To Download Click Here.

Date:30-03-19

Nationalism Vs Patriotism

Nationalism’s cynical misuse, conflating dissent with sedition, devalues our everyday patriotism

Pavan K Varma , [ The writer is an author and member of JD(U). ]

Is there a difference between patriotism and nationalism? At one level, most people would think they are synonyms. But closer observation reveals there is a vital difference between the two. According to the dictionary meaning patriotism is, quite simply, love for one’s country. Nationalism, on the contrary, is its visible demonstration. The two can interface in harmony. Or they can be posited against each other, whereby patriotism is considered somewhat inferior unless it manifests itself in its hyper version of overt nationalism.

This debate acquires resonance in the context of the recent air strike on the terrorist base at Balakot, and the public address to the nation by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on India joining the elite club of four nations – the US, Russia and China being the other three – who have the capacity to launch a missile against a satellite. Both events are a source of legitimate pride. Balakot signifies a paradigm shift in our resolve to retaliate against Pakistan for its proxy terrorist war against us. The A-Sat is a demonstration of our will to upgrade our defence preparedness to a new frontier of space capability.

Should both these events evoke a sense of patriotism, or must they provoke nationalistic fervour? Patriotism includes a sense of pride, but does not require that proof be given for it. Normally, it can be restricted to the respect reserved for symbols like the national flag or the national anthem. Nationalism, on the contrary, often demands aggressive expression, public articulation and the assertion of superiority, going beyond the rites due to national symbols. Patriotism is fulsome but not necessarily demonstrative; nationalism is exuberant and overt. Is there, in this difference, a danger that nationalism can be misused by those who wish to benefit from its exuberance? Hyper nationalism can be artificially simulated, whipped up to serve an ulterior purpose. In the hands of politicians it can be a lethal weapon. BS Yeddyurappa, former BJP chief minister of Karnataka, made a statement that post-Balakot, the ‘nationalist’ wave would help his party sweep the elections.

BJP organised political events where the photographs of CRPF jawans killed in Pulwama were deliberately made a backdrop. Posters and hoardings mushroomed displaying the armed forces, and even containing pictures of Wing Commander Abhinandan Varthaman, a serving air force officer. Politicising the armed forces is highly condemnable. National security is a bipartisan priority. The armed forces are mandated to be apolitical. Their valour and sacrifice is not the monopoly of any one party. To make them an accessory to party politics may help to stoke nationalism, but is an unpatriotic act.

For the government to take due credit for taking decisive action is legitimate; to coopt in this process the armed forces is not. It is good that the hoardings displaying the armed forces were taken down on the explicit directive of the Election Commission (EC). The EC has also set up a committee to examine whether the PM’s announcement of A-Sat constitutes a violation of the Model Code of Conduct for forthcoming parliamentary elections. While patriotism is a continuum, ultra-nationalism requires an event, an external stimulus, to periodically invoke it. There is also the danger that if unchecked, this heightened nationalism can degenerate to jingoism or xenophobia. The last two are irrational mindsets. It is very difficult to counter them with logic, because the very attempt to be logical rather than emotional is perceived as an act of betrayal.

This forecloses the possibility to question or interrogate for that is seen as anti-national. Jingoism works to subsume other priorities that need attention, and compresses all national debate to a single issue. In such situations, ordinary citizens are faced with an existential, even painful, dilemma. If they do not join the orchestrated chorus of nationalistic hysteria, their patriotism is considered inferior. If they do join the chorus, they have to stop behaving in the normal way of being patriotic.

This is so because patriotism is by definition inclusive, while hyper-nationalism thrives on exclusion, the conjuring of the ‘other’, against which the anger and animosity of the converted has to be directed. If patriotism is about sharing a sentiment, nationalism seeks to appropriate that sentiment. The citizen is forced to make a choice in this simulated tug of war. In a mature democracy, patriotism is an embellishment. It ennobles the project of nationhood. Nationalism, if unchecked or deliberately hyped, coarsens the democratic discourse. Its cynical misuse devalues patriotism, conflates dissent with sedition, seeks to deflect attention from legitimate critique, sanctions mob violence, and encourages hatred.

