Demonetisation could take away 400,000 jobs; e-com to be worst hit

Demonetisation could take away 400,000 jobs; e-com to be worst hit

Himani Chandna 

With demonetisation set to reduce India’s economic growth by 1% over the next one year, the job market is likely to see over 400,000 job cuts.

You should worry if you work in the e-commerce sector, since firms could handover around 200,000 pink slips in the next one year. “Cash on delivery being almost 70% of the overall e-commerce business, the sector is likely to take a hit and lose almost 20% of their headcount in the next few months,” said Rituparna Chakraborty, co-founder at staffing firm Teamlease Services. E-commerce firms currently employ around 1 million people in India.

“Companies manufacturing and selling luxury goods would also be immediately impacted,” Chakraborty added.

Real estate, construction and infrastructure are the others that are likely to feel the heat of demonetisation. Recruiters and head hunters expect the sectors to lose over 100,000 jobs in the next 12 months.

“For the next six to eight months, we could foresee job losses and freeze on hiring. Moreover, if the government’s objectives (related to demonetisation) are not be met, we should expect more challenges,” said Anandorup Ghose, director at US-based human resource consultancy Aon Hewitt. “The impact of the move will be felt across sectors dealing with consumer’s discretionary spending, including real estate and auto.”

Besides, the textiles and garments industry, which employ a substantial number of daily wagers, could be hit hard. Of the 32 million people employed by the industry, one-fifth are daily wagers, who mostly get paid in cash. “While on one hand, slow sales increase the possibility of stock returns to manufacturers or affect the order book for the next year due to unsold inventory; on the other, slow sales and consequent liquidity pressures on retailers can result in stretched payments to manufacturers,” according to rating firm ICRA. Similarly, 20% of the 250,000 workers in the leather industry will also be impacted.

The impact on the job market could become severe if the recovery of cash supply in the system remained sluggish, experts said. “The impact on the job market depends on the how fast the economy recovers, how fast the money is supplied in the economy, and when the restrictions on cash withdrawals go,” said Soumya Kanti Ghosh, chief economic adviser at State Bank of India.

According to global financial services major HSBC, the government’s move to withdraw and replace high-denomination currency notes will bring ‘some benefits and some losses’ in the short term, to sectors, including financial technology, digital wallet and banking

Courtesy: Hindustan times

(The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the blog owners views.)

DC Debate: Saare jahan se achcha...?

DC Debate: Saare jahan se achcha...?

DECCAN CHRONICLE.    Published Dec 8, 2016

Playing the national anthem before movie shows is no way to inculcate patriotism.

It will be a repetitive ritual

Sandeep Dikshit

The order of the Supreme Court to play the national anthem before every feature film in cinema halls is a curious act. Where does the Supreme Court get the power to issue executive fiats, and on what basis is the court encroaching upon purely executive and legislative functions which is itself a dangerous move. That apart, the point that the court tried to make is the necessity of playing the national anthem before a feature film (where people go purely for entertainment), and that it would instil “constitutional patriotism” amongst people.

Does hearing and standing for the national anthem instil patriotism? Quite largely, it excites us and makes us feel emotionally attached and proud of our nation. In public situations it builds a common bondage, a camaraderie and reinforces a larger common national identity. But beyond this does the playing/singing and standing for the national anthem does anything more substantial? Not really. Patriotism has many meanings and nuances, apart from feeling good about your nation. Does the constant hearing of the national anthem push the many “desired” traits of a patriot? Does it make you more law-abiding, does it prompt greater consciousness of the spirit and elements of our Constitution, does it make you more humane, compassionate and respectful towards all fellow citizens? The answer is a clear no. A reasonable frequency and appropriate time, and place and event for the national anthem does reinforce this feeling of joy and pride in our nation. But as you increase the frequency of symbols and symbolic gestures (as the anthem is), and distort the logic of symbolic gestures an their association with appropriate events, you cheapen and weaken the force of the impact and relevance of such gestures. I believe the Supreme Court has done that.

