Even in a mature democracy like the United Sates, this level of narcissism, misogyny, and megalomania are not uncommon. Donald Trump, with a similar set of traits, will seek the highest office in the United States for the third time this November. However, unlike Trump, Modi’s vice-like grip on most democratic institutions make his messianic assertions a monumental challenge for India.

Narcissism

Three of India’s most populous states voted decisively against Modi this year in a stunning rebuke to his narcissistic leadership.

In Uttar Pradesh, by far India’s most populous state — with a whopping 80 seats out of the Lok Sabha’s 543 — Modi thought that he could launch ambitious reform schemes without paying attention to their effects on real people. His Agnipath scheme eliminated opportunities for young citizens to spend their career in the armed forces, replacing them instead with a four-year tour of duty after which a soldier would retire without a pension. Certainly, reform is much needed, given the rapidly changing nature of warfare. But Modi rammed the scheme through while ignoring the dismal job prospects young graduates would face due to his whimsical economic policies.

In Maharashtra, Modi assumed that he could redirect investments to Gujarat instead of letting the state administration attract investors, boost economic activity and create well-paying jobs. Marathas demanded reservations for their community and farmers suffered under adverse climactic conditions. These events should have served as warning signs to Modi about his failing policies. Yet in his make-believe world, there is no acknowledgment of failure, let alone ownership.

Modi’s treatment of West Bengal was perhaps the most egregious example of his narcissism. By meddling in the state’s affairs through the centrally appointed governor and selectively unleashing investigative agencies on opposition politicians, he thought he could subvert the mandate Bengalis gave to their immensely popular Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee. When that yielded limited success, he thought he could get away with blocking funds due to the Bengalis from the central government.

Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) fared dismally in all three states this year. Modi might have thought that he could rule the entire country like the state of Gujarat (his backyard) with no accountability, but voters in these states sent him a timely reminder about owning up to his failures.

As if the setback at the ballot box were not enough, even Mohan Bhagwat, the head of BJP’s ideological fountainhead Rashtriya Swayamsewak Sangh (RSS), subtly asked Modi to tone down his arrogance.

Misogyny

Despite these setbacks, Modi survives as prime minister. While the BJP lost its majority in parliament, the National Democratic Alliance coalition of which it is a part still controls the Lok Sabha. Perhaps they were able to survive this well because of the lack of an aspirational vision from the opposition.

On the other hand, Modi’s claims of building some mythical new India notwithstanding, the mixed message from this election indicates that his tenure, with some successes and some failures, is similar to almost all the previous administrations, especially in one important way: misogyny. Modi’s enablers, funders and blind followers, especially in the developed world, must now reckon with Modi’s attitude toward women.

India can take pride in having had women elected as Prime Minister and Presidents, but we remain a heavily patriarchal society. 

Since Modi was a foot soldier of the RSS — an organization that considered the patriarchal law code Manusmruti one of the guiding documents for Indian society — before entering politics, his treatment of women should not surprise anyone. He lied about abandoning his ex-wife for decades, acknowledging her existence only at the time of filing an election-related affidavit. He failed to address his own home ministry playing an active role in releasing the Hindu convicts sentenced for murdering the family of and then raping a pregnant Muslim woman. He used foul, tasteless language against Mamata Banerjee. He shielded BJP leaders accused of sexual assaults against women.

Sadly one can find these traits in politicians around the world, including opposition parties within India. It does not make Modi exceptional. However, his recent assertion, conveniently made after his mother’s passing, that he believes he is not biologically born to her, was truly exceptional and should worry even his most ardent supporters. The standard-bearer of a country making such bizarre and anti-women statements should concern those who live in more equal societies, root for women’s empowerment in India, and still unabashedly support Modi, especially when he is not the only person in the BJP to lead the country.

Megalomania

Lastly, it is high time the Indian mainstream media reflect on the way they have been feeding Modi’s megalomania.

Megalomania is more than just narcissism. As a narcissist, Modi thought that he was bigger than his own supporters. As a megalomaniac, he seems to think that he is bigger than India’s democratic institutions themselves.

Barring Indira Gandhi, who employed slogans like “Indira is India” and went on to declare a state of emergency, Indian Prime Ministers before Modi had the gravitas and humility to appreciate their role as democratically elected leaders. However, after ten years in power, Modi started believing that he was sent, to use his own words, by the Parmaatma — the divine, universal Self of Hindu philosophy — to serve those who have faith in him. With Pakistan next door, we don’t have to go too far to witness how invocation of god in discharging your duties towards a republic can destroy a system of representative democracy.

Modi sidelined the other institutions of the state and focused all attention on himself. One would think the Indian press, being the fourth pillar of democracy, would have demanded press conferences and posed tough questions to a democratically elected leader. Instead, most of the mainstream TV media caved and made a beeline for the scripted crumbs thrown at them by the self-appointed vishwaguru, or the master of the universe.

Since the central government’s advertising is the main source of revenue for most of the Indian media outlets, they have done the government’s bidding for decades. However, after the 1991 reforms and the subsequent entry of the private sector in broadcast media, India did see a steady growth in news channels holding their leaders accountable. Even a cursory look at the TV news coverage in the decade preceding Modi’s first national victory in 2014 would drive that point home. Yet it seems that most of these outlets abdicated their primary duty after 2014.

This was left to a handful of online outlets and civic-minded YouTube influencers — battling frivolous lawsuits, BJP’s online troll armies, attacks from friends and family and, in some cases, even jail time and death threats — to show the mirror to Modi. People in India and abroad who cared about Indian democracy kept hammering home the real issues facing India. As this author had pointed out as early as mid-2020, it was obvious to anyone following Modi’s use of public morality and religious tropes to defend inane economic policies that India was well on its way to losing its demographic dividend.

Luckily, Indian voters realized sooner than the media honchos sitting in comfortable offices on the government’s dime that one cannot eat religion for dinner. Modi’s megalomania might make him believe that he is serving God, but the voters need jobs for two square meals. They need due process and constitutionally mandated fundamental rights for a dignified life. And they need leaders accountable to them — not metaphysical entities — to achieve those goals.

Visionaries like Babasaheb Ambedkar, who led the drafting of India’s constitution, enshrined universal adult franchise to guard against the narcissism, misogyny and megalomania of leaders like Modi. Still, the 2024 elections are only a minor course correction. India remains more likely to squander the potential demographic dividend by getting older before it gets richer. And it is anybody’s guess whether Indian media will learn their lessons. Nonetheless, thankfully for India and sadly for Modi, his god does not vote.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Sadly for Modi, His God Does Not Vote appeared first on Fair Observer.

The famous opening line, juxtaposing the macabre realities of life with the sense of wonder that comes with appreciating human ingenuity, draws readers into a wild journey of exploration. Not just of human existence and their place in it, but also the fertile nature of the human mind that can conjure up imaginary worlds to convey profound insights. And then, there is ChatGPT. No matter which line one prompts the machine with, it spits out a few paragraphs mimicking the human mind.

Magical Realism and AI

Gabo makes us marvel at the human ability to understand our origins, internalize our journey through civilizations, observe the mundane, day-to-day life, and convey a deeper sense of meaning and belonging that fills our hearts with contentment when we turn the last page. Ironically, ChatGPT uses similar means to achieve fairly pedestrian ends. The Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) – built on something called a large language model – takes in everything ever written in a particular language, calculates the probability of any word following a given word, and strings together human-sounding sentences. Gabo playfully mocks the cyclical nature of human endeavors in the hope of liberating our souls. ChatGPT exploits the cyclical math of words to keep us trapped in a linguistic status quo.

America Approves of Big Tech’s Creative Destruction

The irony does not end there. By hand holding us into his small, rustic, and isolated community of Macondo, Gabo takes us back to our childhoods, making us wonder how magical it would feel if gypsies from a faraway land brought along thingamajigs like magnets, magnifying glasses, and telescopes that we have never been exposed to. In the book, it inspires the patriarch Aureliano and his son Arcadio to embark on a lifelong quest to master alchemy. On the other hand, ChatGPT, while robbing us of the alchemy of cogently expressing our thoughts, resembles another one of those shiny new objects we have gotten used to in the age of social media. The viral tide of amusement will wash away faster than we think, leaving a void for another AI algorithm to fill.

And finally, there is fatalism, writ large in Gabo’s real and imaginary worlds. In his make-believe world spanning a hundred years, the author pokes fun at the folly of conservative and liberal idealism in politics. The repeating names of the characters and their personalities spanning generations of the Buendia clan capture the somewhat limited nature of human imagination. Even in real life, a cruel twist of fate, or fatalism, made Gabo befriend Hugo Chavez. One of the most discerning minds of our generation finding virtues in a run-of-the-mill populist who later turned into a dictator. In a way, Gabo’s life and body of work challenge us to reconcile fatalism with Mark Twain’s famous quote that the radical invents the views, but when he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them.

Where will ChatGPT take us?

ChatGPT evokes fatalism of a completely different kind. At one level, it is just another, and utterly predictable, step in the long march of technological progress. The geek in me asks: If an assembly line can automate and obviate physical labor, what is wrong in ChatGPT automating the mental labor of stringing together words? Who are we, if not elitists, to benefit from the efficiencies assembly lines bring and lament the banality of the language ChatGPT spits out without even a moment’s worth of ‘thought’?

The Unbearable Shallowness of “Deep AI”

On another level, as the euphoria subsides and people at large start searching for the next supposedly game-changing invention, ChatGPT will certainly creep into our daily lives. It will make some jobs redundant and be a godsend for those who dread the thought of writing a story. Even those who struggle with a writer’s block or small businesses with no marketing budgets will benefit from it. At the same time, it will supercharge the deadly social media driven propaganda machines, which we have accepted as a part of life, with little accountability.

While the world is still in thrall of the capabilities of the latest version of ChatGPT, the perils of using such AI for automating writing are already staring at us. A recent report in the Washington Post summarizes how AI created a journalistic disaster for a media outlet, forcing it to issue countless corrections. Soon enough, pitfalls of such advances will sow socio-political divisions, prompting ethicists and politicians to call for meaningful regulations. As this author has argued before, AI engineers will have to grapple with issues of technology for its own sake vs. the democratic systems that enable free inquiry, challenging authority, and maximizing human capital.

Whatever the future holds, it will certainly chip away at our sense of what it means to be human. The fatalist in me even wants to believe that one hundred years of ChatGPTude will produce a masterpiece like Gabo’s. The radical and romantic in me is screaming inside, begging me not to bet on it!

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post One Hundred Years of ChatGPTude appeared first on Fair Observer.

The US was and remains an imperfect union

One can begin with the fact that, as one of the shortest constitutions in the world, the American founding document is extremely conservative. So much so, that voting rights were restricted to white, land-owning men at the dawn of the republic. Distrust of the occupying British government ran so deep that constitutional articles were framed in terms of public and personal affairs the federal government is allowed to get involved in.

On the other hand, as the longest constitutions in the world, with universal adult franchise embedded from the get-go, the Indian founding document is arguably one of the most liberal in the world. The belief that the government is a force for socio-economic good underlies the framing of the Indian constitution. The Indian federal government was entrusted with bringing about socio-economic change in an impoverished country weakened by centuries of colonization. Keeping in mind that the founding fathers of these countries had different visions for their respective countries’ governing structures, let us scrutinize some of the issues animating Rao’s argument: American electoral representation system that includes two senators per state and the Electoral College, legislative and judicial quirks like the filibuster and the number of judges in the Supreme Court, and Islam in India.

Will American Democracy Perish Like Rome’s?

READ MORE

Rao would have the readers believe that two senators per state, regardless of population, is sacrosanct because it’s a centuries-old constitutional safeguard. It is well known that the original choice itself was a compromise between two schools of thought: The Virginia Plan, advocating proportional representation, and the New Jersey Plan, proposing one senator per state. The so-called Connecticut Compromise adopted by the constitutional convention was not driven by philosophical or ideological purity, but the spirit of democratic compromise. After 125 years of letting state legislatures elect federal senators, Americans realized their folly. Some senate seats were going vacant for years due to perennial state-level political gridlocks while others had become ‘millionaire’s clubs,’ out of the reach of and out of touch with the people they were intended to represent. The 17^th amendment, supported by both conservatives and liberals, corrected it in 1913 and made senators accountable to all the voters of the state.

While it corrected some of the distortions, others have crept in. Rapid industrialization of farming and mushrooming of high-tech industries near the coasts have led to mass migration, resulting in more than half of the population living in just nine of the 50 states, thereby allowing less than half of Americans to control 82% of the senate. On the other hand, regions like Puerto Rico and Washington, DC, with tax-paying populations rivaling those of states like the Dakotas or Alaska, do not have federal legislative representation. Despite years of campaigning for statehood, conservatives have blocked their efforts because they are reliably liberal votaries. While I am philosophically supportive of the constitutional safeguard, the distortions beg the question: Are senators supposed to represent landmass? Or citizens? Rao seems to paint anyone asking such thorny questions as simply wrong.

The case of the Electoral College, which the author describes as ‘consciously established some 200 years ago,’ is even more egregious. When it was enshrined in the constitution, slaves were concentrated more in the Southern cotton and tobacco growing states with no voting rights. And yet, the infamous ‘three-fifths compromise’ counted each slave as 3/5^th of a person when deciding proportional representation in the House of Representatives and presidential elections, skewing the political power disproportionately in favor of Southern slave-owners.

Furthermore, since federal congressional districting is somewhat counter-intuitively governed by the states and the Supreme Court has refused to interfere in the process, gerrymandering has rendered an overwhelming majority of House of Representatives seats out-of-bounds of opposition parties. Assuming that Rao is not opposed to abolishing slavery and the Civil Rights Act granting African Americans voting rights, the argument that the Electoral College is somehow above the fray is bizarre. Two American states have recently changed the way they assign their presidential electoral votes from winner-takes-all to be in line with the percentage of votes each presidential candidate received in their states. And several states are experimenting with ranked choice voting systems to improve electoral outcomes. It has been evolving since its inception, as it should be in democracies.