Will ordinary citizens make the right choice between patriotism and nationalism in the national elections? People vote on a range of issues that affect the quality of their lives. No election is uni-dimensional. Our country is a subcontinent. The factors exercising the mind of the voter are many, including local concerns, quality of candidates, ethics in public life, regional aspirations, performance of the economy, jobs, business opportunities, rural well-being, and, yes, national security.

All of these are compatible with patriotism. But to brush everything under one carpet of contrived nationalism will be an insult to the voter, and hence unpatriotic.

Date:30-03-19

Africa As China’s Sphere Of Influence?

ET Editorials

Chinese President Xi Jinping wrapped up his Europe tour earlier this week, which saw Italy signing up for China’s Belt and Road Initiative. What was evident was European concern over China’s spreading influence, riding piggyback on investment, particularly in Africa.

Beijing’s focus in Africa has been in energy and infrastructure, besides mines, with little backward or forward linkages in the host economy. Debt, if unserviced, can lead to Chinese takeover of assets. Working with partners, India has the potential to provide an alternative, with its historical ties, a three-million-strong diaspora, diverse business ties, and the English language. Investment flows into Africa, over 2008-16, were $52.6 billion, 21% of India’s total investment outflows. Of this, only $9.6 billion went to the Continent, the bulk going to Mauritius, whose draw has not been dented by recent changes to tax laws or the extended lines of credit to Africa. An institutional mechanism to promote investment can be an option. India must look beyond energy and infrastructure. It must encourage companies to invest in Africa, expanding value-added processing plants to reduce dependence on imports of finished goods, boost employment and promote a stronger business culture.

More funds and investment alone will not challenge China’s dominance. New Delhi must work with partners — France, Germany, UK and Japan — providing a viable alternative to China. Working with allies, India must leverage its historic ties with Africa and its shared colonial past to essay a development pathway that is based on partnership and mutual benefit, especially in education, training and measures to counter climate change, reduce poverty and boost agriculture. All of which will promote trade and investment.

Date:30-03-19

The Crisis In India’s Justice System

Reform is possible, even within present limits

ET Editorials

The judgment of the Panchkula special court, which had acquitted all the four accused in the Samjhauta Express bomb blast case last week, comes down heavily on the prosecution, saying the best evidence was withheld, crucial witnesses were not cross-examined and that dozens of witnesses turned hostile. Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi bemoans the paucity of judges in the Supreme Court and in assorted tribunals. He tells lawyers that the apex court would stop entertaining ‘mentions’ except in matters of life and death. India’s justice system, to put it mildly, is strained. This cannot continue, if India is to function as a democracy and a rule-based economy. The election manifesto is a good place for every party to address this problem.

Yes, India needs more courtrooms and more judges at every level. These are as vital a mechanism to empower the poor as schools and health centres. But it is really not necessary to wait for the logistics of the justice system to be completed for effective justice to flow in earnest. If a judge feels that the prosecution is waffling on purpose, why should he or she deliver a verdict? Why should the legal system not allow the judge to express dissatisfaction with the conduct of the prosecution and seek correctives before proceeding to conclude the hearing? Why are judges of lower courts who refuse to learn from repeated Supreme Court judgments on, say, the necessity of an explicit call to proximate violence for the charge of sedition to subsist, not be held in contempt of the apex court? Why should policemen whom Supreme Court judgments hold guilty of fabricating evidence not automatically face prosecution once the judgment is out? Why are the correctives that are possible within the limitations of the existing system not being applied?

Police and prosecution must be free from political pressure. The solution is not to free them from the executive, as has nominally been done with the CBI. Rather, the way ahead is to make the police simultaneously accountable to multi-party committees of the legislature and to the Human Rights Commission.