Do judges really believe that if you keep hearing the national anthem you will feel more patriotic and join the armed forces, or start reporting anti-national activities, or be more prepared to die for your country, or rule of law would prevail more, or less women would be abused, or tax payments would be more honest, or officers will not take bribes anymore, or politicians (who on an average hear the national anthem more than others) would become better and greater leaders, or police persons would start catching thieves and stop harassing innocents, or people won’t kidnap fellow citizens anymore, or fundamentalists would stop spreading hatred, or communal riots would stop, or 1984 and 2002 Gujarat would not happen again? This list is endless, and that the answer to each is a firm no, just shows how facile and superficial this order is.

The other part of this judgment is playing the anthem before feature films in cinema halls. There are places and a time for anything and everything. But what is the basis of believing that playing the national anthem before a feature film would increase patriotic feelings? If somehow their lordships believe that the mood prior to being entertained is fertile to instil patriotism, then why leave other forms of entertainment, or do they believe that films reduce patriotism, therefore, it is necessary to reinforce just before they start?

The playing off and the standing for the national anthem is an exciting and exhilarating experience. It makes us proud and joyous, but if it becomes a routine, facile repetition, before events like movies, where we go for much more simpler needs of entertainment, then we are only reducing these fine moments to a repetitive ritual, which as all things repeated unnecessarily would lose value and impact.

I firmly believe that judges have actually done a disservice and this shall over time weaken the impact that the singing of the national anthem normally does to a citizen of my country. There is a law of diminishing marginal utility in everything.

Sandeep Dikshit is Congress spokesperson

Courtesy: Deccan Chronicle

Assam government’s proposed diktat to madrasas is an unwise move.

Not On A Friday

Assam government’s proposed diktat to madrasas is an unwise move.

Written by Manashi Misra | Published:December 8, 2016 

Assam’s education minister Himanta Biswa Sarma recently objected to some madrasas in the state observing Friday as a holiday. He added that the government had taken note that “some madrasas in certain districts” are closed on Friday and this was against the law. If this practice was not immediately stopped, the government “will not refrain from suspending the headmasters of such institutions,” Sarma threatened. He went on to add that madrasas remain closed on Fridays in Pakistan and Bangladesh, and not in India. Indians, according to Sarma, observe a common weekly-off on Sunday; that should be adhered to by people of all faiths.

Sunday, however, is not a common weekly off in India for all organisations. No law of the country declares Sunday a holiday. In 2012, while replying to an RTI application, the department of personnel and training had stated, “As per records available in JCA section of the department of personnel and training, there is no information regarding declaration of Sunday as a holiday”. Order no 13/4/85-JCA of the department of personnel and training, dated May 21, 1985, which initiated the five-day week in civil administration offices, declares the working week from Monday to Friday, with Saturday being a holiday. Sunday is not declared an official holiday, even by this order. The reference here is to civil administration offices, schools are not covered under this announcement. At the School of Open Learning at the University of Delhi, for example, classes are held only on Saturdays and Sundays. As historian Jim Massellos writes, “it was the British administration that started the practice of Sunday as an off-day”. Sunday as a holiday has roots in the Christian traditions. It is not any more secular or less religious than Friday as the day of prayer for the Muslims.

Given the context of the Citizenship Amendment Bill 2016, Sarma’s reference to Bangladesh and Pakistan is provocative. His recent book, Anya ek drishtikon (A different perspective) describes a not so distant future where the ethnic Assamese community will be outnumbered by “illegal” Muslim migrants. Sarma produces unverified data to show how in a few districts of the state this fear is increasingly becoming a threat. Is it any surprise that the districts mentioned in Sarma’s book were picked out to drive home his point about holidays in madrasas?

It is not difficult to fathom why a reference was made only to Pakistan and Bangladesh. After all, Israel’s official working week stretches from Sunday to Thursday. Nepal has a working week that begins on Sunday and ends on Friday. Friday was an official holiday in Pakistan during General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime; but now Pakistan follows the Monday to Friday official working week.

Assam has seen volatile public debates on the Citizenship Amendment Bill. This proposed piece of legislation seeks to amend the Citizenship Act, 1955 and pave the way for “illegal” Hindu, Sikh, Parsi, Christian, Buddhist and Jain migrants from Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan to be eligible for Indian citizenship. Muslims have been kept out from the proposed amendments. A reason that has often been cited for such discrimination is that “illegal” Muslim migrants are already a significant number in Assam.

