how the dominant class sees them, is an artificial construct designed to distinguish “us” from “them”.

It is true that different social groups, especially those linked by religious or cultural affinity, share a range of specific characteristics in terms of their lifestyle — the way they live, the clothes they wear and the food they eat. And consumer research has found links between consumption habits and socio-economic background of customers.

But, there’s no definitive data which shows that criminal behaviour is inherent in any specific strata. Mark Twain, speaking about crime in America, said there was “no distinctly American criminal class, except Congress”; and [minus Congress] that’s true of other societies as well.

Poverty, indeed, is regarded as a factor in crime (Aristotle described poverty as “the parent of revolution and crime”) but it is not the same thing as identifying the entire class of poor people as potentially criminal-minded.

Or, conversely, declaring that the rich are immune to it. Individuals, not classes, commit crime. And they do it for a variety of reasons — greed, jealousy, sexual deviance, anger, frustration, psychological factors — which have nothing to do with their place in society’s food chain; or whether they are affluent(rich,अमीर) or poor. There are two myths at play in the way the whole Mukerjea-Bora saga(story,कथा) is being debated. The first is that “respectability” — itself a dubious(doubtful,संदिग्ध) Victorian conceit(self love,घमंड) — is the exclusive preserve of the rich metropolitan elite(specific,विशिष्ट वर्ग); and second, that once you achieve “respectable” status, you automatically develop an immunity to any wrongdoing.

Such fiction persists, or rather, has been allowed to persist, despite increasing evidence to the contrary. Many deviants being unmasked around the world — among them paedophiles , fraudsters, rapists, marital cheats and even murderers — belong to the class of the rich and the famous. Who can be presumed to be more “respectable” than priests, teachers and doctors? And, yet, Europe and the U.S. have been swamped with scandals, involving such grandees.

In India too, there is no dearth(shortage,कमी) of high-society figures who have ended up in jail for criminal offences; and their tribe is growing. Some of Delhi’s most high-profile crimes in recent years have involved some so-called respectable people. Remember the Jessica Lal murder? Or the killing of Nitish Katara? And Arushi?

Yet, every time such an incident happens, the media (and not just the media) feigns(false,झूठा) surprise: how could this have happened? The simple answer is: because criminality doesn’t recognise class barriers; and the idea that there’s such a thing as a ‘class-specific crime gene’ against which the upper classes have been inoculated is simply racist. As H.G. Wells wrote, “All crime in the end is the crime of the community.”

Read more »

Charting a new Asian history

All history is geographically located and influenced. Similarly, all geography is shaped, defined and redefined by history. This is evident not only from world history but also from the history of Asia — the glory of old Asia, its decline in colonial times, and its more recent rise again.

The dialectic between history and geography manifests itself through the interplay of three factors — geopolitical, geo-economic and geo-cultural/civilisational. In the case of Asia, for nearly three centuries, the geopolitical and geo-economic realities were negatively impacted by Europe and the West in general. However, that is largely a thing of the past. Asia has begun to write its own destiny now. The 20th century was marked by Asia’s liberation from colonial rule and imperialist subjugation(oppression,दमन). The history of the 21st century will chiefly be the story of Asia’s rise, a process that is already underway in some parts of the continent. The other underdeveloped parts of Asia, especially in South Asia and South-East Asia, are craving(intense desire,उत्कट इच्छा) to become a part of this story.

Geography as ally(friend,मित्र) of history
Until now, the political boundaries carved out on the geography of South Asia and South-East Asia had become barriers for the countries in this vast region to overcome socio-economic underdevelopment caused by history. Now, thanks to advances in trade, transport and technology, the geography of this region can be made an ally to create a new history of shared prosperity, progress and peace, in addition to a revitalisation of age-old, cultural-spiritual-civilisational ties.

This is what has been envisaged(imagine,सोचा), on a broader expanse of Asia-Europe-Africa connectivity, by the super-ambitious ‘Silk Road Economic Belt’ and the ‘21st Century Maritime Silk Road’ plans that have been unveiled(revealed,अनावृत) by China’s President Xi Jinping. India also has been evolving its own regional cooperation initiatives such as ‘Mausam’ and the ‘Spice ‘Route’ in the Indian Ocean region and beyond, although these are nowhere as comprehensively projected, nor backed with requisite(necessary,आवश्यक) investments yet, as China is doing in the case of its ‘One Belt One Road’ vision. [The ‘Mausam’ project envisages the re-establishment of India’s ancient maritime routes with its traditional trade partners along the Indian Ocean. It was launched in June 2014. The ‘Spice Route of India’ visualises the India-centered link-up of historic sea routes in Asia, Europe and Africa.]