Date:30-03-19

संघवाद का महत्त्व

संपादकीय

भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक (आरबीआई) के गवर्नर शक्तिकांत दास ने इस बात पर चिंता व्यक्त की है कि विभिन्न वित्त आयोगों की अनुशंसाएं एक दूसरे से असंगत रही हैं। दास 15वें वित्त आयोग के सदस्य रह चुके हैं और वह केंद्रीय वित्त मंत्रालय के वरिष्ठ अधिकारी भी रहे हैं। उन्होंने दलील दी है कि अतीत में विभिन्न वित्त आयोगों ने राज्यों को दिए जाने वाले अनुदान और कर हस्तांतरण के लिए अलग-अलग तरीके अपनाए। उनके मुताबिक इसकी वजह से दिक्कत पैदा हुई क्योंकि इसमें निरंतरता की आवश्यकता थी। शायद इसी दिक्कत को दूर करने के लिए उन्होंने मौजूदा व्यवस्था के उलट स्थायी वित्त आयोग की स्थापना की वकालत की है। मौजूदा व्यवस्था में हर पांच साल में एक बार वित्त आयोग गठित किया जाता है। अब यह आवश्यक हो चला है क्योंकि वस्तु एवं सेवा कर (जीएसटी) लागू हो चुका है और जीएसटी परिषद कर संग्रह में सुधार पर ध्यान केंद्रित कर सकती है। इस बीच वित्त आयोग अन्य सुधारों पर ध्यान दे सकता है।

दास के अतीत को देखते हुए और फिलहाल वह जिस पद पर हैं उसके मद्देनजर उनके सुझावों को समुचित तवज्जो दी जानी चाहिए। बहरहाल, वित्त आयोगों से उनकी अपेक्षाएं गलत प्रतीत होती हैं और उन्होंने इन आयोगों की अनुशंसाओं को निरंतर अद्यतन किए जाने की आवश्यकता को ध्यान में नहीं रखा। वित्त आयोग राजकोषीय परिदृश्य का सर्वेक्षण करते हैं और उसके साथ संघवाद की स्थिति को परखते हुए ऐसी अनुशंसाएं करते हैं जिनका राजनीतिक वर्ग को ध्यान रखना होता है। यह दास के सुझावों से एकदम अलग है लेकिन यह एक अहम जरूरत बनी हुई है। दास विभिन्न वित्त आयोगों की सिफारिशों में निरंतरता की कमी को लेकर चिंतित हो सकते हैं लेकिन इस दौरान वह इस तथ्य की अनेदखी कर रहे हैं कि हाल के आयोगों की अनुशंसाओं में एक व्यापक रुझान राज्यों के कर हस्तांतरण में इजाफे का रहा है। यह बात अब स्थापित हो चुकी है और भविष्य के आयोग इसे आगे लेकर जाएंगे।

दिक्कत यह है कि ऐसी अनुशंसाओं को लेकर विभिन्न सरकारों ने सही रवैया नहीं अपनाया। उदाहरण के लिए मौजूदा सरकार ने चौदहवें वित्त आयोग के उस निर्णय पर समुचित कदम नहीं उठाया जिसके तहत उसने राज्यों के साथ साझा होने वाले कर का अनुपात 32 प्रतिशत से बढ़ाकर 42 प्रतिशत करने की बात कही थी। उस बढ़े हुए आवंटन को उपकरों के जरिये तथा केंद्र द्वारा प्रायोजित योजनाओं के आवंटन में भारी कमी के जरिये वापस ले लिया गया। दास अपने पूर्ववर्ती गवर्नरों में से एक वाई वी रेड्डी की पुस्तक के लोकार्पण के अवसर पर बोल रहे थे। इस अवसर पर रेड्डी ने कहा कि जहां विभिन्न वित्त आयोगों ने अलग-अलग अनुशंसाएं की हैं वहीं कभी भी किसी एक अनुशंसा का प्रभाव किसी खास राज्य पर 10 फीसदी से अधिक नहीं हुआ। दूसरे शब्दों में कहें तो आयोगों की अनिरंतरता से जुड़ी आशंका को बेवजह तूल दी जा रही है।

वित्त आयोग देश के संवैधानिक ढांचे का अहम हिस्सा हैं। उनकी बदौलत संघवाद से जुड़े प्रश्नों को लेकर देश का रुख निरंतर अद्यतन होता रहता है। कुछ विशिष्ट नियमों के साथ स्थायी वित्त आयोग का गठन इस प्रयास पर पानी फेर देगा और देश के संघीय ढांचे को भी नुकसान पहुंचाएगा। इस चर्चा पर राज्यों की भी निगाह है। केंद्र ने पहले ही 15वें वित्त आयोग की संदर्भ शर्तों में कुछ विवादास्पद बातें जोड़कर अनपेक्षित दबाव बना दिया है। दक्षिण भारत के राज्यों को लग रहा है कि इससे वे अनावश्यक रूप से दंडित होंगे। वित्त आयोगों का सम्मान किया जाना चाहिए, उन्हें असुविधा नहीं समझा जाना चाहिए।