The Right to Education Act — which after the ruling of the Kerala High Court in the Sobha George case, this year, is applicable to minority educational institutions — prohibits a state-aided minority educational institution from discriminating against any student on grounds of religion, race, caste, language in matters of admission. Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution guarantee minorities rights to their culture. Sunday is not an officially-declared holiday in our country, as evidenced by government records. Arm-twisting government-aided madrasas to remain open on Friday and during the month of Ramzan is a violation of rights guaranteed by the Constitution. It is nobody’s case that Assam’s madrasas are in fine shape. Given Sarma’s track record, he is skilled enough to revive them. But forcing them to remain open on Fridays is not the right move.

The writer teaches political science at Zakir Hussain College, University of Delhi.

Courtesy: Indian Express

A layman’s lament - Sudhanshu Mohanty

A layman’s lament

Banks charge us for insufficient funds in our accounts, then why can’t we charge them for insufficient cash?

Written by Sudhanshu Mohanty |

India is in monetary turmoil, post the 8/11 demonetisation. The turmoil is pandemic, as serpentine queues snaking across ATMs and banks refuse to go away. The banks are helpless; the new currency bills are available only in dribbles. Everyone is affected — the informal sector perhaps more so than others; the poor citizen has taken the bullet on his chest. I am no economist and have no pretensions to being one. All I know is that economists’ analyses, with multiple variables bristling, can — and often — go awry. But the present crisis mercifully pretends to no such profound economic analysis. It is the banality of common sense; and this is something that’s evaporated post-demonetisation. How fair is it for the government to dish out the kind of treatment meted out to the common man with the lack of cash in banks? When I need my hard earned money in cash, I am denied and at best given a pittance of what I asked for. I am denied my right. It’s a failing of a contractual term. What’s the compensation I get in turn? Zilch. Banks charge us for insufficient funds in our accounts, then why can’t I charge them for insufficient cash?

It’s like a reverse liquidated damage (LD) that a buyer need to pay the vendor for delay on his part in any acts of commission contracted upon. Early this year, when I worked in the ministry of defence, this concept was being thought about during the elaborate discussions while constructing the provisions of the Defence Procurement Procedure 2016. Eventually, given the imponderables (how facile the English language is to mask the real and pretend the surreal) in government, the idea was dropped. Not to forget that there would likely be a posthumous uproar over such payments and the inevitable hauling over the coal years after, when the going gets nasty. It would’ve been interesting to see the behemoth move a bit laterally and a few notches vertically.

 In a market economy, getting on the fast lane and transmogrifying into a market society (recall concierge doctors and ticket scalpers in the US) when, in fairness, it should be a level-playing field, contractual obligations as fiduciary need be based on equality. Funds are the heart of banking. Less funds in your account (save the zero-balance account) attracts a penalty, which we pay ungrudgingly. The same, naturally, should hold good for banks as well. If the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 needs amending, so be it.

I’m aware it’s rather hard to conceive, let alone think of executing, and implementing the roadmap. My idea, though, is simple: The market economy is laissez-faire and is driven by market forces of supply and demand, it can’t be iniquitous to either contracting party. The same spirit should animate the construct. Also, I’m fully conscious of the difficulties in selling this idea because we still treat government organisations with undeserved awe, as though they are beyond failing, and hence above reproach. More so, when they are sanctified by the past, better still the colonial one. Look at the judiciary as an example. They have latched on to a hoary, medieval colonial past, still persisting with an antediluvian contempt of court law that even the conservative, hidebound Brits have long discarded. We are a patient nation that tolerates everything: Inactivity, the pachyderm rock and roll, even plain inaction. Nothing moves us notwithstanding the elephants already stalking our rooms.