Similar nuances regarding the filibuster and the composition of the Supreme Court are well documented. Without even getting into the details of the filibuster, the author himself mentions that the Electoral College is 200 years old and the filibuster is a mere 100, acknowledging that it is not enshrined in the constitution. If the democratic spirit of give-and-take led to the adoption of the filibuster – and at least 161 instances between 1969 and 2014 of bypassing it – dismissing arguments for its reform as wrong seems petulant.

As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the constitution established it with six justices and gave the Congress the power to determine its composition, putting it in the realm of bare-knuckle politics. Its composition has been changed six times and it has seen ten justices under Abraham Lincoln’s presidency. As this author has argued recently, if conservatives can employ realpolitik and constitutional immorality to tilt the court conservative, calling liberals insufferably wrong for advocating similar tactics to tilt it in their favor seems hypocritical.

In addition to providing fodder for academic debates, these quirks have had serious real-world consequences. Several American conservatives, most notably David Frum, have argued of late that it has destabilized the American system and brought it on the brink of a debt default. It was not the passion of the majority, as the founding fathers had feared, but that of the minority, whipped up by the lies of Donald Trump, that led to the insurrection of January 6^th. Assuming that Rao is a supporter of Narendra Modi’s climate change policies, the intransigence and climate change denialism of American conservatives that has had disastrous effects on the whole world should be dead wrong in his books.

India is imperfect too

Turning to India, one does not have to be a minority-baiter or appeaser to call out growing majoritarianism in India. A pan-national Islamic identity has had a long history and still enjoys support in some Muslim quarters. But the effects of religious orthodoxy and inward-looking conservatism among some sections of Muslims are evident globally. Barring a few exceptions, Muslim-majority countries have not contributed to scientific thought or technological breakthroughs in the post-industrial-revolution era. Middle Eastern countries that were at the forefront of science, arts and culture in Islam’s heydays are now in the headlines primarily for their repressive rulers, lack of human development and freedom of expression.

That should not stop a discerning mind like Rao’s from calling out the razing of Muslim rioters’ houses without due process after some riots and not meting out the same punishment to Hindu rioters after other riots as majoritarianism. Or invoking sedition and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) laws against Muslim dissenters and hatemongers to lock them up without bail while booking Hindu hatemongers under the most lenient penal provisions and letting them off on bail as religious discrimination. The same applies to the premature release and felicitation of 11 Hindu convicts of the gruesome gangrape of Bilkis Bano while the 31 convicts of the Godhra train burning are serving their life sentences. Again, as this author has in the past, it should be easy to call out Islamic terrorism in Kashmir, support peaceful resettlement of Kashmiri Pandit refugees, and criticize Modi’s government for tirelessly counting Covid-19 cases resulting from the Tablighi Jamaat event while not showing the same diligence and urgency after the exponential rise in cases in the aftermath of the Kumbh Mela and Modi’s crowded political rallies for the West Bengal elections.

Assuming that leftists are all wrong might be a simple, elegant, and utterly lucid argument. Coming from Rao, it does disservice to the culture of public debate, reasonable fact-based dialogue, and political give-and-take, which are essential to any democratic system.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post When The Right Goes Wrong appeared first on Fair Observer.

Even amid the prevailing polarization, American foreign policy is largely driven by bipartisan consensus. Living in the United States, it is easy to buy into American exceptionalism and its do-gooder approach globally. The popular story is that Pearl Harbor dragged a reluctant America into World War II, but democracy prevailed over fascism. Yet few Americans realize that we propped up dictators around the world during the Cold War, even as we rescued humanity from communism. 

An Indian perspective, though, can offer more nuance, especially regarding America’s recent conflicts.

The Afghanistan, Iraq and Ukraine Wars

The Afghanistan War was the closest to being a just war. The US used Afghani jihadists to defeat the USSR and then abandoned them in the 1990s. The 9/11 attackers were primarily Saudi but trained by al-Qaeda. Afghanistan’s offer to turn in Osama Bin Laden would not have dismantled its terrorist infrastructure, which posed a direct threat to America. The US went in to bring democracy to a country seemingly stuck in the 19^th century. The Taliban’s dogged resistance, Pakistan’s double-dealing and a lack of yearning for democracy among Afghans precipitated in a chaotic American retreat. Two decades and billions of dollars later, the direct threat to America is diminished, but the Taliban is ruling Afghanistan again.

The Taliban-Occupied Afghanistan Threatens Global Security

READ MORE

Based on a deceitful premise, the Iraq War was an exercise in American hegemony. The weapons of mass destruction were never found and more than twice as many US soldiers died in Iraq as in Afghanistan during this period. Ironically, the war led to some sort of democracy in Iraq. It is still early to judge whether this democracy or even Iraq is viable. However, in the heart of the Middle East, this invasion has been more successful than all the subsequent Arab Spring uprisings. It certainly led to the rise of ISIS but it also created a democratic foothold in the Middle East. The relative success of Iraqi democracy could be attributed to Americans finding local partners willing to build institutions perhaps because Iraq was a more developed and educated country than Afghanistan. If Iraqi democracy succeeds, it would be George W. Bush’s enduring legacy.

The Ukraine War is a safer conflict for America. Instead of overthrowing a dictatorship, it is helping preserve democracy. NATO’s eastward expansion might have threatened Russia, but invading a democratic European country posed a threat to the West. US President Joe Biden has been clear-eyed about not wanting any American boots on the ground against a nuclear Russia. So, in the name of realpolitik, he is arming Ukrainians with advanced weaponry to decimate Russia. In the Cold War, America befriended China to fight the USSR. Today, neutralizing Russia through Ukraine at minimal cost would allow the US to focus on China. Even the worst-case scenario of Ukraine losing eastern territory in exchange for NATO’s expansion to the Russian border and Ukraine entering the EU will be a victory for the United States.

This American record indicates several possibilities vis-à-vis Taiwan. America has been one of the most benevolent imperialists in recent history. However, it evokes mixed feelings in India. Even if we discount Cold-War-era mutual suspicion, the United States selectively ignored Pakistan-sponsored terrorism against India as long as Islamabad was supporting Washington, albeit half-heartedly, in post-9/11 Afghanistan. When the United States negotiated the withdrawal from Afghanistan with the Taliban, India was not invited despite its significant rebuilding efforts. The ongoing India-China border standoff, more than two years old, has evoked little pushback from Washington, DC. The West was a mute spectator to China’s Hong Kong takeover. Would the US come to Taiwan’s rescue if attacked by China? If it does, would India’s interests be factored in?

Han and Hindu Nationalism Come Face to Face

READ MORE

India cannot decouple from the United States because there is no alternative to American military might. However, India has been left to fend for itself in the past by American foreign policy. Leaving Pelosi’s pro-democracy rhetoric aside, two major factors are driving American saber-rattling: Taiwan’s advanced semiconductor industry and Taiwan Strait trade. With its $280 billion initiative to bring chip manufacturing back home, America could secure one of its national security priorities in the next decade. By then, if Xi Jinping is replaced by someone less autocratic, willing to negotiate Taiwan Strait trade in America’s favor, the West might not wage a full-fledged war with a nuclear China to save Taiwanese democracy.

Repercussions of Taiwan going the Hong Kong way could be severe for India. While advanced economies like Australia and Japan have more leverage in navigating an emboldened China, India’s still developing economy will make it more vulnerable. After the recent border standoff, India flirted with economic sanctions, but going by the latest trade numbers, India cannot compete with China economically. On the other hand, India has done well to withstand Chinese military pressure. If China unifies with Taiwan, India could be next on China’s list to make it accept China as the dominant Asian power.

Until now, by carving out waivers for India in global sanctions, the United States has softened its blows to India. More recently, continued post-Cold-War strengthening of Indo-US military ties saw, for the first time, an American naval ship repaired in India and an Indian naval ship docked in San Diego. However, reunification with Taiwan could expand China’s influence and limit America’s ability to help India. While Bush Jr.’s unjustified war might eventually reestablish democracy in the Middle East, Pelosi’s justified Taiwan visit could prove more dangerous to democracies in the Indo-Pacific. No wonder befriending America while sharing a border with China is a complicated beast!

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post An Indian Perspective on Nancy Pelosi’s Taiwan Visit appeared first on Fair Observer.

For all his follies, Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, understood the importance of building democratic institutions and, with a few exceptions, worked tirelessly to nurture them. The 1975-1977 emergency under Indira Gandhi was the first open assault on the system. It was a tragedy. Now, under the leadership of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Indian democracy is in danger of devolving into a farce.

A Modi-fied India Has Weakened on the World Stage

READ MORE

By suspending the constitution, along with fundamental rights, incarcerating political opponents and censoring the media, Mrs. Gandhi canceled all local elections and ruled by decree. While Indira Gandhi’s authoritarianism was largely secular, her son Sanjay Gandhi’s forced sterilization drive of Muslims in the name of population control shocked the national conscience. In less than two years, a strong opposition coalesced around an agenda to save the constitution and regain fundamental rights.

The Judiciary

What prompted Indira Gandhi to call for fresh elections in 1977 remains a mystery. However, she paid the political price through her drubbing at the hands of a united opposition. In due time, the judiciary took corrective measures by apologizing for its failures during the dark era. In contrast, recent utterances and actions by India’s judiciary, the opposition and the ruling party are truly baffling.

Consider a recent speech by N.V. Ramana, the chief justice of India, lamenting the demise of investigative journalism in the country. The judiciary is expected to be above the political fray, but it is hard to believe that it is oblivious to ground realities. It strains credulity that the chief justice is not aware of the prevailing toxic media environment aided by anonymous fundraising, questionable changes in the Right to Information (RTI) Act and the indiscriminate use of legislation like the sedition law and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against journalists. Barring exceptional circumstances where suo moto action is warranted, the judiciary can act only through cases presented to it.

However, several cases related to anonymous electoral bonds, RTI changes and sedition/UAPA claims are pending in the Supreme Court. Given the track record of the past three chief justices, such a statement would have been a case of chutzpah. Since Chief Justice Ramana’s heart seems to be in the right place and he has been more active than his predecessors in some cases related to fundamental rights, perhaps we can call it ironic.

The Opposition

Then there is the specter of a rudderless opposition. We can discuss the Indian National Congress when it finds a full-time president. Out of the other two parties vying for national attention, Mamata Banerjee of the Trinamool Congress brings back memories of Congress-era socialism that Modi had promised to move India away from. Assorted schemes for social justice and women’s empowerment have helped her guard her home turf against Modi’s juggernaut, but West Bengal is not exactly a shining example of industrial dynamism.

Banerjee could be a socially liberal counterweight to Modi’s rabid Hindutva-laced pseudo-nationalism, but her instincts are every bit as authoritarian. Rather than offering a new kind of politics, her currency is her willingness to go head-to-head with the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) scorched earth tactics and street brawls. While some of this bare-knuckle politics can be a necessary evil, her track record in tolerating dissent, promoting freedom of expression and encouraging entrepreneurship does not inspire confidence.

The Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) is a strange creature. While it has built a decent track record of administering New Delhi for seven years, it does not have a guiding philosophy by design. In addition to focusing on education and healthcare in the capital, the AAP has also done reasonably well in managing its balance sheet with good trade and tax policies. However, its central plank of offering freebies, although popular among some sections, harken back to India’s Nehruvian past.

Socially, by not taking a strong stand vis-à-vis the 2019-20 Shaheen Bagh protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) and embarking on a temple run, the AAP seems to be gunning for a Hindutva-lite posture. An anti-corruption crusade and developing policies through consensus on the go might work in assorted state elections, but the lack of a socio-economic vision will hurt the AAP in general elections where voters are suckers for stories. Unless it comes up with its version of India’s legacy, national destiny and its place in the world that includes coherent defense and foreign policies, it will not be a serious competitor to the BJP nationally.

The Central Government

The lion’s share of the credit for turning India’s growth story into a farce goes to Modi, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and their obsession with Hindutva. Just like every previous administration, Modi has a few successful initiatives to boast of. His infrastructure building spree has forced erstwhile social justice politicians to focus on this long-neglected need. Government schemes for building toilets, offering cooking gas and safe drinking water have borne some fruits. The startup economy saw a record number of unicorns in 2021, although most of them are helping India formalize unorganized sectors and catch up with the developed world.

In the process, Modi is learning what the erstwhile Nehruvian politicians realized a few decades ago, namely that it’s easy to distribute someone else’s money until it runs out. In spite of “Make in India” and the rebranded “Atmanirbhar Bharat” campaigns, the share of manufacturing in India’s GDP has gone down from 16% to 13% under Modi’s leadership and employment in the sector has halved. Exodus from manufacturing toward inefficient agriculture has increased poverty among Indians. The service sector might see an uptick after the COVID-19 pandemic subsides, but with the pace of automation and Modi’s hodgepodge of trade barriers, even an unlikely rebound in manufacturing will not lead to robust economic recovery.

The effects are visible in the government’s borrowings and the historic unemployment crisis. The once-in-a-century pandemic is not Modi’s fault and the debt-to-GDP ratio going from around 70% to 90% is understandable. The prime minister was dealt a bad pandemic hand and chose surgical fiscal interventions instead of putting cash in people’s hands, which would have further exacerbated inflation.

However, had the pre-COVID Indian economy not been in the doldrums because of Modi’s bad stewardship, interest rates on the borrowing would not have shot up by 30-60 basis points before the 2022 budget, pushed up further by 20+ points as soon as another massive borrowing program was announced in the budget. With the US Federal Reserve staring at a series of interest rate hikes in 2022, borrowing might get even dearer for India.