Date:29-03-19

नफरत से लड़ते हुए

संपादकीय

यह सुखद है कि सदियों के संघर्ष के बाद अर्जित मानव मूल्यों पर जब भी किसी कोने से कोई गंभीर हमला होता है, तो उसके खिलाफ उसी खित्ते के लोग मुखरता के साथ खडे़ होने लगे हैं। इस लिहाज से फेसबुक ने श्वेत राष्ट्रवाद यानी ‘व्हाइट नेशनलिज्म’ की पैरोकारी वाली हर तरह की कार्रवाई को प्रतिबंधित करने का जो फैसला किया है, वह भले जनभावना के दबाव में उठाया गया कदम हो, इसकी सराहना की जानी चाहिए। पिछले दिनों इसी नस्लवादी विचारधारा से प्रेरित हत्यारे ने क्राइस्टचर्च की दो मस्जिदों में करीब 50 नमाजियों के नरसंहार का सीधा प्रसारण करके दुनिया को दहला दिया था। तभी से सोशल मीडिया के तमाम माध्यमों पर नफरत भरी कार्रवाइयों को हतोत्साहित करने का दबाव बढ़ गया है। बताने की जरूरत नहीं कि फेसबुक के साथ ट्विटर, इंस्टाग्राम, यू-ट्यूब पर ऐसी सामग्रियों की भरमार है, जो समाज में घृणा के जहर घोलने का काम कर रही हैं।

निस्संदेह, सोशल मीडिया के इन मंचों की लोकप्रियता या यूएसपी अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतंत्रता है। इनके अरबों-खरबों के कारोबार का यही आधार है। मगर दिक्कत यह है कि यह बेलगाम आजादी अब गंभीर अंतर्विरोधों को जन्म देने लगी है और इसके साये में दहशत और नफरत के कारोबारी सक्रिय हो गए हैं। ऐसे में, स्वाभाविक है कि उदार से उदार समाजों और देश में भी अब इसकी समीक्षा की मांग जोर पकड़ रही है। तकनीकी तरक्की के मौजूदा युग में रोज नए-नए एप और वेबसाइटें गलत-सही सूचनाओं का अंबार लिए हमारे सामने आ खड़ी होती हैं। ऐसे में, ये कानून-व्यवस्था के लिए भी जटिल चुनौतियां पेश कर रही हैं। फेसबुक को ही लीजिए, रोजाना करीब डेढ़ अरब लोग दुनिया भर में इस मंच पर सक्रिय होते हैं। इतनी बड़ी जनसंख्या से आप संजीदगी बरतने की अपेक्षा नहीं कर सकते। तब तो और, जब ज्यादातर देशों के पास साइबर अपराधों से निपटने का मुकम्मल ढांचा तक नहीं। ऐसे में, यह जिम्मेदारी सोशल मीडिया के माध्यमों पर ही आयद होनी चाहिए कि वे अपनी साइट पर जाने वाली सामग्रियों की निगरानी का ठोस तंत्र विकसित करें।

सोशल मीडिया की बढ़ती ताकत सामाजिक ताने-बाने के लिहाज से ही संवेदनशील मसला नहीं है, अब यह लोकतंत्र के लिए भी गंभीर चुनौती के रूप में सामने है। अमेरिका के पिछले राष्ट्रपति चुनाव में इसके जरिए रूसी हस्तक्षेप का मामला अभी पूरी तरह से खत्म नहीं हुआ है। हमारे आम चुनाव में भी एक बड़ी लड़ाई फेसबुक और ट्विटर पर लड़ी जा रही है। इसका सकारात्मक पहलू यह है कि फेसबुक-ट्विटर जैसे माध्यम उन पार्टियों और उम्मीदवारों के लिए एक सशक्त मंच बनकर उभरे हैं, जिनके पास चुनाव लड़ने के लिए आयोग द्वारा निर्धारित खर्च सीमा जितनी रकम भी नहीं। फेसबुक वगैरह का मकसद यही होगा कि सबको एक बराबर मंच मुहैया कराकर इसके जरिए अपने कारोबार का विस्तार किया जाए। लेकिन जैसा कि हरेक अच्छी पहल के साथ होता है, यह मंच भी बुरे पक्षों का शिकार बन गया है। कहने की जो आजादी मनुष्य के लिए सबसे बड़ा मूल्य है, उसे कुछ हत्यारों और असामाजिक तत्वों के कारण पाबंदियों का शिकार बनना पड़ा है। मगर इस मोड़ पर भी हम यही कामना करेंगे कि नफरतों को मिटाने के क्रम में अभिव्यक्ति की आजादी की हर सूरत में हिफाजत हो।