Yet, while on this pesky polarised issue, paradoxical as it may sound, the efforts to ring in a cashless society — more appropriately a less-cash society — should go on. It’s time the government becomes the bellwether of change in sync with the time and zeitgeist. Equality is at the heart. It’s the political will (read PMO’s will) that matters. But, we need to go beyond this demonetisation din. How else do we ring in changes — a new piecemeal social re-engineering crying out for quick remediation — that’s crucial to a nation which sends out daily macho incantations of dominating the world economy in the imminent future?

The narrative needs backing by seamless change. You don’t foist a cashless society overnight from the top. It needs a certain level of literacy and infrastructure, cyber security and such other nitty-gritty, for Digital India. The US hasn’t done it yet. But our bluster says: So what? We can. Ramming precepts down people’s throat don’t help in bringing about socio-economic changes. The government — the most powerful driver of social change — needs to appreciate that changes are best done with pain that is ephemeral and doesn’t scorch. A learning curve with the aam aadmi made the guinea pig is not the way to go. The pain is excruciating. Worse, who dare predict things in an economy touted as emerging, yet, with — remember our bespoke variable called nepotism — a firm legacy of the feudal past?

Though an ignoramus, I know that economics is no physical science; no economist worth his salt would dare predict the future the way it’s being bandied about — 50-day pain, the last queue to end all queues, cashless society — all wrapped in divine certitude. Yet, few things are clear: The need to change processes; to ensure level play and fair play; openness and transparency; the need to catch the big fish and spare the small from (obse)queued decimation; more action and less grandstanding. Also, no bluster — tall and majestic in sweep — that lacks the gravitas expected of utterances from high perches. I’m baffled by the goings-on. One’s idea was not to paint a picture of unrelieved pessimism. But I can’t see this charade and declamations stopping. I say this neither sinisterly nor maliciously. Dystopian thoughts, not that too. I’m an incorrigibly cosmic optimist. Maybe you can glimpse a utopia in this dystopia, but sadly I can’t.

The writer retired as financial advisor (defence services) in the ministry of defence. Views are personal

'An Era Of Darkness': Shashi Tharoor's Book On The Raj Invokes The Dark Forces Of Today

'An Era Of Darkness': Shashi Tharoor's Book On The Raj Invokes The Dark Forces Of Today

Salman Nizami 

Writer, politician and social activist

There couldn't have been a more apt time for a book like An Era of Darkness to be written. Just as judges look at past precedents to arrive at a conclusion on a present case, we needed a book that tells us in no uncertain terms about our past darkness, the perpetrators responsible for it, and the modus operandi they used. For we truly are fighting a darkness today. The darkness emanating from phony nationalism. A looming darkness that, if it is not countered head on and expunged, threatens to erode our very understanding of our nation and the values and the belief system that it should uphold.

First things first. Never before have we found ourselves in such bewilderment on vital issues relating to nationalism and patriotism. We are suddenly faced with contrasting views on what allegiance to one's country means, what makes one a good citizen, who are the heroes of the nation? Who are the villains? Dangerously, more and more people are falling for the wrong answers.

We live in an era where the villain is being extolled. Where the integrity of our first Prime Minister Pt Jawaharlal Nehru, the builder of modern India, is being questioned. Where the pioneer of the freedom struggle, the Congress party, is the subject of a sinister hate campaign. In An Era of Darkness, consummate debater and author Shashi Tharoor recreates the British Raj with all its horrors and also elucidates the awe-inspiring struggle of India's freedom fighters. He gives us a valuable insight on how dark forces operate and on who are harbingers of hope—it's a valuable lesson at a time when thugs are masquerading as our saviours.

We more or less know that the British harmed us. But we may not have a full understanding of how large the scale of that oppression was. With his painstaking research, Shashi takes us to an era where our forefathers were toiling in opium fields, our economy was being ravaged, our local businesses killed, our exports made unaffordable by levying high tariffs, and education was offered only to produce a generation of clerks.

We need to know this past darkness, where the Indian blood was not valued at all. With man-made famines like the one in Bengal, the British let innumerable people to die. We need to understand this evil in order to see the present hate campaign for what it is. We need to realise that those who do not consider every human's blood to be of equal value, much like the British did not, are the unmistakable dark forces.