The resulting policy muddle and unemployment crisis are so stark, that even Arvind Subramanian, Modi’s former chief economic adviser, and Varun Gandhi, a parliamentarian from his own party, are finally speaking up. They are openly discussing India missing the boat of attracting manufacturers fleeing authoritarian China and seeing the demographic dividend — one of the few advantages India has over China that it cannot quickly fix — turn into a demographic disaster. While the rich will find ways to evade taxes and the poor don’t pay any, it is the middle class — enamored by the Hindutva ideology — that will shoulder the soaring debt.

BJP-Ruled State Governments

The story gets more farcical in BJP-ruled states. To placate unemployed youth, Haryana has passed a draconian job reservation law that reinstitutes Congress-era license raj and bureaucracy. In Uttar Pradesh, the BJP’s infrastructure poster-boy Yogi Adityanath has his own brand of lawlessness, exhibit A being the unconstitutionality in dealing with anti-CAA protestors.

Allahabad’s high court has already struck down critical provisions of Uttar Pradesh’s new “love jihad” law. That has not stopped Karnataka from wasting the state legislature’s time in debating an even more draconian and unconstitutional anti-religious conversion bill. Industry honchos drawing up plans to attract global talent to Bangalore seem unaware that in a worldwide competition for the best brains and entrepreneurs, few are interested in living in a country that cannot guarantee the rule of law, an efficient judiciary and personal freedoms.

India might have edged out China in venture investments in 2021 due to Beijing’s crackdown on startups and Delhi still lagging behind in formalizing its economy. However, the celebration will be short-lived if India keeps marching in China’s direction in terms of the state’s heavy-handedness and assault on personal liberties. It is becoming increasingly clear that Modi, the so-called nationalist, purchased a cyber weapon — the Pegasus spyware — from a foreign country and used it against his innocent fellow citizens without any warrant or probable cause. Meanwhile, BJP-ruled states are busy competing amongst themselves in further undermining rule of law and due process.

Looking Ahead or Back?

As India kicks off the celebrations for the 75^th anniversary of independence, Modi is lucky that his predecessors built robust space, missile and nuclear programs, respectable academic institutions that are churning out professionals leading the budding startup scene, a generic medicine and vaccine sector that saved India money in the pandemic, a professional military not infested by religious fundamentalism as well as defense production companies ripe for public-private partnerships. In a hostile neighborhood made even more so by Modi’s hubris, one shudders to think what he would have done without all these national assets.

And yet, with no money left to redistribute and no quick fixes to the unemployment crisis, Modi has now embarked on mixing Hindutva with education. As if the Covaxin approval without phase 3 clinical trial data and Ramdev Baba’s Coronil controversy were not enough, a parliamentary panel has proposed teaching the Vedas in public schools. IIM Ahmedabad has started offering a Bhagavad Gita-based management course. IIT Kharagpur has courses in Vaastu and ancient Indian knowledge systems in the pipeline.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from Fair Observer. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

While the American private sector looks for ways to augment the government’s R&D funding juggernaut for secular scientific discoveries and knowledge creation, Modi is busy looking backward and further decimating India’s social capital. Despite the fanfare surrounding the new National Education Policy, funding for education has gone down from 4.4% to 3.4% of GDP and R&D funding is stagnant at 0.6%-0.7% of GDP.

Fifty years after the emergency, India is still paying the economic price for Indira Gandhi’s misplaced jingoism and disastrous nationalization of huge swaths of industry. Narendra Modi’s authoritarian rule has India already staring at a demographic disaster for another generation, with potentially longer-lasting consequences. Gods and goddesses bless India.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Modi’s India Is Becoming a Farce appeared first on Fair Observer.

Despite warnings from ex-associates and journalists regarding his sociopathic behavior, he decries the media and political opponents as unpatriotic. Policy wonks and veterans in his party are sidelined to create a personality cult unmoored from any ideology. Social media is used daily for dog-whistle rhetoric to promote the cultural supremacy of his ilk.

Donald Trump Proves That It’s the System, Stupid

READ MORE

By blaming all the socio-economic ills on outsiders, previous administrations and “others,” he builds a narrative of victimhood. His devoted followers start living in an alternate universe. Once in power, he uses his bully’s pulpit to undermine all democratic institutions.

Riding Out the Storm

You would be forgiven for thinking that this was about Donald Trump. But this is the story of India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi. The similarities end there, however. While the United States managed to pull back from the brink after the Capitol Hill insurrection of January 6, Indian democracy is in a dangerous downward spiral.

To understand these divergent trajectories of the oldest and the largest democracies in the world, it is instructive to examine the key differences between Trump’s and Modi’s personalities, the maturity of democratic institutions in the United States and India, and the histories of these two republics.

In the US, Trump’s effort to subvert democratic institutions has been well documented, with commentators still writing about how close the country had come to a constitutional crisis in his final days in office. Trump tried his best to manipulate all the American institutions, but there was rarely any method to his madness. Unlike Modi, he was more interested in vanity than power.

On a given day, he could draw lines on a map for petty reasons and undermine the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association or brazenly call the officials in Georgia and ask them to “find” enough votes in Trump’s favor to reverse the election result in the state. As much as Trump and his partner-in-crime, Attorney General William Barr, tried, they could not corrode the integrity of the system beyond a certain point.

Despite Trump’s vilification, the media stayed strong and kept hammering home the truth. While Trump tried to use the judiciary to run down the clock on several grave constitutional issues, scores of judges, including several appointed by the president, stood up to him when it mattered the most. The legislature impeached but failed to convict him twice. However, when push came to shove, it certified the votes and declared Joe Biden as the legitimate winner of the 2020 election.

Barring a few minor missteps, the FBI withstood a concerted pressure campaign from Trump and his allies. The Federal Reserve, the Federal Election Commission, the intelligence agencies, vast bureaucracies and diplomats around the world kept their heads down and rode out the storm. With more than two centuries of experience, most American institutions have learned the importance of guarding their turf.

Taming the Bureaucracy

In India, on the other hand, while running his home state of Gujarat before becoming prime minister, Modi had perfected the art of taming the bureaucracy to his will, manipulating or marginalizing the media and polarizing the electorate for his narrow purposes. While he did deliver on a few key infrastructure promises, he also carefully crafted a larger-than-life persona around himself. As soon as he became prime minister, he stopped interacting with the media.

Well before facing reelection in 2019, he enacted an anonymous political funding system and used it to build a formidable social media propaganda machine to fabricate an alternate universe for his voters. Behind the scenes, he methodically started dismantling the democratic checks and balances. While Trump’s Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell might not have been intent on destroying American institutions, Modi proved to be more like McConnell than Trump — someone playing the long power game.

While previous governments of opposing parties were often guilty of undermining democracy, the brazenness and the cold, calculating manner in which Modi has approached it are astonishing. By using obscure parliamentary maneuvers, the prime minister has repeatedly sidelined or manipulated the Rajya Sabha, the upper house of Parliament, to pass laws that have long-term and far-reaching social consequences.

In addition to passing questionable constitutional amendments to enact his anonymous political funding scheme, the Right to Information Act (the equivalent of the American Freedom of Information Act) was amended so that those ensuring public access to non-classified government records lost their independence. As a consequence, it became increasingly difficult to shed light on the government’s opaque decision-making.

The enormous war chest built through anonymous political donations, the government’s sizable advertising budget and the threat of central investigative agencies were used to browbeat most of the media outlets into submission. A top Election Commission official who took a stand against Modi’s incendiary rhetoric in the run-up to his reelection was reassigned to the Asian Development Bank, headquartered in the Philippines.

The Reserve Bank of India, in charge of the country’s monetary policy, has been repeatedly coerced into taking unsound policy decisions and covering up for the government’s fiscal and economic policy failures. Policymaking powers of at least two states, Jammu and Kashmir and Delhi, have been curtailed through potentially unconstitutional means, disturbing India’s federal structure. The military has been repeatedly co-opted for Modi’s photo-ops to promote phony nationalism. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has been a mute spectator, keeping on hold the hearing of cases related to some of the most pressing constitutional issues.

As the unfolding global Pegasus spyware scandal indicates, Modi has probably compromised the judiciary’s independence as well. By allegedly hacking the phones of everyone from political rivals, constitutional authorities, judges, their staffers to activists, journalists and even his own ministers and friends in the private sector, Modi seems to have established an Orwellian surveillance-coercion state in which it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to challenge the power of his executive branch.

Opposite Paths

Why have India and the US embarked on such opposite paths? One reason is the difference between the two leading men themselves. A devoted foot soldier of right-wing Hindu majoritarian ideology, Modi rose through the political ranks and served more than two terms at the helm of the state of Gujarat before running for the highest office in the land. He had carefully studied all levers of executive and bureaucratic power and, along with his deputy, Amit Shah, had already gained notoriety as one of the country’s most ruthless politicians.

While both ran their campaigns as outsiders, Trump’s understanding of the government machinery was limited. As former National Security Adviser John Bolton recently pointed out, Trump is incapable of staging a coup because he lacks the attention span required for it. With no discernible political acumen, Trump was incapable of looking beyond the next news cycle or his narrow self-interest.

The American system dodging the Trump bullet and the Indian system crumbling under Modi also reflect the wide gulf in their socio-cultural values. By insisting on universal adult suffrage from its inception, the founding fathers of the Republic of India expressed tremendous faith in the citizenry and future leaders despite a severe resource crunch, a moribund economy and near-total absence of infrastructure for health, education or even basic transportation.

While giving every adult the right to vote is hailed as a quintessentially Indian revolution, and rightly so, it has been a double-edged sword. On one hand, it has dismantled the centuries-old feudal social structures and slowly empowered historically oppressed castes. On the other, limited institutional capacity and lack of appreciation for their independence among voters have made the Indian system susceptible to demagoguery in the short run. This will change as India becomes more prosperous and internalizes the benefits of decentralizing power, but that brings into sharp relief Modi’s betrayal of his mandate.

Fledgling Democracy

At 75, India is still a fledgling democracy. It has already gone through one emergency under former Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, when all institutions, state and national elections, and fundamental rights were suspended amid near-total media censorship. While the Supreme Court took corrective action after the emergency, widespread poverty and, until recently, low levels of literacy have hampered rapid institutional capacity building in India. Corruption is endemic to all branches of government, making them easy targets for manipulation.

In its short history as a republic, the socialist economic model adopted by India’s pre-1990 governments has also created a new feudal system in the form of political patronage. With the government tightly controlling the economy, politicians became the new overlords picking winners and losers. As the initial euphoria and idealism following independence faded, criminals came to dominate politics. Corruption became the mainstay of political life.

While these might be birth pangs of any new republic — and might find parallels in the early decades of the existence of the United States — complacency and arrogance of the Indian National Congress (INC), India’s GOP, has fueled the rise of Modi.

A Modi-fied India Has Weakened on the World Stage

READ MORE

In the 1970s and 1980s, a 21-month-long national emergency, followed by legislative action favoring minorities to protect the INC’s own vote banks, had led to resentment among the Hindu majority. Instead of correcting some of these historic wrongs to move the discourse to a liberal center, Modi has swung it to the extreme right. He has not taken any overt steps that resemble the emergency that Indira Gandhi declared in 1975. Instead, he has chosen covert means to slowly and deliberately dismantle the Indian system of governance.

More importantly, while Gandhi’s methods were largely populist, Modi has added toxic majoritarianism to it, making this movement more dangerous, with potentially longer-lasting consequences. For someone who claims that he developed his political consciousness during the emergency, Modi’s assault on the liberal system that enabled his rise from humble beginnings is truly ironic.

A leader who promised to decentralize power and dismantle India’s new feudal system of political patronage now presides over one of the most centralized decision-making structures. When the framers of the Indian Constitution chose universal adult suffrage, they also expected elected leaders to nurture democratic institutions until they can stand on their own feet. Modi’s betrayal of that mandate, more so than Gandhi’s, will affect India for a generation, if not longer.

Dark Phase

Lastly, while the American system was built on an ethos of “don’t tread on me” and a desire to keep government out of people’s lives, historical factors like entrenched feudalism and extreme cultural diversity made India choose a cradle-to-the-grave approach to governance with a strong central executive.  

Americans instinctively question authority and are suspicious of the government, whereas Indians, by and large, have tremendous faith in the government as a source of good and are still coming out of the shadows of colonialism. American society values individual liberty, privacy and agency, while Indians gravitate toward collectivism and fatalism.

Perhaps the most telling indicator of this difference was the fact that Trump’s approval rating never crossed 45% while Modi commands favor among 60% to 70% of Indians despite his mismanagement of the pandemic, a series of foreign policy failures and the economic destruction under his watch.

Indian democracy is going through a dark phase, and all eyes are on the Indian Supreme Court to see if it will push back against Modi’s draconian executive branch. Even if the courts start asserting their independence again, India will pay a steeper price than the US did under Trump before it becomes a healthy democracy again. For the sake of their own democratic future, one can only hope that Indians start questioning their government more, hold it accountable and insist on securing privacy and liberty.

While fast, centralized decision-making might seem seductive in the short run, India will reap long-term benefits if it can turn its latent admiration of developed Western countries into a deeper appreciation for the checks and balances that enable their stability. Against all odds, India has stared down some of the toughest challenges so far. With some more patience, if it can focus on building institutional capacity and spreading awareness about their importance through rapid upgrades in the quality of education, it will live up to its potential of becoming a liberal, democratic counterweight to China.

Meanwhile, supporters of republican values in the United States will do well to learn from the goings on in India and count their blessings, or institutions, that helped the union survive Trump. In early August, as members of the House committee investigating the failed insurrection of January 6 heard gut-wrenching testimonies from Capitol Police, some of their Republican colleagues held press conferences blaming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the tragic events.

As the January 6 commission has reconvened and subpoenaed scores of records from the government and private phone companies, Trump and his congressional supporters are back at it again, claiming executive privilege and threatening private companies with consequences if they cooperate with the commission to prevent it from shedding light on the truth.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from Fair Observer. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

The GOP leadership is keen on winning back both the houses of Congress in 2022 and knows the damage this fact-finding mission will do to electoral prospects. Some pushback or false equivalence is par for the course in this political game. However, the brazenness of the lies and fealty to Donald Trump more than six months after his ignominious While House exit is mind-boggling. Without condoning the messy last days of the US war in Afghanistan, they can take a leaf out of President Biden’s book to square with Americans about the systemic risk Trumpism poses to the system.