Be it China’s strategy or India’s, neither can fully or smoothly become a reality in South Asia without a strong partnership between the world’s two most populous and civilisationally rich nations.The key to the success of this strategy is the early implementation of the Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) corridor, which envisages a network of modern road, railway, port and communication and trade connectivities in a region stretching from Kolkata to Kunming in southern China. Even though BCIM is one of the richest regions in the world — in terms of natural and human resources and home to nearly 500 million people — it is also one of the least integrated areas, economically as well as socially.

Before history changed its map in the last century, the people of this region not only shared a geography without rigid(strict,सख्त) borders, but also close racial, linguistic, cultural and spiritual interconnections. Sadly, while the neighbouring Association of South East Asian Nations community has become a zone of prosperity, the BCIM region (barring southern China) is mostly underdeveloped, India’s seven north-eastern States providing a stark example.

The potential of BCIM
India will benefit from BCIM, which was conceptualised(have an idea,विचारना) 16 years ago, in many self-evident ways. For instance, Agartala is 1,650 kilometres from Kolkata when one travels through the ‘Chicken’s Neck’, the narrow strip of land north of West Bengal, which is only 23 km wide. In contrast, the distance gets reduced to just 350 km if the journey passes through Bangladesh. Similarly, India’s north-eastern States have no access to the sea, even though Tripura’s southernmost border town, Sabroom, is only 72 km from Chittagong, an international port in Bangladesh. At least one major reason behind Kolkata’s economic decline after India’s independence is its unnatural isolation from its natural eastern neighbourhood. Apart from denting the development of West Bengal and India’s north-east, this has hurt Bangladesh too. Landlocked from three sides, and with only sea access to the rest of the world, this potential economic powerhouse (its population of 160 million is greater than that of Germany and France combined) is facing severe constraints in its overall development.

BCIM also benefits India and Bangladesh in other ways. With natural gas reserves of about 200 trillion cubic feet, the largest in the Asia-Pacific, Bangladesh could become one of the major energy exporting countries. Yet, today it imports 500 MW of electricity from India and is planning to import an equal amount from Myanmar. Tourism too will get a boost. Bangladesh attracts less than one million foreign tourists in a year. For India’s north-eastern States, the figure is less than 2,00,000. Contrast this to the fact that Vietnam attracts 8 million, Cambodia 5 million, and Thailand 26 million foreign tourists annually.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi should prioritise BCIM because it can not only be a game-changer for this region in Asia, but is also pivotal(crucial,निर्णायक) for his ‘Act East’ Policy.

Cooperation possible, essential

In the last week of August, I participated in a conference in Beijing on BCIM and its interconnection with “One Belt One Road”, organised by the Institute of World Economics and Politics (IWEP). Besides arguing for BCIM’s expeditious(efficient,प्रभावी) implementation, I emphatically said that the logic of India-China regional cooperation needs to be extended westwards through India by connecting BCIM with the ambitious China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC). During Mr. Xi’s visit to Islamabad in April 2015, China pledged(promise,वादा) to invest $46 billion on CPEC — roughly one-fifth of Pakistan’s annual GDP. CPEC’s main infrastructural corridor, running over 3,000 km, will connect Kashgar in China’s Xinjiang province to the Gwadar port in Pakistan’s Balochistan province. India should welcome this initiative. CPEC will no doubt boost Pakistan’s progress and prosperity. It will also help Pakistan tackle many social and other internal problems, including the menace(threat,खतरा) of religious extremism and terrorism. It is in India’s vital interest to see a stable, prosperous, progressive, united and democratic Pakistan, which is at peace with itself and also at peace with all its neighbours.

However, CPEC in its present form, unlike BCIM, does not comprehensively capture the benefits of regional cooperation. It needs to be extended into landlocked Afghanistan, which is in urgent need of national reconstruction after several decades of war. It should also be extended into India through Kashmir and Punjab, the two provinces which are today divided between India and Pakistan. Its linkage with the Indian side of Kashmir is especially important. At present, many in India have objected to CPEC passing through a part of Pakistan Occupied Kashmir (PoK), on the ground that it is disputed territory. We should know that India is in no position to stop CPEC. A better strategy would be to turn this reality into an advantage by proposing the construction of a sub-corridor bringing CPEC into the Indian side of Kashmir and beyond. This will help make the disputed India-Pakistan border in Kashmir largely irrelevant, a solution that India under Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had been actively pursuing with Pakistan. Simultaneously, extending CPEC into India through Punjab and Sindh will make the remaining stretches of the India-Pakistan border porous with modern transport and trade connectivities. In addition, sea transport linking Pakistan, the western coast of India, Sri Lanka, the eastern coast of India, Bangladesh and Myanmar should be strengthened.