Take for example the divisive forces that rule our country today. They are creating such bitterness in our hearts that there is no mass condemnation, leave alone an uprising, against the systematic targeting of the minorities. From the killing of Pune techie Mohsin Sadiq Shaikh, allegedly by Hindu Rashtra Sena activists, barely a week after Narendra Modi took oath as Prime Minister, to the mob lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq in Dadri over a rumour that he had killed a cow for consumption, there is a constituency of people, under apparent encouragement from the ruling party at the Centre, that is lusting for the blood of minorities. The horrific crime in Dadri was passed off as something that "happens every day" while Shaikh's death was dismissed as an example of "natural repercussions" by Pune MP Anil Shirole of the BJP.

Surprisingly, very limited sections of the public voiced any protest. There was not much condemnation of the BJP, which went on to win the state of Maharashtra not long after the gruesome episode in Pune. This is happening because those who stand against humanity have covered up their vile agendas by telling the people loudly and repeatedly that they are the nationalists. Which is why Tharoor's book is so relevant. We need revisit the dark forces of the past and their tactics, in order to be aware of the present day's dark forces.

Shashi has astutely exposed the divide and rule policy of the British. We needed to re-understand this again, with all covert dimensions. For the BJP is making an unprecedented attempt to communalise India and make every Hindu doubt the intentions of their Muslim brethren. Before national elections, there were "pink revolution" theatrics, before the Bihar elections there was a "Pakistan will burst crackers" comment, and before the Assam elections there was a massive campaign to portray bulk of the Muslims as illegal immigrants. The BJP's games are succeeding. And that is why you need to read this insightful book that tells you how "divide and rule" is never the approach of a nation-builder. It is the approach of a self-aggrandising tyrant.

Tharoor's book also needs to be read to understand who is a nationalist. The BJP and the RSS will perhaps figure top on the list of an average kid when asked who he thinks is a true "desh bhakt." Those of us who know about the absolute zero contribution to the freedom struggle of the RSS, BJP's ideological fountainhead, will also know that irony just jumped from the tallest building on the street. But more people need to know these historical facts. By creating a lively description of thousands and thousands of people who sacrificed their blood for freedom, their immense pain and perseverance, their absolutely selfless and agenda-free service for the country, the long struggle of the leaders of the Congress, their unshakable resolution in the face of insurmountable hardship, Tharoor's narration will make you laugh at people who pat their own backs after screaming "Bharat Mata ki Jai" from the comfort of Facebook or Twitter.

An Era of Darkness will also tell you what a sorry state the country was in when it achieved freedom. An understanding of the penury of 1947 is necessary if one is to see through PM Modi's absolutely bogus "Congress ne 70 saal me kya kiya (what has the Congress done in 70 years)" rhetoric that he repeats in every public address. When you know where we were when we started our journey as an independent country, you get to also know how much effort it must have taken Congressmen, in particular Pt Nehru, to build the nation from scratch.

Tharoor's book serves another useful purpose. It defeats the false narrative that Muslim rulers were necessarily tyrants. Tharoor tells us while they have been outsiders, they did not drain the wealth of the country to any other foreign nation. He makes a case that it was under the Muslim rulers that India's share grew up to become more than a quarter of the world's trade. It's a thought-provoking counter to the polarising and oft-repeated argument that "Muslims destroyed India."

Lastly, at a time when debate has been reduced to a cacophony of slogans and insults by bhakts, Tharoor's writing, with its expansive case studies and citations and sustained argument, all augmented by his felicity of language, may just come as an eye-opener to us all.

Courtesy: Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.in/salman-nizami/an-era-of-darkness-shashi-tharoors-book-on-the-raj-invokes-t/?utm_hp_ref=in-homepage

Democracy, direct to home

Neera Chandhoke

Neera Chandhoke is a former Professor of Political Science at Delhi University.

The subordination of political parties to populist leaders has cast a shadow on democracy. A representative party system is infinitely preferable to personalised forms of power

Delivering his third Independence Day address, Prime Minister Narendra Modi had remarked that he deliberately stayed away from populist measures that deplete exchequers and opted for a culture of governance. His referent point was, obviously, strategies that politicians employ to garner votes. In political theory, however, the term populism originates from the Latin term populous or ‘people’. If we take the political theory of populism as our cue, the Prime Minister appears quite a populist.