As national attention shifts from the Afghanistan war to other domestic and foreign policies, insisting on the truth by supporting the January 6 investigation, even at the cost of losing one election cycle, would be a small price to pay for the conservatives to preserve the republic.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post When Truth No Longer Matters appeared first on Fair Observer.

Although rare, such vocal disagreements are not new in India. However, with its economy in shambles and a spate of downgrades by reputed international agencies on democratic values, human development, press freedom and hunger index, the foreign affairs discord will further diminish its global stature.

India Is Slowly Evolving Into a Market Economy

READ MORE

Over the decades, India has seen several significant changes in the way it looks at the world. It went from the idealistic Non-Aligned Movement in the 1950s to a close relationship with the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Now, India has cozied up to the United States to form the Quad, a strategic partnership to counter China that also includes Japan and Australia. India also flirted with BRICS nations for a brief while to form a coalition of developing countries — Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa — which seems to be dying a quiet death.

All along, India has prided itself in maintaining strategic autonomy. Modi’s megalomania made him believe that he would suddenly catapult India to global power status. Unfortunately, his terms in office have left a muddled mess in its wake.

Strong Start

In today’s world of modern warfare and geopolitics, which includes nuclear-armed neighbors in Pakistan and China, Modi’s early years saw inane chatter about “Akhanda Bharat,” the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) term for undivided India. This idea seeks to regain ancient India’s lost glory by spreading Hinduism’s influence across South Asia. Barring such misplaced euphoria, Modi rode the wave of international goodwill to regularize the border with Bangladesh.

In western Asia, the Middle East was warming up to Indian influence. Progress was made on a deal to develop Iran’s strategic Chabahar port, which would facilitate overland access to Afghanistan. In 2017, Modi became the first Indian prime minister to visit Israel. India has also improved its relationships with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Yet since the 2017 Doklam standoff on the India-China border that Modi’s team handled well, Beijing has succeeded in building more infrastructure in the region than New Delhi. Though it could also be considered a strategic tie. Despite US objections, the decades-old India-Russia defense partnership evolved from New Delhi being a technology buyer to the recipient of technology transfer and, finally, a defense research and development partner — an evolution that has continued under Modi.

India’s perpetual see-saw with Pakistan has continued throughout Modi’s tenure. His initial outreach by inviting then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to his inauguration in 2014 and a surprise stopover in Lahore a year later quickly fizzled out. In 2016, Pakistan-based militants carried out terrorist attacks near the town of Uri in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. In response, India conducted “surgical strikes” across the Line of Control (LoC), which separates the disputed Kashmir region. In 2019, Pakistani militants attacked Indian soldiers in Kashmir. For the first time since 1971, India entered Pakistani airspace to bomb locations that New Delhi claimed to be terrorist training camps.

The situation between India and Pakistan did not change much. Tensions between the two countries persist. But Modi was reelected in 2019 on the promise of this altered equation of India swiftly and boldly following up on terrorist attacks by Pakistan-based militants.

The reality was much more nuanced. Despite Indian claims and Pakistani counterclaims, international observers concluded that the two cross-border raids by India were not particularly effective. By blocking access to bombed sites, Pakistan’s side of the story seemed flimsy. However, Islamabad’s downing of an Indian fighter jet in February 2019 and capturing an Indian pilot, who was returned a few days later, appeared to expose holes in India’s defense preparedness. Nonetheless, Modi managed to isolate Pakistan globally and, in 2018, have it included in the gray list of the Financial Action Task Force, the global agency tracking terror financing.

India’s relations with the West did not improve much. In Europe, other than the Rafale warplanes agreement in 2016, the Modi government was unable to make progress on the stalled trade deal with the EU. To be fair, Brussels was busy rebuilding after the Great Recession and the chaos caused by Brexit. Across the Atlantic, there was optimism in the air. During his final term, US President Barack Obama reluctantly embraced Modi. Later, the bonhomie between Donald Trump and Modi could not prevent a trade war.

However, India-US defense and strategic cooperation strengthened as Modi built on the hard work of his predecessors, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh. The rising threat of China also played its part in developing this relationship. The 2015 agreement between Obama and Modi on nuclear liability issues was followed by a bilateral Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement in 2016 and a Communications Compatibility and Security Agreement in 2018. The Quad seems to be a natural extension of this closer US-India partnership, India’s Act East policy and the Asian pivot of the United States.

What Changed?

After a reasonably strong start, Modi’s India has found itself in a muddle. India’s foreign policy failures closely follow the country’s economic decline since 2017-18 and steadily rising majoritarianism. Trump’s erratic, isolationist policies and India’s widening geopolitical deficit vis-à-vis China played a role, but most of Modi’s wounds are self-inflicted.

For his narrow domestic agenda and to pass the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), Modi selectively fast-tracked citizenship applications of non-Muslims from the neighboring countries of Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan. Because it excluded Muslims, even persecuted ones, from these countries, the CAA was criticized and deemed discriminatory.

In doing so, Modi alienated Bangladesh, which is rapidly modernizing and leaving India behind on most human development and economic indicators. Bangladesh swiftly showed India its place through a diplomatic snub and demonstrated its desire to walk into China’s open arms. Sustained diplomacy over the past year, combined with Modi’s recent trip to Bangladesh and India’s donation of COVID-19 vaccines, repaired some of the damage. While cooling down the CAA rhetoric might help, India’s weakened economy could still push Bangladesh closer to China.

Under the Trump administration, the US held a tough stance against Pakistan over what it called “Islamabad’s failure to take action against militant groups.” Aid from Saudi Arabia also dried up due to strained relations between Riyadh and Islamabad. As a result, Pakistan is beholden to China. The China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), which passes through Gilgit and Baltistan, a disputed region that both India and Pakistan claim sovereignty over, has cemented China’s grip on Pakistan. New Delhi has not approached the recent ceasefire agreement with Islamabad and the resumption of peace talks from a position of strength. Rather, it is a tacit admission by both weakened parties that peace is mutually beneficial.

Relationships with the Arab world and Israel remain strong, but Modi has lost the plot with Iran and is losing some ground with Russia. Beijing recently signed a 25-year strategic deal with Tehran and, with its economic clout, is pulling the Kremlin into its sphere of influence. In the pre-Modi era, as a rising economic power, India managed to carve out exceptions for itself to bypass US sanctions against Iran and Russia. Throughout Modi‘s tenure, China has steadily widened the economic and geopolitical gap with India. New Delhi’s growing weakness vis-a-vis Beijing has resulted in India kowtowing to the US and losing its strategic autonomy.

Britain’s need for trade partners following its departure from the European Union might lead to a favorable India-UK deal. But a free trade agreement between India and the EU has not seen any significant movement under Modi. US President Joe Biden does not seem to be in any rush to end the trade war his predecessor began with India.

For all the buzz surrounding The Quad, India is the junior partner that has little to offer to others in terms of economic benefits. New Delhi will enhance its strategic and military cooperation with other like-minded democracies, but the other Quad countries are unlikely to intervene if there is a full-scale confrontation between India and China. Unless the Indian economy becomes efficient and tightly integrates itself with Quad countries, its usefulness to other partners will be limited to its size and strategic location.

In the Cold War, the US aligned with autocrats and religious fundamentalists, most notably in China and Pakistan, to defeat the Soviet Union. In the new brewing cold war between Washington and Beijing, Quad countries will pay lip service to building democratic institutional capacity in India. However, if push comes to shove, they will partner with an authoritarian India to counter China, which will serve their narrow self-interests.

India-China Relations

Modi’s biggest foreign policy failure is India’s frayed relationship with China. His misplaced overconfidence forced him to reject conventional wisdom and embark on a charm offensive with Chinese President Xi Jinping. Modi ignored the Doklam warning and kept expecting Xi to treat India as an equal, despite the crumbling Indian economy. Meanwhile, China had already started reducing New Delhi’s sphere of influence through its outreach to India’s neighbors and offers of economic and strategic partnerships. In 2019, Modi scrapped Article 370 of the Indian Constitution to downgrade the state of Jammu and Kashmir to a union territory status. His deputy, Amit Shah, made unrealistic claims about taking back the China-controlled Aksai Chin. In response, Xi directly occupied Indian territory in Ladakh for almost a year.

China’s strength and India’s decline are best captured through the different ways the countries approach bonds. China is selling its government bonds internationally at a negative interest rate despite a raging pandemic, ongoing border clashes with India and a 300% debt-to-GDP ratio. Indian bond investors are demanding higher yields even though India’s debt-to-DGP ratio is below 100%.

With a sizable military and tactical superiority, India was unlikely to lose territory to China. However, through emergency weapons purchases during the Ladakh standoff, India paid dearly for Modi and Shah’s hubris and prioritizing domestic politics over national interest.

Weakened on the World Stage

Through his speeches, photo-ops with world leaders and tweets, Modi keeps peddling lies and projecting strength to voters. While India’s financial health has deteriorated significantly, the BJP has raised — through anonymous electoral bonds — millions in political donations that fuel Modi’s formidable propaganda machine.

The world knows that India is run by a narcissist who has built a false domestic narrative of the country’s global standing to keep winning elections. The West will keep hoping that India gets its act together economically and stops destroying independent institutions so that it becomes a democratic counterweight to China. But that is a battle only Indian voters can lead.

As India warms up to the Quad, where does it go from here? As a new cold war brews, lessons from the past are informative. While the US used China and Pakistan to dismantle the Soviet Union, China cleverly used its leverage to strengthen its economy and authoritarian communist rule. Meanwhile, Pakistan indulged its military and majoritarian religious leadership to destroy itself from within.

With his dismantling of democratic institutions and promotion of religious bigotry, Modi has left Indian foreign policy in doldrums. If voters want it to become a vibrant, democratic counterweight to China and a global player that does justice to its potential, India will have to find a leader who understands that issues like a strong economy, independent judiciary and social stability cannot be divorced from its foreign policy but are integral to it.

*[Updated: June 14, 2021]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post A Modi-fied India Has Weakened on the World Stage appeared first on Fair Observer.

The United States does not have the social contract in its DNA. While most other countries limit economic freedoms to prioritize (or at least pay lip service to) maintaining a safety net, providing health care and helping the most vulnerable in society, a large number of Americans believe that it is not the government’s job. Violent and catastrophic events like the Civil War, the Great Depression and the civil rights movement brought about emancipation, social security and Medicare and Medicaid, respectively.

Most Americans, however, believe that running a small system of carefully crafted checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches is the government’s primary responsibility. With minimal regulatory interference, it is the economy that has dictated politics in the US, making it somewhat anomalous among developed countries.

Unfair Advantages

Over the past few decades, this structure has given the United States enormous unfair advantages. In the aftermath of World War II, with the collapse of European colonial powers, intellectual capital moved in droves to calmer American shores. The boomer generation, born between 1946 and 1964, brought enormous wealth and prosperity to the United States, making it a world leader. So much so that the turbulent civil rights and Vietnam War era, as well as the scrapping of the gold standard during Richard Nixon’s presidency, did not dislodge the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

A Perspective on America’s Imperfect Democracy

READ MORE

Despite all the flaws, the complex and sophisticated US financial markets, along with the occasionally susceptible ratings agencies, are considered transparent enough for the world to trust the dollar. That has brought immeasurable benefits to this system, exhibit A being the ability of federal, state and municipal governments, as well as American corporations, to borrow money at throwaway rates. It sustains the productive and efficient American military-industrial and research-industrial complexes. Thanks to this system, even individual Americans, on average, have racked up personal debts of up to $30,000 with no tangible plans to pay it back, a privilege few others around the world enjoy.

This unfair advantage is a game of trust and perception. The US cannot go back to pegging its currency to gold. In the recent past, the world has already gone through a few scares. During the 2008-09 global financial crisis, when the US dollar seemed volatile, investors briefly ran to the Swiss franc. It forced the Swiss government to announce unlimited capital controls to keep its currency from rising and maintain a competitive economy. European regulators followed suit by forcing reluctant Americans to participate in tougher global financial regulations.

While China is still far away from matching developed countries in per-capita GDP, it is slated to overtake the US in the absolute size of its economy in a decade or two. It has already started forcing smaller partners to trade with it in renminbi instead of the US dollar. In the middle of a pandemic, despite a debt-to-GDP ratio of almost 300%, China recently sold its government bonds at a negative interest rate. There is no immediate threat to the dollar’s pole position because there is currently no good alternative: 40% of international trade and more than 60% of the world’s outstanding debt securities are held directly in US dollars. Competitors are waiting in the wings, looking for chinks in the American armor. However, it is the stable American political system that underwrites this economic behemoth.

Assault on the System

Although not shocking, that is why Donald Trump’s assault on the system — including the physical attack incited by the executive branch against the legislative that took place on January 6 at the US Capitol — is ironic. Born in 1946, two years after the declining colonial powers adopted the US dollar as the reserve currency, Trump has embodied, nay, ruthlessly exploited, all these privileges throughout his career. Born with a silver spoon in his mouth, he has bankrupted one business after another, duping investors and customers by always staying one step ahead of others. Trump has always found lenders from around the globe to bankroll his private businesses. When he could not beg, borrow or steal to get reelected, losing on the world’s biggest stage, his narcissism almost brought down the whole system.

The United States is still considered a center-right country because even left-leaning centrists implicitly understand that they are, above all else, serving the economy. And right-leaning centrists have, against their stated principles, indulged in the moral hazard of bailing out failing businesses with trillions of dollars at the expense of individuals. However, with the underlying system showing its weakness, it was high time businesses paid back in kind.

