[Photo Courtesy: The Hindu]

UPDATE: With four civilians killed in the past 24 hours and 70 others injured as the police opened fire to quell demonstrations in different parts of Srinagar, the Jammu and Kashmir government on Tuesday sought the Army’s help in tamping down mass protests that have not abated despite several days of curfew.

The Government of India is referring to it as a law and order problem prompted by separatists. The incident and follow up official reaction indicates that the Government’s priorities in the state are more security oriented than conditioned by requirements of ensuring stability. Maintenance of law and order and prevalence of armed forces can ensure security. Good governance and winning the ‘hearts and minds’ of the local population warrants stability.

According to India’s Home Minister P. Chidambaram, “On June 25 (at Chankhan Bridge, Sopore) and on June 28 (at Kapra Cinema Hall, Sopore) the CRPF had to use force in self-defense.” Nevertheless, the Home Minister has assured that issue of ‘excessive use of force’ shall be examined and the CRPF has been instructed to “observe maximum restraint”.

�
According to Omar Abdullah, Chief Minister of the state, the recent incidents reflect the frustration emerging from the failure of political dialogue rather than failure of governance. According to him prospects of talks with separatists within the state have greater possibility of success when a parallel process of India-Pakistan dialogue is underway.
In a press conference Omar Abdullah, appealed to all the parents to counsel their children, “to ensure that their children do not come out and engage security forces in stone pelting…It is not a simple law and order situation. This is a battle of wits. It is a battle of ideas and ideologies. Various anti-national forces and vested interests have come together to foment trouble. It is extremely unfortunate that vulnerable youth are being incited and brought to the forefront resulting in such tragic incidents.” C.M. Abdullah has held three rounds of interactions with the locals since the recent deaths to “listen to the people” and consider their suggestions.

�
The concerns expressed by the Home Minister and Chief Minister are impressive but general apprehension for the official policy is strong. Why was it possible for separatist elements to influence “children” in the state to attack security forces? What prompted the “children” to confront heavily armed security forces with stones? According to C.M. Abdullah stones and guns can’t change the political map of J&K. But what point were these protesters making by resorting to stones and “not” guns? Moreover, it is important for the political leadership of a democracy to be ‘visible’ during crisis situations. H.M. Chidabaram deferred his previously scheduled trip to the state, by stating that “after things have quietened down, I will then consider visiting”.

�
Government officials and the media are out to convince that the Amarnath Yatra (pilgrimage to a famous Hindu Shrine in J&K) has commenced and has not been disrupted due the curfew situation in the State. The pilgrims will obviously cooperate and not confront with the officials of the State Government and personnel of the security forces to smoothly complete their journey. Thereby reaffirming the case that it is possible for the State government and security forces to maintain law and order and undertake challenging assignments if people cooperate. However, if people refuse to cooperate and throw stones at the security forces, the latter are compelled to use force.

�
This official stance on the recent mob deaths in the State raises two questions. First, does the CRPF not have non-violent means of mob-dispersal and were these employed to scatter the protestors? Opening fire is the instrument of last resort while dispersing mobs, especially when the armed forces and protestors belong to a democratic state. From tear gas to water cannons, the armed forces have a variety of options to dissolve crowds of protestors.

�
Second, public protests are an integral part of people’s struggle in India. The national movement is a chronicle of violent and non-violent protests by the people against British rule. Though governments in India have been democratically elected since independence, people have continued to use different forms of public protests to express dissatisfaction. Official reaction to earlier instances of public protests around the country has been somewhat similar to the one in J&K. In 2007, 34 people had died in protests at Nandigram, West Bengal over the issue of creating a Special Economic Zone in the area.

�
The state and central governments contend that the only way to solve the problems in J&K is through dialogue. The instrument of dialogue is unduly advantageous for the Government. The Government has the means to conduct a reasoned dialogue, but it is naïve to expect that the multitude of people can bring the same degree of rationality while approaching the Government. It is possible that most of the protestors were on the fringe of the ‘popular’ civil society in the state and thereby lacking any means to approach the government.  

�
Pushing State defined concept of protests along with curfews is a good way to ensure security in J&K. However, alienation resulting from such measures will make achievement of stability, in terms of sustained socio-economic growth and political participation, a great challenge.

WASMO aims to promote, support and monitor the community participation and community based management in water and sanitation projects in an equitable, sustainable and transparent manner. WASMO trains Pani Samiti members to effectively plan, implement and manage water supply systems, handle their finances, and spread awareness on personal hygiene and sanitation. SWAGAT operates on the principle that grievance redressal is essential for good governance especially to vitalize a democracy. Every month the Chief Minister considers grievance cases through multi-video conferencing with all 26 Districts and all 225 Taluka Offices. SWAGAT is outcome focused and cases are redressed on the same day or in a time-bound manner. This is the first time that the common citizen can access the highest level office with other officers present in real-time through video-conferencing.
Will such recognitions help to re-define the image of Gujarat and Chief Minister Narendra Modi in the backdrop of the 2002 violence? The Congress expressed displeasure when Amitabh Bachchan appeared as the brand ambassador for the Gujarat Tourism Industry. Will everything related to Narendra’s Modi’s Government in Gujarat continue to be viewed with contempt? What happened in Gujarat in 2002 needs to be condemned but for how long will 2002 continue to cast a shadow on the present and future of Gujarat?  It’s sad that in a country with a dismal record of public service the achievements of Gujarat are not being duly celebrated.