Enhancing security

Interconnecting CPEC, with its extensions into Afghanistan and India, and BCIM is not really a novel idea. It is simply a 21st century version of the 16th century road, built by Shershah Suri, the Afghan emperor, connecting what later became the capitals of four countries — Bangladesh, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. As a new component of this regional cooperation architecture, the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline, which is already a part of CPEC, should be extended into India. New Delhi has until now remained cool to this flagship proposal by Tehran, partly due to perceived security issues and partly on account of American pressure. However, with the likely thaw(melting,soften,पिघलना) in relations between Iran and the United States after the Iran nuclear deal, and with China playing the driver’s role in CPEC (and hence in a position to exert pressure on Islamabad), the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline can indeed become a reality. Thus, the CPEC-BCIM interconnection has the potential to immensely(vastly,बहुत अधिक) bolster(support,सहारा देना) India’s energy security both on the western and eastern flanks.

Indian critics of BCIM and CPEC state that China cannot be trusted, and cite(mentioned,उल्लेख) the divergent positions of the two countries on Arunachal Pradesh and PoK. I firmly believe that India’s concerns can be better addressed by constructively engaging, rather than by trying to confront, China. Mutually beneficial regional cooperation builds trust, and trust in turn helps nations resolve their disputes amicably(friendly,मैत्रीपूर्ण ढंग से). Moreover, when two big nations such as India and China cooperate in a regional cooperation framework, it generates confidence among other countries in the neighbourhood. They become crucial stakeholders in making India and China stable and irreversible(permanent,स्थायी). It may also be noted here that China’s stakes in cooperating with India have become higher because of its slowing economy.

Recent months have produced three encouraging signs of an India-China convergence on the issue of regional cooperation. In the joint statement issued after Mr. Modi’s visit to China in May this year, “the two sides welcomed the progress made in promoting cooperation under the framework of the BCIM”. Second, Beijing has expressed its willingness to work with India to explore the synergy between its own “21st Century Maritime Silk Road” plans and India’s “Mausam” project with a view to addressing New Delhi’s strategic concerns and gaining “common benefits”. Third, India has become an important founding member of the Beijing-promoted Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, which can fund BCIM, CPEC and other projects. Hence, the emerging regional cooperation agenda in South Asia, if pursued with sincerity, promises to become a win-win game promoting development and security for all.

Read more »

The problem with Modi’s ‘Team India’

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Independence Day address this year, though delivered in Hindi, was peppered(fill,भरा) with English words. Three kinds of English words.

The first kind was as follows — those that were already a part of spoken Hindi, though not quite the norm in formal speech; words such as ‘busy’, ‘injection’, ‘side-effect’, ‘request’, ‘fashion’, etc.

Then there were those that belong to a specific semantic cluster(group,समुह) — the world of the market, business, management. To this category belong terms such as ‘work culture’, ‘financial inclusion’, ‘productivity’, ‘good governance’, ‘transparency’, ‘parameter’, ‘dimension’, ‘pyramid, ‘brand ambassador’, etc.

Closely allied to the linguistic milieu(environment,वातावरण) of the second is the third set of English usages: ‘Start-up India, Stand-up India’; ‘per drop, more crop’; and ‘Team India’.

In fact, ‘Team India’ occurred no less than 32 times in his speech of 85 minutes — more than any other catch phrase in either English or Hindi.

What is interesting is that, notwithstanding his Hindu-nativist, cultural nationalist pretensions, Mr. Modi settled on an English term to communicate his vision of the Indian nation as a team.

Why didn’t he use a Hindi equivalent for ‘Team India’? Is it because ‘Bharat Dal’ does not have the same ring as ‘Team India’? What’s more likely, it could be because the Hindi equivalents do not pack the same conceptual or ideological content that the English ‘team’ does.

Dynamics of a team

But what exactly is a team? What are the implications of imagining the nation as a team, as Mr. Modi did in his speech?

The dictionary defines a ‘team’ as “a set of people constituting one side in a competitive game”, or “a set of people working in combination.”

Three aspects stand out as integral to a team: competitiveness, being together, and work. Management textbooks typically add two more: a formal structure, and a purpose.

A team, then, is a group of people who work together in a structured way for a purpose that involves doing better than other teams. Armed with this understanding, we can try to answer the questions. Can a nation be a team? If yes, what then is the purpose of ‘Team India’?

In his speech, while introducing the concept of ‘Team India’, Mr. Modi made two points: one, that the country is “moving ahead” only because of ‘Team India’; two, that ‘Team India’ comprises our entire population of 125 crore people.

The two statements are patently untrue and mutually contradictory. Not every Indian is equally involved in Mr. Modi’s project of “moving the country ahead”. And the real ‘Team India’ that is piloting(guidance,मार्गदर्शन) the nation’s development does not see eye to eye on many issues with vast sections of the 125 crore people that, as per Mr. Modi’s claim, comprise ‘Team India’.