The bans instituted on Trump by Twitter, Facebook and other online platforms seem excessive. With moderators in place, they could have temporarily suspended his account or moderated each of his posts until Biden’s inauguration. Although these private companies are not legally obligated to abide by the First Amendment, which protects freedom of expression from government overreach, their actions (with reasonable restrictions) would have upheld the spirit of free speech. Perhaps they were erring on the side of caution. Parler, a far-right social media network with no mechanisms or desire to enforce legal restrictions on freedom of expression, was disowned by Apple, Google and Amazon overnight. Scores of banks, brands and even the PGA have stopped doing business with Trump. Several corporate houses have halted political donations to him and his enablers.

After intelligence briefings following the attack on Congress, horrified military leaders (not just retired, but even serving members) have issued unusually stark warnings to active-duty personnel against indulging in seditious acts. The House of Representatives has impeached Trump for a historic second time with a bipartisan vote. All eyes are now on the Senate, the self-proclaimed greatest deliberative body in the world. Outgoing Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has announced that the Senate will take up impeachment only after Biden’s inauguration.

Time will tell whether it was McConnell’s bargaining chip to ensure Trump did not cause more harm while still in power or just a delaying tactic to minimize the political costs of convicting Trump. The stakes are high because, if Trump is not convicted and wins again in 2024, no one will have any leverage over him. When coining his winged catchphrase, Carville had assumed that the underlying system was rock solid. In a mere four years, Donald Trump has shown the world it is anything but.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Donald Trump Proves That It’s the System, Stupid appeared first on Fair Observer.

This is one for the history books. The only other time US Congress has been attacked since independence was in 1814, by the British. A student of history and acutely self-aware, McConnell imbibed the gravitas of his office, aware that, perhaps because of his lack of charisma, Senate majority leadership was his calling. After he won his long-coveted prize in 2015, he made it count. In addition to making Bush-era tax cuts permanent and reducing corporate tax cuts, he remade the federal judiciary in his own image. Most famously, through unsavory yet constitutional means, he thwarted President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court and got three nominees sworn in to tighten conservative grip on the highest court of the land.

It’s Time to Put Guardrails in Place in Washington

READ MORE

On the one hand, McConnell cast the deciding vote and spoke eloquently to uphold Americans’ right to burn the national flag under the First Amendment. On the other, he cynically exploited Donald Trump as a useful idiot for four years, willfully ignoring the president’s majoritarian rhetoric and race-baiting. One could grudgingly admit that there was nothing wrong in McConnell supporting Trump’s constitutional right to challenge vote counts and electoral procedures in various states. As a true originalist, he finally stood on the Senate floor on January 6 to declare that “The framers built the Senate to stop short-term passions from boiling over and melting the foundations of our republic.” Little did he know that those same passions were boiling over just outside his chamber and were about to interrupt one of those foundations — the peaceful transfer of power.

As an Indian-American who spent most of his childhood in the 1980s and 1990s India, I grew up seeing political violence around me. While the peaceful transfer of power remains a remarkable and admirable anomaly, election campaigns were often marred by members of opposing parties clashing in the streets. On election days, thugs would occasionally capture voting booths by force to stuff ballot boxes. The state of Punjab, followed by Jammu and Kashmir, witnessed bloody Pakistan-backed insurgencies. Terrorist attacks around the country would often lead to Hindu-Muslim violence. Unruly behavior in state legislatures, often by elected representatives, was not uncommon.

One could countenance these as baby steps of a fledgling republic. An inefficient and corrupt judiciary allows some to break laws with impunity while it pushes the disadvantaged to employ desperate measures for justice. Weak democratic institutions, lack of awareness about their importance due to dismal quality of education, colonial-era sociopolitical wounds — the underlying causes were a dime a dozen in India. With a long tradition of independent institutions, it was assumed that the United States had grown out of its anything-goes Wild West days.

My initial fascination with America was limited to academic opportunities, infrastructure and prosperity the country offered. It didn’t take long to realize the bedrock constitutional principles that enabled it all. Many at the top of the power hierarchy still enjoy impunity, and racism is a long-festering wound, but the rule of law seems well established for those in the middle. On college campuses, in city halls and in state and national legislatures, I could see people passionately debate their rights and duties. Despite the bitter divisions following the contentious 2000 election, I saw the country rally behind George W. Bush after 9/11. The 2008-09 economic collapse brought the nation together again to rebuild with a shared sense of purpose.

That stable system was a source of inspiration. This was a forward-thinking country. By refusing to get bogged down by religious prejudices or historical baggage, Americans believed in writing their own destiny. Or so we thought, until Donald Trump brought it all to the brink of collapse. The scenes inside and outside the Capitol this week made the United States look like a banana republic.

In a country that prides itself on pioneering the separation of church and state, the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court are the only real temples. While President Trump has permanently besmirched the White House — and will most likely damage it even further in his remaining days in office — the Supreme Court has admirably protected its hallowed turf. Congress has repeatedly been found wanting. With his stint as Senate majority leader winding down, McConnell has earned an abominable asterisk: the only time in history when his fellow Americans, people of his own party, desecrated the temple he presided over.

We can only hope that Mitch McConnell realizes the price the republic is paying for his silence, not just domestically, but also on the international stage. Starting a new conservative political party that unequivocally condemns the behavior of President Trump and his supporters should be the first step on McConnell’s path to redemption.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Is There a Path to Redemption for Mitch McConnell? appeared first on Fair Observer.

Although an atheist, I find several teachings of Hinduism instructive and the author’s arguments troubling. While recounting the history of Islamic and Christian subjugation of Hindus, there is little mention of the role the caste system played in the flight of the downtrodden to other religions, which offered dignity and entry into their places of worship. Without condoning proselytizing in Islam and Christianity, it should be acknowledged that this dark chapter is also glossed over in India’s history textbooks.

After Six Years in Office, Modi’s House of Cards Shakes at the Foundations

READ MORE

The selective outrage is further complicated by the recently passed Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in which only Muslim refugees from neighboring countries were excluded from seeking fast-track citizenship. Using the author’s logic, either Christians should be left out of the CAA because they have other countries to seek asylum in, or persecuted Muslims from neighboring countries should be included in the CAA.

While discussing demographic changes, India is compared with Pakistan and Bangladesh. Should a liberal and secular Hindu entertain such comparisons? Or should he have loftier goals of emulating liberal democracies at the forefront of scientific inquiry and technological progress?

Distorted History

Since distorted history is the main complaint, when the British colonized India in the 1700s after 1,000 years of Muslim rule, it was still competing with China as the world’s largest economy. Despite more than a millennium of Muslim and Christian proselytizing, 78% of undivided India in 1941 was Hindu. While India’s Muslims grew from 9.9% to 14.2% between 1951 and 2011, Hindus have practically held steady, going from 81% to 79.8%. Religious reorganization among minorities warrants sociological studies, but Islam has not encroached on Hindu territory in independent India. Without condoning the looting and destruction of Hindu temples by Muslims, the origins of this narrative of Hinduism being in danger are worth pondering over.

Making common cause with Jewish history by invoking “collective memory” and yearning for an Israel-like muscular Hindu state is another favorite pastime of the “new” India. I admire the tenacity of Israelis in building a developed country in a desert, surrounded by hostile countries, but it is in a constant state of conflict and financially unsustainable without outside support.

The biggest irony in today’s majoritarian India is that the 150-year British rule, sustained with the help of several Hindu enablers, destroyed the Indian economy. And yet, English is the favored medium of instruction for the majority of children of the right-wing Hindutva brigade, and they would escape India for greener pastures in Britain at the drop of a hat. Hindus searching for pride in Ayodhya are socially trying to emulate regressive Islam while craving a stable, forward-looking, Western-style economy rooted in tolerance.

Regarding the Supreme Court’s Ayodhya verdict that granted the Hindus sovereignty over the disputed site last year, the author warns us against being selective, but the court has often acknowledged its fallibility. It avoided the question of an earlier existence of a Hindu temple on the disputed land. The court settled a narrower property dispute, ruling that Muslims cannot prove uninterrupted ownership of the land. Given how, since independence, the state allowed Hindus — through acts of omission and commission — to install idols in the disputed structure, the judiciary’s verdict resembles a circular argument. I still believe that a Hindu temple was destroyed to build the Babri Masjid. However, I question the utility of this relitigation of history behind the facade of due process.

Sanghi’s use of statistics regarding support for suicide bombings in Muslim-majority countries again seems misplaced. Islam was at the forefront of scientific inquiry and cultural supremacy in its heyday, but most of those countries are in decline today. Sympathy for suicide bombings among French, British and American Muslims is worrisome, but deranged non-Muslim gun owners kill more Americans every year than Islamic terrorism does. Should India not align with the US because half of America swears by gun rights? Islam is in dire need of modernization, but the reality is more nuanced than the author’s arguments.

Equating Modi’s presence at the Ayodhya ceremony with Queen Elizabeth II being the head of the Church of England or with a US president attending the National Prayer Breakfast is equally misleading. I find nothing wrong in Modi attending Diwali or Holi celebrations. The queen of England presiding over the laying of the foundation of a church where a mosque once stood, or an American president breaking ground for a church on land once home to a synagogue, would be a fair comparison.

No Apology

Other than the treatment of subjugated castes, I would not expect any apology from Sanghi. While being a proud Hindu, perhaps he also agrees that several other countries broke the shackles of colonization decades before India did.

If the author believes in individual rights, democracy, free markets, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, gender equality, LGBTQ rights and racial equality, I urge him to defend them. Like other religions, Hinduism’s record on these issues is mixed, and Hindu ethos does not offer any vision resembling a modern republic. He should raise his voice when innocent people are killed by Muslim or Hindu mobs, or when the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party calls anyone questioning the government anti-national. He should denounce Modi when the prime minister decimates institutions like the Election Commission by shunting out his vocal critic Ashok Lavasa.

Regardless of caste, creed, race or religion, protecting minorities from tyranny of the majority is the ethos of a republic, which is better than the author’s Hindu ethos. We can acknowledge Hinduism’s teachings like vasudhaiva kutumbakam (the whole world is one family) or agree that Hinduism examines the human condition better than most other religions and still fight for the Republic of India. Unfortunately, while the Congress party swung too far in favor of minorities, Modi has now unleashed the majority. In the process, he has destroyed the economy, and the real loser of this ethos is the Indian common man.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Hindu Ethos Is Hurting India’s Republican Spirit appeared first on Fair Observer.

China’s recent military moves on the Line of Actual Control (LAC) with India in Ladakh have not only negated these narratives about India’s global stature, economic might and social policies, but also left India with three bad options to choose from.

No Tangible Gains

Notwithstanding the “Howdy Modi” and “Namaste Trump” rallies, India plays a negligible role in United States’ foreign policy. While intelligence sharing has reached unprecedented levels, it is primarily because of American self-interest. The ongoing US–India trade war shows no signs of abating, reducing India to requesting the US to reinstate its Generalized System of Preferences status and remove import duties on several Indian products. On immigration, Modi has failed to eke out any benefits for Indian visa holders.

EU-India FTA talks, languishing since 2013, have not progressed under Modi. Security ties with Australia have improved, and Japan is partially financing India’s first bullet train. While Australia, Japan, India and the US are forming a “Quad” of democracies to contain China, it is not clear how it will strengthen India’s economy. Modi cannot ban all Chinese imports in the short term. Even if it begins to slowly disengage, India accounts for only 2% of Chinese exports and has no leverage over China. On the contrary, by financing several infrastructure projects in India’s neighborhood, China has opened a multi-pronged attack on India’s security interests.

The world is granting Modi the photo ops to impress his voters without offering any substantial trade benefits. The BJP’s IT cell spreads tales of Modi’s economic wizardry, but India’s weakened economy is the primary reason behind its diminished global standing. Repeated business disruptions due to demonetization, botched Goods and Services Tax roll-out, frequent e-commerce policy changes, annual announcement and retraction of draconian tax measures and a nationwide lockdown without any pandemic containment strategy indicate to the world an impulsive leader with little understanding of modern-day businesses and global supply chains.

The BJP’s Hindu victimhood narrative has placed blame for all socio-economic problems of today’s India on Nehruvian socialism and the idea of minority appeasement. While erstwhile governments of the rival Congress party enacted some laws favoring minorities, Modi’s majoritarian solutions have made things worse. Criminalizing the triple talaq and the controversy over the Citizenship Amendment Act and the National Register of Citizens have polarized society without any tangible gains. Article 370 of India’s Constitution, granting special status to the state of Jammu and Kashmir, was dying a slow death. Its abrupt scrapping and the subsequent statewide lockdown have destroyed the local economy. Marginalizing India’s 200 million Muslims might be a good electoral strategy, but outsiders see it as detrimental to a vibrant economy.

China’s military moves seem to have begun soon after India’s scrapping of Article 370. India’s massive infrastructure projects along the LAC, combined with sending two members of Parliament to the recent swearing-in of the Taiwanese president, might have led China to escalate the confrontation. India’s military is battle-hardened due to frequent run-ins with Pakistan and could prevail over China’s, but both sides cannot afford a full-scale war.

Good Long-Term Bet

Geopolitical alignments are not created overnight, and earlier governments share some blame for India’s predicament. It is equally true, though, that Modi has focused on propaganda and socially regressive policies at the expense of building a strong economy. It has left India with three unsavory options, the least likely of which entails India accepting China as the dominant Asian power in exchange for troop withdrawal.

India can maintain its strategic autonomy — keeping its military cooperation with Russia, civilizational ties with Iran and the Middle East, and the newfound friendship with Western democracies intact — and independently fight a long-drawn diplomatic war with China. Given China’s opaque, undemocratic system, this may not sound like a good option. However, considering America’s unsustainable fiscal trajectory and the mantle of the creditor of the world shifting from colonial-era Europe and post-World War II United States to China, neutrality might be a good long-term bet.