Let me hasten to add that in democratic contexts populists are not anti-democratic. On the contrary they claim to be true democrats, obsessed with rescuing democracy from the clutches of incompetent and venal elites. This class, it is alleged, has betrayed the confidence of citizens, and derailed the political system. Arvind Kejriwal does so directly and abrasively. Prime Minister Modi mockingly dismisses the Opposition. Both represent themselves as preferable alternatives to corrupt and non-performing elites. The second rescue operation launched by these leaders is to free popular sovereignty from the mediations of liberal democracy, and relocate the concept in ‘the people’. By appealing to ‘the people’ over the heads of democratic institutions deemed ineffectual and dishonest, populist leaders forge a personal constituency that they can confide in, admonish, and instruct.

Need for checks and balances

The problem is that ‘people’ is not a homogenous unit. The category is divided and hierarchised along the lines of class, caste, religion, ethnicity, gender, and sexual preferences. More significantly, ‘people’ are organised into majorities and minorities, and majorities — as our history tells us — can seriously impair the basic rights of minorities. For this precise reason, liberal democrats fear the ‘brute power’ of majorities and try to curtail the power of elected majorities through constitutions, legislation, judiciaries, and, more importantly, the institutionalisation of a system of checks and balances.

Notably, democracy is not only about a party that has won the largest number of seats taking over state power. It is about protecting the basic rights of all individuals, and, in particular, the rights of vulnerable minorities against depredations of majorities. This is secured through the establishment of procedures and institutions. That is why democratic governance is complex, time-consuming, and demanding. Each proposal has to go through several stages of scrutiny, including debates in the public sphere on the virtues or otherwise of the proposition on offer, before it is transformed into law. The insertion of layers of intermediary institutions that range from elected assemblies to civil society organisations, between citizens and the state, safeguards ordinary citizens against abuses of power.

The populist’s penchant

It is precisely the complicated procedural and institutional aspect of democracy that populist leaders are impatient with. They would rather reach out directly to citizens. There is, of course, nothing wrong with reaching out to people. The problem is that populist leaders show scant respect for the give and take of arguments during processes of decision-making. This can breed ominous outcomes: witness the sharp and painful crisis that followed demonetisation. The eminent statesman of ancient Athens, Pericles, had warned against decisions that do not take the consequences of a particular action into consideration. But populists defy laborious and cumbersome processes involving critique of, reflection on, and modification of proposed policy. They would rather take shortcuts and evoke naïve and simplistic notions of direct democracy. Direct democracy is, however, the ultimate illusion.

Let us not forget that in ancient Athens, participation in direct democracy was confined to property- and slave-owning males, provided they were born in the city-state. The rest were consigned to the lowly category of subjects. In complex societies, direct democracy simply does not work; it slides easily into populism and, worse, into the cult of the leader. Democracy is diminished.

Democracy is doubly diminished when the complexities of public opinion are simplified through the mechanism of snap referendums through the social media. Citizens have the right to debate on the pros and cons of ‘this’ or ‘that’ law, unearth hidden dimensions of issues, highlight grey areas, and propose alternatives. Snap polls that demand a simple answer — yes or no — in effect depoliticise the deliberative capacity of citizens and undermine their competence to skilfully debate all sides of an issue. It is precisely this aspect of deliberative democracy that populists avoid when they ask for instant referendums.

What history tells us

The proposition that populism harms democracy has been amply borne out by our history. Recollect Indira Gandhi, popularly known as the first populist leader in independent India. Taking over the reins of the Congress in adverse circumstances, she set out to consolidate her status. Regional leaders, who till then had wielded considerable influence in the party through a network of ‘big men’, were rendered irrelevant through the Kamaraj Plan, and by the 1969 split in the party. The announcement of radical programmes such as the abolition of privy purses of former princes and nationalisation of banks endeared Mrs. Gandhi to the political public. More significantly, she fashioned a nationwide constituency by detaching parliamentary elections from State Assembly elections. This enabled her to speak directly to citizens, and dispense with the mediation of regional satraps.