To take an obvious example, Mr. Modi in his speech announced his intent to cure the “poison of casteism” with the “nectar of development”. But we are yet to hear the Prime Minister suggest that one Mr. Hardik Patel, agitating in Gujarat for reservations for his caste, should drop his demands in exchange for the ‘nectar of development’. After all, Mr. Patel and lakhs of his followers would be intimately familiar with the charms of this nectar, having tasted it in its purest form in the famed ‘Gujarat model’.

Given the extant fault lines of caste, ethnicity, language, region and religion that criss-cross the nation, Mr. Modi’s ‘Team India’ is clearly a project rather than a reality. Yet, even as a project, it is deeply problematic.

For instance, in the light of the recent events in Gujarat, are Patels and Dalits batting for the same team? Are indebted farmers contemplating suicide and billionaire investors seeking farmland part of the same team? Are Adivasis and mining companies equal members of ‘Team India’?

Furthermore, all teams are hierarchical(classified,वर्गीकृत), with a captain who calls the shots. In Mr. Modi’s re-imagining of the nation as a team, it is obvious who the captain is.

The logic of ‘Team India’

To understand the underlying logic of the Team India project, one must go back to the core ideas of a ‘team’: competition and purpose. Teams in the real world are typically time-bound — they come together for a task or activity, and disband once the task/activity is finished.

As the cementing(strengthen,मजबूत) element of a national identity, however, the team becomes an all-encompassing, permanent condition. Mr. Modi’s repeated invocation of ‘Team India’ communicates a vision of nationhood as a ‘team’ of 125 crore Indians that is in fierce(violent,उग्र) competition for global supremacy with other nations. The task facing this team is nation-building (defined as strengthening the nation-state, not to be confused with the welfare of the poor). It is a task that can never end. Or end only at the level of the individual — with death.

Such a vision of ‘Team India’ demands a complete merger of the nation with the state, in which the citizen, instead of being a rights-bearing political entity with claims on the state, dwindles(become small,कम होजाना) into a kind of glorified employee who, like any model employee of the 21st century, would put the interests of the team above self-interest (or any other interest). Here, the team’s interest, lest there be any doubt, means national interest.

The flip side of this idea of citizens as members of a national team is that any democratic dissent(disagree,असहमत) — or criticism of the captain — signifies ‘bad team player’. A bad team player sabotages(destroy,तोड़फोड़) the team’s interests, i.e., national interest. This follows naturally from the absolute subordination of citizenship — which entails rights vested in the individual — to the interests of the state. In other words, civil and democratic rights, such as privacy and freedom of expression, hold no importance from the perspective of the team.

If a media organisation was to report on human rights abuses perpetrated by the state, it could be viewed as harming the national interest. Ditto for non-governmental organisations (NGO). Not surprisingly, the Modi government has been far more draconian(strict,कठोर) in its crackdown on rights-based NGOs compared to its predecessor.

From ‘Team India’ to ‘Team Modi’

The term ‘Team India’ first gained currency as a moniker(nickname,उपनाम) for India’s national cricket team. Among Indian cricket fans, it was a mode of identification that evoked intense patriotic, and frequently jingoistic, passions. But ‘Team India’ in this case referred to a specific team of 11 skilled Indians who had come together to represent the country in a global competition. It did not comprise the entire population of India; 125 crore Indians might cheer for ‘Team India’, the cricket team. They might wear the team jersey, or paint their faces in the team colours. But they could not themselves participate in Team India’s World Cup campaign. They had no say in the team composition, or choice of captain, or match strategy, nor could they themselves go out and play — for they were not members of ‘Team India’ in reality. They were merely its cheerleaders, and had no illusions about it.

On the other hand, the nation recast as ‘Team India’ reproduces the same structure of patriotic identification but with an added bonus — the delusion of equal participation. Mr. Modi is the captain leading ‘Team India’. The actual ‘team’ here is the Indian state and those with access to, if not control over, its various levers.

All that the 125 crore ‘members’ of this so-called ‘Team India’ can do is cheer the captain and/or obey his instructions. When Mr. Modi asks 125 crore Indians to unite for the cause of ‘Team India’, he is effectively addressing them as their captain, instructing them to contribute their bit to make ‘Team India’ win — by offering it their lands, surrendering their rights, giving up their subsidies, all for the greater glory of ‘Team India’. It is essentially a top-down, anti-democratic project.

Finally, the very nature of team-centric discourse is such that the captain, sooner or later, becomes a metonym(A word that denotes one thing but refers to a related thing) for the team. It remains to be seen whether this invocation of nationhood as a team catches on in public discourse. If it does, and the term ‘Team India’ as used by Mr. Modi achieves popular currency, it would be natural for it become interchangeable with Team Modi.

Read more »