It will come with short-term pain. India’s government debt and deficit have skyrocketed since 2014, making a quick turnaround unlikely. Foreign currency reserves of over $500 billion might guard against a short-term economic collapse and help India tide over the expensive military build-up. Even if India attracts manufacturers looking to move away from China — a tall ask given its archaic land and labor laws — it is unlikely to offer exponential job growth. Since the first Industrial Revolution, manufacturing has been the growth engine of several economies, but automation and AI are rewriting that playbook. Recent agricultural reforms to remove middlemen and privatization in space and defense industries are positive steps. Unfortunately, India lacks the fiscal space for massive education as well as research and development infrastructure upgrades for creating a productive, innovation-based economy.

It can align with the US in its brewing Cold War with China, compromise on trade issues and integrate its economy with other democracies. In stark contrast to the aftermath of surgical strikes in Pakistan and the scrapping of Article 370, the muted global response to the ongoing standoff indicates China’s clout. Since a manufacturing-led revival is unlikely, India can abandon its protectionist mindset and focus on services, pharmaceuticals, tourism and other sectors. It will have to clamp down on Islamophobia, reform its judiciary and offer a stable, rule-of-law based social climate for growth. With four more years to go and high approval ratings, Modi can undertake this massive realignment and emerge as a transformative leader. His early moves under the recently announced “Atmanirbharta,” or self-sufficiency, campaign, along with his continued religion-baiting and destruction of democratic institutions, inspire little confidence.

Either way, China has caught India at its lowest ebb since its balance-of-payments crisis of 1991. China is unlikely to succeed in grabbing land on the Indian side of LAC, but India could now take a decade or two longer to catch up with China. It probably explains the timing of China’s military moves.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Modi’s Fantasy Versus Xi’s Reality appeared first on Fair Observer.

As Modi celebrates six years in office, his misplaced morality, silence in the face of religious bigotry and the COVID-19 gut punch are converting a potential demographic dividend into a generational nightmare.

India: Autopsy and Resurrection of a Republic

READ MORE

Morality in public policy is a double-edged sword. Winston Churchill rallied his country around the moral imperative of defeating fascism, but a similar campaign against communism during the Vietnam War, based on deception, crumbled under its own weight. The challenge is more daunting for peacetime heads of state. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission at the end of apartheid in South Africa was successful. However, Chairman Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution in China as well as Nicolae Ceausescu’s war against national debt in Romania led to disastrous consequences for entire generations.

Double-Edged Morality

Modi’s failed demonetization and botched roll-out of Goods and Services Tax (GST) — a regime to overhaul India’s archaic, multi-layered tax system — illustrate the difficulties in invoking public morality in the absence of a crisis. After building a positive global image, he spent his political capital on demonetization, declaring 85% of India’s currency notes invalid overnight. Corruption is endemic to all Indian institutions, and the odds of one top-down initiative cleaning up the system were low.

When it became obvious that the government had no plan to handle the aftermath and that the war on corruption was failing, Modi changed the goalposts to the digitization of payments. A US-based NBER study later concluded that demonetization reduced India’s GDP by 2% in the following quarter. With a $2.5 trillion annual GDP, the lost $12.5 billion would have been better spent incentivizing the use of digital payment apps instead of bringing the economy to a standstill.

GST was implemented with five tax slabs despite the one or two recommended by experts. The “sin” tax bracket, another moral crusade, was fixed at a whopping 28%. While the government wasn’t even prepared with adequate servers to handle the filing deluge, it made things worse by arbitrarily changing tax slabs for various goods every few months. Relatively flat monthly GST belied Modi’s expectations that Indians would immediately become honest taxpayers. While a negligible boost in economic activity is part of the problem, it would surprise no one if Indians have found ways to bypass the system.

As details of how Modi overrode serious reservations of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the Election Commission to launch a new electoral bonds scheme came out, his appeal to morality started ringing hollow. Ostensibly designed to bring transparency in political funding, it made Indian democracy vulnerable to foreign influence, potentially even destabilizing the currency. The government had effectively empowered a non-RBI institute, a nationalized bank, to print money, and it enjoyed asymmetric access to the flow of political donations.

The so-called IT cell of Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), its online campaign arm, had gained notoriety for its efficiency in spreading propaganda even before Modi won in 2014. Instead of toning down campaign rhetoric after elections, the BJP weaponized social media and kept spreading jingoism and exploiting religious fault lines. While eroding economic stability drove unemployment to 45-year highs — data the government suppressed just before the 2019 election — religious bigotry paid handsome dividends at the ballot box.

Four Pillars

After reelection, Modi occasionally paid lip service to communal harmony, but the world took note of police barging into universities to attack unarmed students and standing by as unruly mobs rioted in the streets of Delhi. Instead of maturing into a society based on due process and rule of law, India continues its political retributions and is sliding toward majoritarianism.

Instead of his 2014 mantra of “minimum government, maximum governance,” Modi was relying on his four new pillars: keeping economically backward communities happy by cleaning up and expanding welfare schemes; spreading Hindu victimhood and hatred against Muslims to appeal to the middle class; intimidating business houses through arbitrary policy changes and electoral bonds; and muzzling dissent in mainstream media.

The ongoing pandemic is bringing down this house of cards. Swachh Bharat has seen some success, but most of the other schemes have disappeared from the headlines. Instead of guiding youth toward well-paying jobs, entrepreneurship and research and development by expanding vocational training and quality education, they are being used as foot soldiers in the BJP’s destabilizing culture wars. Their social media managers are busy creating delusional grandeur. And mismanagement of the national lockdown is leading to steady growth in COVID-19 cases.

At the end of Modi’s first term, central government debt had already shot up by 50%. With dire revenue projections, the government has announced an additional 50% increase in central and state borrowing limits. The finance minister is hinting at printing money to stay afloat. Policy ineffectiveness has led Moody’s to change India’s outlook to negative. Perhaps Moody’s is being unfair toward India in a global pandemic, but Modi has squandered the opportunity to create a stable, dynamic, innovation-based economy with sustainable debt and deficits.

In its desperate bid to attract manufacturing jobs from China, India is trying to institute long-awaited labor reforms, albeit in a haphazard manner. However, new businesses would not move to India until Modi is spearheading the efforts to foment social unrest, subvert rule of law and destabilize industries based on fantastical economic theories.

Harnessing a demographic dividend is an uphill battle even in the best of times. In Modi’s case, that ship has sailed. Privatization of defense industry will lead to trickle-down innovation and job creation in other industries. However, for the foreseeable future, the government will not have the budgetary flexibility to invest heavily in basic sciences, which can lead to exponential job growth. By the end of his second term in 2024, it would be a miracle even if he can bring down the unemployment rate back to 2014 levels. India’s lost generation is about to pay dearly for Modi’s follies.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post After Six Years in Office, Modi’s House of Cards Shakes at the Foundations appeared first on Fair Observer.

However, results from a study (not yet peer-reviewed) funded by the National Institutes of Health in the United States, made public last week, indicate that the drug has no benefit for COVID-19 patients and might in fact increase the mortality rate. More data and rigorous reviews are needed to solidify these claims but, based on popular opinion across the country, India has already rescued the world by supplying the miracle drug.

Since the 2014 national election campaign in India, misplaced jingoism, fake news and brainwashing the electorate through social media have become the norm. India will pay dearly for the misinformation the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party’s WhatsApp warriors spread about minorities and the country’s fiscal health, and the willful ignorance of facts by voters. When top executives of start-ups — poster boys of the new, innovative Indian economy — begin chest-thumping about HCQ, it is worth examining the global pharmaceutical landscape, India’s place in it and the peculiar circumstances that have brought this age-old drug back into the spotlight.

A Long Way to Go

HCQ is a synthetic and enhanced version of quinine, a treatment for malaria known since the 1600s. India did not play any significant role in identifying the tree, biochemically isolating the active ingredient from the bark, inventing its synthetic version or patenting the first HCQ tablets. These breakthroughs happened in colonial-era Europe and the United States.

While India has a rich tradition of Ayurveda-based alternative medicine, the mechanism of action and efficacy of most such treatments remain unknown. Active ingredients in centuries-old remedies like turmeric and neem are being established, and they could become effective treatments for various ailments. Beyond that, while Indians have made a mark in the Western health-care arena, India’s contribution to modern medicine remains negligible. With increased investments in basic science and health-care start-ups, India might lead the world in drug development in a few decades. There is a long way to go.

On average, Western pharma entities collectively spend an estimated $1 billion to $2.6 billion to develop a new drug, the cost increasing by 8.5% annually. That includes molecular-level research, biochemical stability and manufacturing studies, risk and efficacy testing on animals, and the three rounds of human testing — to recommend dosage — mandated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The majority of human tests fail, which explains the staggering cost.

When a new drug is launched, pharma companies carry 20-year patents for the process and the product, ensuring that no other company can manufacture the drug. It allows them to recoup their investments. Once the patents expire, others can manufacture cheaper generic versions. Until 1999, Indian laws allowed process patents but had no product patents. Within months of Western countries launching new medicines, Indian companies could chemically analyze them, find easier or cheaper ways to manufacture them and sell them to poorer countries for pennies to the dollar.

While Western companies were earning through huge profit margins in countries with product patents, Indian counterparts were earning through huge volumes in the developing world. These worlds collided during the 1990s HIV-AIDS crisis. With higher literacy, effective public messaging and purchasing power, the West rapidly controlled the spread of the disease. When it started spreading in developing countries, particularly in Africa, Indian companies started hurting the bottom line of their Western rivals by providing cheaper alternatives. In the ever-evolving global patent regime, there are several ethical gray areas.

Pharma giants often make minor changes in their drugs or their delivery mechanism to file new patents, a practice known as “evergreening” that the Indian courts are successfully fighting against. On the other hand, manufacturers will sometimes relax patent protection rules in critical circumstances, like Medtronic has done with ventilator designs to help others manufacture cheaper versions during the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

Back in the 1990s, a global compromise was reached. While cheaper Indian drugs were used — most notably by Bill Clinton’s administration — to fight HIV in Africa, India was forced to enact product patents in the pharma industry. Since then, India has kept manufacturing generics but has developed very few, if any, new drugs. With a GDP of $2.5 trillion, per-capita income of around $2,000, excessive bureaucracy, paltry investment in basic sciences, lack of risk appetite among pharma and venture capital firms, and non-availability of biotech talent, India is not conducive for such capital-intensive efforts.

Tactical Victories

That brings us to the HCQ saga. The drug has been off-patent for decades. While it is effective for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, its primary target —  malaria  — was eliminated in the developed world decades ago. The West stopped manufacturing large quantities of HCQ because margins and volumes were low. India still manufactures it in large quantities because it is still battling this old enemy.

Donald Trump arguing “What do you have to lose?” to promote HCQ as a COVID-19 therapy flies in the face of doctors’ principle of “First, do no harm.” It has well-documented, occasionally severe, cardiac side effects. Although not backed by rigorous testing, its prophylactic use by frontline health-care workers might protect them from infections. This prompted New York’s Governor Andrew Cuomo to place a large order with Indian manufacturers.

By then, the United States had already halted pharmaceutical exports, and the large US order prompted India to follow suit. When Trump dialed Modi to ask him to lift India’s export ban and process American HCQ orders, India had precious little leverage. (In a Freudian slip, Trump said as much in one of his press briefings.) India reversed the export ban and processed the orders from the US and several other countries. Indian diplomats have squeezed out a tweet from Trump congratulating Modi and secured an extension of expiring H1B visas for Indian expats. They seem to be working behind the scenes for a dollar-swap line to stop the slide of the underperforming rupee.

These are small but good tactical victories for India, which routinely punches above its weight in international affairs. India’s FDA-approved facilities to mass-produce HCQ and the ability to ramp it up on short notice are laudable, but after the latest clinical trials demonstrating that it does not benefit COVID-19 patients, even Trump has backtracked on his earlier claims. Saying that India is rescuing the United States, let alone the world, by supplying HCQ trivializes the issue. India is still recovering from colonial-era socioeconomic setbacks. It needs time to invest in education, world-class research and development infrastructure, and build a scientific culture.

However, that debate requires humility, which is in short supply in today’s populist and nationalist India. In his response to Trump, Modi has already tweeted that “India shall do everything possible to help humanity’s fight against Covid-19,” while his WhatsApp warriors have done their job of projecting India as the savior of the world.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post India’s Tactical Victory on HCQ Misses the Bigger Picture appeared first on Fair Observer.

However, considering the historical forces that have shaped the nascent republic and its growth trajectory since independence, it is too early to implement such measures. The staying power of anti-CAA/NRC protests — initiated primarily by poor and middle-class Indian women — reflects either outright denial or ignorance of those realities by all branches of government.

India’s Citizenship Act Is About Vote Banks

READ MORE

There is ample evidence supporting the current government’s claim that the CAA and the NRC are not its ideas and were proposed by previous administrations, often led by rival political parties. Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s immediate predecessor, Manmohan Singh, who hails from the opposing Congress party, is on record supporting humane solutions to the refugee crisis in India. But when the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) uses it to justify enacting the CAA, it conveniently ignores that Singh didn’t single out the countries of origin the BJP has chosen and didn’t advocate excluding persecuted Muslims.

Regarding the NRC, Singh’s predecessor, Atal Bihari Vajpayee, initiated a project in 2003 to create a National Population Register (NPR), which was intended to be a headcount of all residents, citizens and non-citizens across India. According to the text of that law, the NPR “may” form the basis for the NRC. As the NPR was rolled out, along with a parallel NRC on a smaller scale, Vajpayee’s BJP-led government and the subsequent Congress-led government found out that the “document base is weak, especially in rural areas.” So much so that only around 45% of residents could prove their Indian citizenship.

Complex History

There are multiple historic reasons for the weak document base. The Partition of India and Pakistan in 1947, and then Bangladesh in 1971, forced millions to leave everything behind and seek refuge in India. The complex, century-old migration history in the state of Assam has created such deep-rooted citizenship issues that, by all accounts, a Supreme Court-mandated NRC was a fiasco in terms of its cost and outcome.