Date:29-03-19

Their Right To The City

Eklavya Vasudev, [ The writer is a lawyer and senior associate-legal, Indian Institute for Human Settlements ]

On March 18, the Delhi High Court held that slum dwellers are not secondary citizens but citizens with equal rights. Authorities can evict slum dwellers only when their occupation of the land is illegal. Any unannounced eviction without a resettlement and rehabilitation plan is also not permitted. The judgment by a division bench comprising of Justices S Muralidhar and Vibhu Bakru stated that, when approached by persons complaining of forced eviction, courts would now be required to view them not as “encroachers” but as citizens whose rights to rehabilitation have to be determined in terms of law.

Slum dwellers have often been characterised as encroachers by government agencies, mainstream media, and even courts. In popular understanding too, urban slums and their residents have been seen as the antithesis to what is planned and what is legal — a blot on a city’s beauty. Against this popular view, a number of scholars and activists have argued that slum dwellers are not encroachers but citizens with equal rights who should, at the very least, have access to the same rights guaranteed to the rest of us. Political support for the rights of slum dwellers to receive adequate notice before eviction has been infrequent as it has been for their adequate rehabilitation.

The occasional political claim, despite having a sociological basis, has not had sound legal grounding in spite of some well-intentioned decisions by the higher judiciary where the Court has not gone far enough to protect substantive rights of slum dwellers. For instance, in Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood but did not indicate specific reliefs. In Sudama Singh v. Gov. of Delhi, the Delhi High Court laid down safeguards and procedures to be followed by government agencies before proceeding to remove jhuggis/slums, but confusion remained as to whether central agencies would be bound to follow the same procedures or not.

However, the judgment in this case, achieves two things. First, it mandates equal rights — and access to the principles of natural justice — for slum dwellers who face illegal eviction. The verdict identifies them as citizens — not encroachers — whose rights (to rehabilitation or to prior notice) have to be determined as per the law of the land. Second, it grounds these claims not just in reason but in sound legal doctrine. The court discusses international law that India is bound by and backs it up with domestic legislation on the subject. The judgment also discusses principles of natural justice and constitutional provisions that make it obligatory for government agencies to ensure that there are no arbitrary and illegal evictions. And in case slum dwellers are found to be occupying land not owned by them, any forced unannounced eviction of slum dwellers is not permitted.

About a third of Delhi’s population lives in slums. This vast community now has been assured access to courts in case of arbitrary evictions. They are also entitled to be identified as citizens who have an equal right to the city. The Court articulated their right to housing as a “bundle of rights not limited to a bare shelter over one’s head. It includes the right to livelihood, right to health, right to education and right to food, including the right to clean drinking water, sewerage and transport facilities.”

Government agencies and courts can no longer give precedence to one kind of public interest (that of middle and upper classes) over another kind of public interest (that of the slum residents). For the remaining residents of Delhi, as the Court points out, it is important to recognise that the Constitution does not discriminate between citizens — and slum dwellers are not to be treated as “secondary citizens”. The Constitution envisages cities as a “commons good” to which everyone has a right. This view acknowledges that those living in slums contribute to a city’s social and economic life. As the judgment notes, in the context of Delhi, such people would include sanitation workers, garbage collectors, domestic help and others who provide a wide range of indispensable services to healthy urban life. Prioritising the housing needs of this section of the public is not only a moral imperative but now also a legal one.