Mrs. Gandhi’s charisma, style and oratory gripped popular imagination. But the process of securing acclaim carried heavy costs. Concentration of power in the person of the Prime Minister spectacularly subverted democratic norms. Her call for a committed judiciary and a committed bureaucracy compromised the autonomy of both institutions. The Supreme Court undercut its own status as an impartial institution by supporting the Emergency declared by Mrs. Gandhi’s government.

More significantly, personalisation of power irreversibly damaged the Congress. Till the 1960s, the party was known as one that could skilfully reconcile diverse interests within the organisation. It had perfected the art of compromise. This changed after Mrs. Gandhi’s accession to power. The party was reduced to a group of courtiers paying ritual obeisance to a supreme leader. The Congress is today a pale shadow of what it used to be. Once it was a dynamic party that could mobilise millions, today the fate of the party is tied to the fate of the Gandhi family.

After Mrs. Gandhi, it is Mr. Modi who has caught the imagination of Indians across caste and class. He speaks directly and powerfully to them through the radio, social media, and televised speeches. We, of course, cannot respond to his suggestions. Most of his ministers do not utter a sentence except in his praise, his initiative, his courage, his imagination, and his expertise. What on earth has happened to the norm of collective responsibility, and to the status of the Prime Minister as the ‘first among equals’ in a parliamentary democracy? The BJP has till now privileged ideology and principles over individual leaders. Today the party hangs on to the coat-tails of the Prime Minister.

The BJP is not alone in this. The subordination of regional political parties to populist leaders has cast a shadow on the party system and on democracy. Parties mediate between leaders and citizens because they represent the interests of their constituency. Today parties have become practically irrelevant because the image of the leader looms large over them. This is a serious setback for democracy. A representative party system is infinitely preferable to personalised forms of power. It is time party organisations asserted their identity and control over leaders. Otherwise history will repeat itself not as ‘farce’, but as ‘tragedy’.

Neera Chandhoke is a former Professor of Political Science at Delhi University.

Courtesy: The Hindu

Patriotism by diktat - Editorial The Hindu

EDITORIAL THE HINDU

Patriotism by diktat

Patriotism is a value that most people cherish without being required to demonstrate it in visible ways. Unfortunately, a notion has emerged in the country that it ought to be articulated frequently, demonstrated publicly and enforced in such a manner that it will be an object lesson to the odd dissenter. Given this, it is hard to understand the rationale for the Supreme Court’s order that every cinema hall should play the national anthem before the exhibition of a film. India has given itself an anthem easily recognised as a lofty and moving rendering of the country’s oneness amidst diversity. It hardly requires judicial promotion. The singing of the national anthem on special occasions, especially in schools and colleges, is sufficient to help citizens identify the anthem with something larger than their daily concerns. There are clear rules on when the anthem should be played. Any misuse of the anthem or any wilful insult to it is legally prohibited, and those aggrieved by any such incident can take recourse to the law. Beyond this, in a mature democracy such as India, there really is no need to make the playing or the singing of the anthem mandatory through a judicial order.

It is not clear why cinema halls were singled out for special treatment by the Supreme Court. The only possible explanation is that they were required to play the national anthem some decades ago, a practice that has been largely given up. But if the logic for playing the national anthem at places where a sizeable number of people congregate is taken to its logical conclusion, they should be extended, for example, to dance and music recitals as well. To take this line of reasoning even further, why not to every sitting of the legislature, or the court itself? Playing the national anthem in theatres at the end of the film was given up some three decades ago in most parts of the country, largely as a result of the tendency of a section of the audience to walk out. To reintroduce it now gives the impression that cinemas should forever be the main sites for the demonstration of patriotism. Matters such as commercial exploitation and dramatisation of the anthem cannot be the subject of blanket interim orders in a public interest petition. The appeal to a sense of ‘constitutional patriotism’ is also intriguing, as the only reasonable interpretation of the term is that of having allegiance to the values underlying the Constitution. This is not something that can be enforced by judicial diktat, or by making cinema halls the playground for a misplaced sense of patriotism.

Courtesy: The Hindu

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/Patriotism-by-diktat/article16737937.ece