Health-care services in rural India are spotty, and the government cannot claim that it is issuing certificates for every birth, let alone preserving a tamper-proof record of it. Floods washing away people’s homes is a routine occurrence in several parts of India. For a documentary we shot in 2013, we encountered Mritak Sangh, an organization of hundreds of people who are alive but have been declared legally dead by government officials after accepting bribes from their relatives harboring ulterior motives. As a result, when the Congress-led Singh government launched another NPR in 2010, it quietly shelved both the NRC and the CAA.

The incumbent executive branch ignored all these facts to ram a CAA through Parliament, which excluded Muslim refugees from only three countries — Pakistan, Afghanistan and Bangladesh — from eligibility for citizenship without any cogent explanation. The minister for home affairs, Amit Shah, was on record explaining the chronology of implementing the CAA first and following it up with the NRC. According to some reports, once the Ministry of Home Affairs notifies the CAA rules, it would even require refugees to furnish a farcical proof of religion.

It would have been prudent to wait for a generation or two to ensure every citizen had adequate proof of citizenship to implement such costly policies, but with a crumbling economy, a 45-year-high unemployment rate and elections coming up in the state of Delhi, the BJP needed another divisive issue to distract voters.

Such thorny issues should have been discussed in both houses of Parliament, especially the upper house, the Rajya Sabha, where the BJP does not enjoy a majority. Unfortunately, as in the case of abrogation of Article 370, criminalization of the triple talaq and the amendment of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and the Right to Information Act, the opposition fell short of its constitutional duty. Fearing a majoritarian backlash, it looked the other way.

Failed by Political Parties

Modi has belatedly tried to backtrack on Shah’s stated chronology, but trust in him is in short supply. No wonder the responsibility of opposing the CAA and the NRC fell on the most vulnerable section of the society: women and children of Shaheen Bagh and assorted other neighborhoods across India. Failed by all political parties and facing statelessness, they blocked the streets and began an indefinite strike.

The BJP’s shrill anti-protester rhetoric during the recently concluded Delhi election campaign has exposed the hypocrisy of its claim that it was empowering Muslim women when it criminalized the triple talaq, but the recent suo moto action of the Supreme Court has gone a step further. While it has not shown any urgency in hearing the petitions against the CAA or the NRC, it suddenly sprung up in action against the tragic death of a four-month-old infant in Shaheen Bagh, chiding the protesting mother for negligence. Notwithstanding the death of their son, the couple has announced that it will not stop its protest.

Without condoning the loss of life, it is worth pondering over the desperation that is driving the parents to continue protesting against the law. In modern republics, courts are considered the last resort of the powerless. Unfortunately, the judiciary seems to be a silent spectator as the Modi government is on the verge of stripping scores of Indians off their citizenship — the foundation of their power.

Amid this failure of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, the only silver lining is the resounding victory of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Delhi on February 11. Its leader, Arvind Kejriwal, could be blamed for not openly expressing solidarity with the protesters, but he studiously avoided BJP’s despicable rhetoric and religion-baiting. Instead, his campaign focused on health care, education and job creation. With the AAP’s reelection, the republic is back from the dead, but it is still on life support in an intensive care unit. It is a long way away from full recovery.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post India: Autopsy and Resurrection of a Republic appeared first on Fair Observer.

When Data Science and Neuroscience Collide

READ MORE

Going by media attention, it seems like AI is taking over the world. In fields as diverse as speech and image recognition, factory automation, stock trading and fraud detection, AI is pushing the envelope every day. It is being considered the backbone of the impending Fourth Industrial Revolution, which has spawned fears of large-scale disappearance of blue-collar and even white-collar jobs, coupled with predictions of global social unrest. Henry Kissinger, Bill Gates and Elon Musk, among others, have voiced their concerns about the ethical and moral quandaries posed by AI, but a closer examination reveals that advances in neurosciences have more profound implications for humanity.

Outpacing Our Understanding of the Brain

In the short run, artificial intelligence has outpaced our understanding of the brain because AI was built from the ground up, while brain research is primarily reverse engineering. Our ever-expanding ability to pack more and more transistors — building blocks of digital circuits — in increasingly smaller devices has allowed AI researchers to build powerful, number-crunching machines. And an explosion of connectivity has ensured easy availability of information across the globe, making it easy to build intelligent machines.

On the other hand, each adult human brain has roughly 100 billion neurons; each one of them connected to, on average, 1,000 neurons. They communicate by way of biochemically generated electrical signals, which are more subtle or noisy than those flowing through man-made electronic circuits. We can use MRIs and CAT scans to glean some information about brain function, but they do not provide cellular-level detail, depriving us of critical details of information processing abilities of neuronal networks.

Nonetheless, several new techniques are giving us unprecedented access to the inner workings of brain circuits. Simultaneous recordings from an array of microscopic probes allow us to observe the electrical activity of a group of neighboring neurons. Functional MRI scans, while performing cognitive tasks, tell us which parts of the brain are used to perform the task. Cellular imaging illuminates the neurons that are electrically active almost instantaneously as the brain is performing various tasks, allowing us to see how information flows to and from various parts of the brain in real-time. And optogenetics enables us to go one step further. Otherwise light-insensitive neurons can now be genetically modified to make them light-sensitive.

Once that is achieved, every time we shine light on those neurons, which is typically a laser, they become electrically active. Observing the behavior of the animal while activating specific parts of the brain can help us understand the roles they play. Together, these techniques are opening up a Pandora’s box regarding our understanding of human ethics, politics and our belief in free will.

Assessments

In the ongoing debate about Harvard University’s bias against Asian Americans in their admission policy, documents revealed that Harvard consistently rates Asian Americans lower than others on “personal traits” like courage and likability in spite of their higher-than-average scores in SATs and ACTs. These standardized tests presumably assess attention and working memory capabilities, claiming that the scores are reliable predictors of future success.

Neuroscience might soon provide better assessment tools. Numerous studies have already established that areas like the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) play a critical role in tasks that demand high levels of attention and working memory. Researchers have also demonstrated that mindfulness practices like meditation can enhance the structure and function of ACC and DLPFC. Furthermore, they might even boost SAT scores.

It is an open secret that cultural affinity for rote learning and long hours of practice help Asian Americans ace SATs and ACTs. If tomorrow’s brain scans establish that the size and/or activity of ACC and DLPFC in simpler tasks are better predictors of future success, they might obviate the need for such grueling tests. The outcome of such scans could take away the advantage of Asian Americans in test scores or solidify their claims at a biological level. In that case, it is worth pondering whether brain scans should be used by future admissions committees.

Ethics

Neuroscience is creating several such ethical dilemmas, but perhaps its effect on our understanding of monogamy is the most intriguing. A series of experiments on prairie voles and montane voles — both rodent species — suggests that preference for single vs. multiple sexual partners might be rooted in brain chemistry. While the two rodent species are genetically almost identical, prairie voles are monogamous and montane voles are promiscuous.

A high level of oxytocin is observed after copulation in both the species, and it is famously known as the “cuddling hormone,” leading to lasting pair bonds between mates. However, only prairie voles have the receptors, or molecular detectors, to sense those high levels. Drawing inferences about human behavior based on studies of voles might be a leap of faith today, but imagine the societal outrage if it is established that your genes and brain chemistry determine your sexual behavior.

Politics

Our politics is another area that neuroscience has started shedding light on. Ever since the US presidential election in 2016, much has been said about Russians using social media to spread disinformation and polarize the electorate. What if brain scans can predict your political leanings better than tracking your online behavior?

Some of the earliest neuroscientific studies of politics showed that, once again, the structure of ACC and its electrical activity during a specific cognitive task predicted the political leanings of study subjects with reasonable accuracy. In another study, conservatives give more weight to negative stimuli than positive ones compared to liberals. Several experiments have strengthened the conclusions, so much so that brain responses to a single disgusting, non-political visual stimulus were sufficient to accurately predict the volunteer’s political leaning. If casual brain scans become affordable and political consultants get access to them, legally or otherwise, we will enter a whole new era of political messaging, microtargeting and controlling masses.

Almost all of these insights are based on passive brain scans or behavioral observations. By giving us the ability to directly control brain activity, optogenetics is fundamentally altering our sense of who we are. In 2008, neuroscientists at Stanford University demonstrated how genetically modifying a specific part of a mouse brain to make it light-sensitive, and then shining a light on it, allows us to control when it runs with a flip of a switch. A more recent study at Yale University showed that aggressive, predatory behavior in mice can similarly be controlled with a switch.

Such experiments might be an affront to our belief in free will, but it is scarier to imagine a future in which brains of soldiers are controlled to have their “kill mode” on during war and off when not on the battlefield. If we go a step further to discuss who should control such switches, it threatens our prevailing understanding of personal responsibility and rules of engagement in international conflicts.

AI poses a challenge to our professional lives, but neuroscience goes to the heart of who we are as ethical, political and free-thinking creatures. To avoid large-scale social disruption, the adoption of AI might be easier to contain, but under the guise of social harmony, authoritarian leaders of tomorrow might find the tools of neuroscience too tempting to resist.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post While AI Is All the Rage, What Is Neuroscience Up To? appeared first on Fair Observer.

That narrative might be changing. It began on September 17 when Israel went to polls and ended on September 24 when, in the UK, the Supreme Court declared the proroguing of Parliament to be illegal and, in the US, the Democrats launched an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump. The developments in Israel, Britain and the US hold important lessons for India.

Israel Shows Netanyahu the Door

Modern republics are a delicate dance among the three branches of government — legislative, executive and judicial — and the fourth estate of the media. In the case of Israel, although it defines itself as a “Jewish and democratic state” and the “nation-state of Jewish people,” the constitution does not discriminate among its citizens based on religion. However, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has exploited ethnoreligious fault lines among Jews and Arabs for more than a decade. His fear-mongering and race-baiting have been so successful that he has managed to ride out a wave of credible corruption allegations while in office.

When the Israeli law enforcement agencies and Attorney General Avichai Mendelblit refused to toe Netanyahu’s line, his supporters introduced a bill in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, to grant the prime minister immunity against prosecution. After the elections in April delivered a split verdict, preventing Netanyahu from garnering a majority in the Knesset, he refused to give opposing parties a chance to form a government and brazenly called for another election instead. In the run-up to the second election in September, he openly embraced the idea of annexing Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which the Palestinians see as part of a future state.

The second-place finish of Netanyahu’s Likud party in the unprecedented second election in a year demonstrates the resilience of Israeli democracy. While Netanyahu wanted an outright majority and another term to protect himself from indictment, voters ushered him to the door. On November 21, he was indicted on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust.

Since 2009, Netanyahu has carefully manipulated the media, controlled public opinion with incendiary rhetoric and ruled the executive branch with a tight fist. But fearless law enforcement agencies, an attorney general with a sense of duty and an independent judiciary eventually caught up with him. Even President Trump, who has been one of Netanyahu’s staunchest allies, has belatedly distanced himself from Netanyahu by announcing that the US relationship is with Israel and not with its prime minister.

Boris Is Forced to Hit the Brakes

Less than a week after the Israeli elections, the verdict by the UK Supreme Court calling British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue Parliament illegal was a pleasant surprise.

Ever since the ill-fated 2016 Brexit referendum held by then-Prime Minister David Cameron, British politics has resembled a circus. The birthplace of the Westminster system of government, widely adopted around the world, has been lurching from one quandary to another for the past three years. While the government of Theresa May repeatedly failed to pass a Brexit deal to allow the UK to leave the European Union, none of her decisions resembled a constitutional crisis like the one Johnson precipitated when, on August 28, he recommended a five-week suspension of Parliament to the queen.

The attempted power-grab by Johnson, a populist prime minister, was unprecedented and intended to prevent Parliament from deliberating over various Brexit options before the October 31 deadline. As the ceremonial head of state, the queen had to remain above the fray. Legal analysts had predicted that the judicial branch might not be able to reverse Johnson’s recommendation. Bitter divisions among rival political parties, which were on display during then-Prime Minister May’s attempts to pass her EU withdrawal deal through Parliament, inspired little hope that the legislative branch would push back against Johnson.

In a remarkable display of individual and institutional fortitude, both the legislative and judicial branches rose to the occasion. Before Parliament was suspended, 21 of Johnson’s own Conservative Party members sided with the united opposition to force him to request an extension to the Brexit deadline and prevent the UK from crashing out of the EU, which is commonly referred to as a no-deal Brexit.

By the time Parliament was suspended on September 10, the populist executive’s hands were effectively tied when MPs voted against Johnson’s proposal to call an early general election, which would have still allowed him to execute a no-deal Brexit on October 31. Despite the nature of the executive branch as subordinate to the legislative branch, Johnson tried bypassing it. When Parliament reasserted its supremacy, he tried to play the martyr card. After another month of wrangling, a slim majority of Parliament seemed to have agreed on a potential withdrawal deal, but Johnson was forced to ask the EU to extend the Brexit deadline, which is now set to January 31, 2020.

The Supreme Court verdict on September 24 went a step further. In a ruling seeped in symbolism, the first female chief justice of the UK declared Johnson’s recommendation to prorogue Parliament to be illegal.

The Westminster system was born in the UK, but it lacks a codified constitution in its home. A judicially conservative Supreme Court could have easily stayed neutral without attracting public wrath, but the flipside of an uncodified constitution is the power it gives to the judiciary to set legal precedents. It is a double-edged sword that can give activist judges the power to bring the entire system down.

Yet in this case, the unanimous verdict created an important legal precedent. The fact that the British system has survived since its inception through Magna Carta of 1215, and that 11 Supreme Court judges unanimously ruled against Johnson in one of its gravest constitutional crises, reaffirmed the faith of the global liberal community in self-government.

Trump Faces Impeachment

On the same day as the UK Supreme Court’s ruling, US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched a formal impeachment inquiry into Donald Trump. The move could potentially end the disdain the president has displayed for constitutional norms in running the American executive branch.

Unlike Israel and Britain, the American system prides itself on the well-designed checks and balances among the three co-equal branches of government. Over the past few decades, the executive branch has arguably become more equal than the others. Yet no American leader has ever shattered presidential norms as ruthlessly as Trump has since his inauguration in January 2017.

So far, the judicial branch has held its own in its battles against the Trump administration regarding the Muslim travel ban, funding for a border wall, immigration policies, the Mueller investigations and more. While the administration managed to overcome judicial scrutiny with the Muslim ban by repeatedly tweaking executive orders, Trump has been effective in using the inherent sluggishness of the judiciary to his advantage by delaying all legitimate oversight and investigative powers of the legislative branch in other cases.

Trump’s media machine has flooded airwaves with so many lies that voters are bitterly divided on the issue of whether the president’s behavior is normal, let alone impeachable. After the Democratic Party took control of the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections, it found it difficult to sway public opinion in favor of impeachment in spite of launching multiple investigations and gathering credible evidence of obstruction of justice.

It was freedom of the press that came to the legislative branch’s rescue. While the House had been doggedly pursuing the withholding of military aid to Ukraine since July — albeit behind closed doors — two explosive reports, first in The Washington Post and then in The Wall Street Journal, forced Speaker Pelosi’s hand in ordering an impeachment inquiry.

It is difficult to predict whether the Republican-controlled Senate will vote to remove Trump from office, but based on all the evidence that has already come out, it is likely that the House will impeach Trump. The delicate dance among the various branches of the US system of government has, at least temporarily, strengthened the legislative branch’s hand. Unless Trump resigns, he may go down as only the third US president to be impeached by the House regardless of whether he is removed from office by the Senate.

And in India…

The contrast with the situation in India couldn’t be more jarring. Ever since the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party’s election win in 2014 with a majority in the Lok Sabha — the lower house of Parliament — Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government has systematically destroyed whatever little freedom Indian media enjoyed. It has meticulously rigged the process of political fundraising to practically hold the entire democratic system hostage. In its lust for power, the government has brushed aside warnings that the new electoral bond scheme of political funding is susceptible to direct foreign influence and counterfeiting by enemy countries. The scheme was rushed through Parliament without much scrutiny, despite the objections of the Reserve Bank of India that it undercuts its authority as the sole issuer of currency — a fundamental change in the country’s monetary policy with potentially far-reaching consequences.

After its resounding reelection in May 2019 with a stronger majority, the executive branch has practically made the Lok Sabha a rubber stamp for its right-wing social agenda. Seemingly unconstitutional bills like the abrogation of Article 370 of the constitution in relation to the special status of Kashmir, selectively criminalizing the use of triple talaq (instant divorce) among Indian Muslims, and amending the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) have received Parliament’s approval with little legislative scrutiny.

While several legal challenges are listed for hearing in the Indian Supreme Court over the coming weeks, the court has mostly been a bystander until now. It has deferred to the executive branch even in cases related to habeas corpus and denial of fundamental rights to Jammu and Kashmir residents since the abrogation of Article 370, bolstering claims that the government is eroding the independence of the judiciary.

The Indian economy is currently in shambles with the highest unemployment rate in almost five decades and manufacturing plants are announcing staff layoffs and halting of production every month. Despite this, 50,000 adoring Indian and Indian-American fans of the populist prime minister — enjoying the freedom of expression and individual liberty guaranteed in the US — filled a football stadium in Houston, Texas, to hail the dismantling of democratic institutions in India.

The delicate dance of democracy in Israel, Britain and the US may be forcing a day of reckoning on their democratically-elected populist leaders, but the majority of Indians at home and overseas are still cheerleading as the government erodes the separation of powers.

*[Updated: November 25, 2019]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Delicate Dance of Democracy appeared first on Fair Observer.

Ever since Jammu and Kashmir’s accession to India in 1947, only a handful of political families have ruled the state as their fiefdom, and they have very little to show for it in terms of peace or prosperity. Cross-border terrorism has ruined a couple of generations of Kashmiri youth. Scores of Kashmiri Hindus have been driven out of their homes and had their properties destroyed.

Scroll down to read more on this 360° series

The central government has thrown the kitchen sink — from near-total liberty to separatists and freedom fighters, multiple rounds of peace talks with all stakeholders, pouring millions of rupees to build infrastructure, to ruling with an iron fist — at the geopolitical problem in the region, and it has failed to achieve durable peace and usher in an era of sustainable development.

Army personnel fighting on the ground privately admit that terrorism and ancillary businesses in Jammu and Kashmir have become more of a thriving cottage industry than an ideological war. It is natural for generations of Indians born after independence, far removed from the brinkmanship that went into making Jammu and Kashmir part of India, to believe that some drastic steps are required to ensure that it does not become an unending conflict like with the Israelis and Palestinians.

To achieve lasting peace, perhaps dividing the state of Jammu and Kashmir into two union territories administered by the central government will, in due course, prove to be a step in the right direction. While constitutional scholars are debating the legalities of the decisions, the manner in which they were taken is dangerous for the future of Indian democracy. It brings up issues related to the fate of Indian democratic institutions, the nature of progress India is choosing and constitutional morality.

Independence of Democratic Institutions

When Narendra Modi was elected as prime minister of India in 2014, albeit with a weaker majority in the Lok Sabha, the lower house of Parliament, it was with the promise of steering India away from the Congress party-led socialist economics, heavy-handed decision-making and social policies skewed toward minority appeasement. Voters were expecting the nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government to respect the independence of various institutions, uphold the primacy of the constitution and perform its duties without fear of favor.

After five and a half years of the BJP’s reign, which includes a thumping re-election victory and a stronger mandate earlier this year, it is quite clear that the party is not interested in the independence of democratic institutions. Demonetization, contentious or abrupt departures of its governors and the government’s repeated attempts to raid the Reserve Bank of India’s (RBI) cash reserves to make up for budgetary shortfalls have left the RBI’s reputation in tatters.

Successful attempts to hide 45-year-high unemployment data until the conclusion of the 2019 elections led to resignations at the National Sample Survey Office. Conveniently turning a blind eye to repeated code of conduct violations by BJP leaders during the elections have raised serious questions over the actions of the Election Commission.

Lokpal, an anti-corruption ombudsman that the BJP wholeheartedly supported before 2014, was appointed only after five years of inaction and the Supreme Court’s ultimatum to the Modi government. While a Lokpal is in place now, the famously efficient bureaucracy of Modi has not found the time to approve the format of complaint forms that would allow people to submit complaints to the Lokpal.

Recent amendments to the Right to Information Act would ensure that information officers are beholden to the government of the day, which could lead to hiding compromising information about its decisions. Just like the Congress era, central investigative agencies like the Central Bureau of Investigation, Enforcement Directorate and Intelligence Bureau are being used selectively to intimidate political opponents.

Until the recent changes in Article 370, national security issues remained above the fray. Historically, the ruling party built consensus and consulted political rivals on issues of national sovereignty and foreign relations. This had become part of the national political ethos. The spread of deliberate lies and secrecy surrounding such a monumental geopolitical decision speaks volumes about the short-sightedness and lack of political maturity of the current political leaders. Instead of strengthening and relying on the independence of institutions to act as guardrails against dictatorial tendencies, the current BJP leadership is indulging its own authoritarian impulses.

It also brings up concerns related to the nature of progress India is experiencing. The five-and-a-half-year report card of the BJP government has several admirable bright spots. Thanks to the rapid expansion of pilot projects initiated by the previous United Progress Alliance (UPA) government, corruption in distributing subsidies to the poor has gone down. Highways, ports and public transportation systems are being built and expanded at an unprecedented rate. With the rollout of the goods and services tax, India has ushered in a one-nation, one-market era. Some macroeconomic indicators like inflation and external debt seem to be under control (although there are some reports of fiddling with the figures to underreport the fiscal deficit).

In spite of these achievements, with the bone-headed economic adventurism of demonetization, tax terrorism, recent increases in taxes on the rich, the near bankruptcy of infrastructure finance giant IL&FS and non-banking financial corporations, and arbitrary changes in regulatory regimes, India is already staring at an economic slowdown of its own making. International media have begun doubting the Indian growth numbers.

If you add the steady rise of incidents of lynching of minorities by fanatical Hindu mobs, criminalizing the Islamic practice of triple talaq (instant divorce) to selectively put Muslim men in jail for abandoning their wives, arm-twisting media to muzzle dissent and the newfound zeal to keep critical national security decisions like abrogating Article 370 secret, it is worth asking ourselves whether sacrificing our fundamental rights and institutional independence at the altar of development is worth it.

Whose Model of Development Is Worth Emulating?

The historical trajectories of the top two economies by GDP today, the United States and China, are quite instructive. At its inception, the US was far from a perfect union and, by some measures, it still has a long way to go. As an example, slavery was clearly one of the original sins of the US Constitution and it almost ruptured the union during the Civil War of the 1860s. While it took more than half a million lives and led to the abolition of slavery, it took another century for the United States to desegregate society through the civil rights movement.

Mass incarceration and disenfranchisement of African-Americans is still a burning social issue, but the US has been slowly and steadily moving toward a more just society with stronger and more independent institutions, and hence, a more perfect union. While post-World War II American history is replete with foreign policy misadventures, the stability of its domestic politics is evident in the way other institutions are pushing back against a racist and xenophobic executive branch under President Donald Trump. Structural transparency of the American system compared to other countries has given it arguably the biggest economic prize: the US dollar as the reserve currency of the world.

After the establishment of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 as a communist country, the Chinese went through two gruesome internal conflicts. The idealistic social reform movement of the Great Leap Forward in 1958-61 led to the massacre of an estimated 15 to 35 million Chinese, which was followed by persecution of the Cultural Revolution era that began in 1966 and lasted till Mao Zedong’s death, taking an additional half a million to 2 million lives.

China has belatedly adopted a right-wing economic agenda to achieve breathtaking development and lift millions out of poverty, but it has systematically destroyed individual liberty and human rights in the process. Chinese President Xi Jinping has abolished term limits and declared himself the supreme leader of the country. The opaque economic institutions and centralized decision-making have made other nations suspicious of its global ambitions vis-à-vis the Americans, evident in the difficulties China is facing in expanding its signature Belt and Road Initiative.

The repeated failure of the US to address gun violence and the success China has demonstrated in adopting renewable energy to combat climate change illustrate that every system has its pros and cons, but that would be missing the larger point. The nature of progress India chooses now will define its trajectory for the foreseeable future. In representative democracies, development is inherently slow. Some degree of inefficiency is a feature of true republics, in which deliberation and bringing all stakeholders together are designed to ensure that pitfalls are minimized and the next step forward doesn’t backfire.

Having demonstrated nearly two decades of double-digit GDP growth, the authoritarian Chinese model seems more attractive, but it lacks the human ethics and moral authority of a democracy and is more susceptible to collapses. The emergency declared by Indira Gandhi in the 1970s has already given Indians a taste of dictatorship. The most ironic aspect of the latest turn toward authoritarianism in India is the fact that the current crop of leaders earned its political chops during Gandhi’s state of emergency.

Modern Republics and Constitutional Morality

And that brings us to constitutional morality. In modern democratic societies, concepts of justice, liberty and equality flow from the text of the constitution — free from religious baggage, sociocultural history or any claims of racial superiority or victimhood. When India adopted its constitution in 1950, an overwhelming majority of Indians was oppressed, poor or illiterate with no exposure to constitutional morality. And yet, India gave all its citizens the right to vote regardless of race, caste, creed, educational qualifications, ancestral history, land ownership or any other vested interest in the success of the new republic.

It was a quintessentially Indian democratic experiment, a huge gamble that even the vaunted American system cannot boast of, and truly made it a revolution. Inherent in the monumental decision was the hope that elected officials will uphold the law in letter and spirit until the Indian polity builds a constitutional ethos and holds them accountable.

While rampant corruption has been a mainstay in Indian politics for decades, barring Indira Gandhi, all other Indian leaders had admirably kept that promise. Modi’s hypocrisy of bowing in front of Parliament as the temple of democracy for photo-ops and swearing by the constitution as the holy book, only to change it without even informing fellow parliamentarians, is on full display now.

The most troubling aspect of the decision to abrogate Article 370 is the fact that Article 367, which is the interpretation clause of the constitution, was changed by a presidential order, not a constitutional amendment. The requirement to ensure that changes in Article 370 are in line with the will of the people of Jammu and Kashmir was summarily diluted so that a governor, appointed by the central government, could sign off on them.

These changes go to the heart of India’s federalism and are not minor clarifications to be brushed aside with a presidential order. More importantly, while Indira Gandhi was a populist with authoritarian tendencies, her rhetoric and actions were largely devoid of any claims of religious superiority. What makes Modi’s populism more dangerous is his majoritarianism, which is difficult to tamp down once unleashed.

It is also a scathing indictment of the level of appreciation of civics and history in India. Instead of questioning the legal validity of the orders and debating the larger implications of changing the constitution without following the process of an amendment, Indians seem to have entered a phase of mass euphoria. Even some of the staunchest political opponents of the BJP have wholeheartedly embraced the way in which the government has gone about it. Gandhi had to declare an emergency to make significant changes to the constitution without going through the process of an amendment. Modi doesn’t feel the need to do that because, despite higher literacy rates compared to the 1970s, a majority of Indians is craving authoritarian leadership.

A government run by the constitution and independent institutions is better than any other form of government because it outlasts any leader — good or bad. The process of amending the constitution is meant to be difficult to ensure the country is not run by the whims and fancies of one individual. Indians are rejoicing today because those whims and fancies are in line with an overwhelming majority of voters, but if the Supreme Court allows the government to set this precedent, they will soon come to regret it. India cannot dream of becoming a mature democracy unless constitutional morality is etched into the national psyche. It might be sleepwalking into authoritarianism again, but the world is watching.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post The Constitutional Immorality of Abrogating India’s Article 370 appeared first on Fair Observer.