Though the specimens of technological progress and opportunities to make merry did impress them, there was something that negated the advantages of living in the most developed country: non-availability of ‘subordinates’. I use the term subordinates loosely to refer to domestic and professional help available to a large section of the Indian population. From mopping the floors to cleaning utensils, from taking care of laundry to rearing your toddlers, from washing your car to carrying your groceries at the store, from cooking food for you to uploading new playlists on your ipod, from mailing your official letters to filing your taxes. Given the availability of cheap labor it is possible to hire people in India for almost anything at very little cost. The fact that irrespective of socio-economic status most people living in the U.S. have to do these tasks by themselves appears surprising to most Indians.  How can someone claim to enjoy higher standard of living while continuing to personally undertake little chores? Their sense of better standard of living is measured by the number of ‘subordinates’ one can afford.
Majority of Indians can express surprise at the notion of self-help because a large segment of the population, reeling under abject poverty, is readily available to service them. Mahatma Gandhi had started a national movement premised on the notion of self-help. From cleaning personal bathrooms to spinning yarn the Mahatma emphasized on the dignity of labor in every aspect of the individual’s activities.  In the Hindu holy scriptures, the Vedas, there are numerous injunctions encouraging self-help and dignity of labor. According to Rigveda 1.117.23
the King and minister should sow seeds and do farming from time to time to set right examples for others. Rigveda 10.104.4 and 10.101.3 states that scholars should plough land.
Even by the simple logic of mutual existence why should some people claim to enjoy a better standard of living when several others are forced to serve them? Rationalization and enjoyment of socio-economic inequality by many Indians goes against their civilizational roots and also their claim of being ‘morally superior’ to the ‘materialistic Western’ people. It is not impossible to hire people for domestic and professional tasks in the U.S. You can appoint a nanny to take care of your little ones, call in people for household cleaning on a regular basis, use turbo tax to file your taxes and even ask for help to carry out groceries from the store to your car. But the people who render these services are not looked down upon as subordinates and are paid appropriately for their services. You don’t sympathize with them for doing these chores but respect the service they provide. Here comes in the difference in the Indian and Western understanding of the term service. In India subordinates serve you while in the West you have service professionals.

Why do Indians need scriptural injunctions or national revolutions to understand the concept of self-help or dignity of labor? How should I measure my standard of living? By how free I am to pursue my personal interests or by how bounded others are to serve me?

What surprised me was how Indians (more appropriately elitist segment of the Indian population) had embraced a global trend and yet thoroughly customized it to the country’s social style. Given the closely networked global community, India can’t afford to insulate itself from trends like twitter, but we can give global trends a ‘swadeshi’ feel. There are no national boundaries on twitter, what is available to someone based in New York is equally accessible to a resident of New Delhi. So what’s ‘Swadeshi’ about twitter? It is the perception and use of the media by the Indians.
The personality cult is dominant in the Indian society. In politics, political personalities and parties sell more than actual policies; in Bollywood, the casts more than script attracts people to cinema halls; in sports a below average performance is acceptable if the player exhumes a glamorous persona.  Likewise on twitter, more than information and content it is controversy and attention of mainstream media that determines followership trends among Indians. Those with twitter accounts either have to post a controversial tweet or somehow get cited in the mainstream media to increase their followership. Information disseminating twitter accounts like those of Delhi University (586), Reserve Bank of India (94), Reliance (RelainceWorld has 1,305 followers) and Infosys (1,200) have dismal followership among Indians. Shashi Tharoor, Amitabh Bachchan, Lalit Modi, Priyanka Chopra and Sania Mirza have much larger number of followers. Unlike the CNN no news agency in India can claim to have over a million followers. This cannot solely be attributed to low internet penetration rates in India, freedom of choice and social trends play a vital role in determing followership trends on twitter.
The discussion on ‘We the Tweeple’ also generated a similar sense. The issue of disclosing one’s personal life in the public domain rather than the information potential of twitter dominated the discussion. Social media forums like twitter have two uses: 1) how the individual connects to the world, 2) how the world of information comes to the individual. In India the former aspect is dominant; it is more about tweets by celebs, issues of privacy and autonomy and the ‘who has more followers’ competition. The tweet that attracts more attention is not the one informing people about Anil Ambani’s business plans but the one that discloses that he has ‘unfriend’ his brother Mukesh Ambani on Facebook.
Social media may be a tool to enhance communication but it adapts to rather than change patterns of social interaction in societies. The twitter phenomenon in India proves the point.

Continue reading

Some media channels in India are comparing the U.S. response to Bhopal and Gulf as display of America’s double standards. The U.S. refuses to extradite Warren Anderson, the man who headed Union Carbide at the time of the Bhopal gas tragedy, to India. On the other hand, President Obama is personally involved in ensuring that the oil spill is controlled and the guilty are punished.
More than a display of America’s double standards, the Bhopal and Gulf case comparison is a reminder of the weakness of India’s political and legal system.

�
Issues like Bhopal gas tragedy, Dantewada massacre, poor official response to loss of lives due to regular flooding, death of 160 people in airline crash, rarely, if ever, matter to the electorate and never impact electoral outcomes. The political leadership is not pressured to take fast and effective action for such human tragedies because these serve nothing more than fodder for the 24×7 news cycle.
Fortunately the media coverage does arouse, even though temporarily, public concern for collective and individual tragedies. In many instances public activism has pushed the country’s legal system to act impartiality. Former Haryana DGP SPS Rathore, serving an 18-month sentence in Ruchika Girhotra molestation case, was convicted following media and public outcry. Conviction of Manu Sharma in the Jessica Lal murder case followed a similar trajectory.

�
British Petroleum has already paid 69 million dollars, just as first installment for the damages caused. That figure could multiply several times, with the company’s liability still being decided. In contrast, Union Carbide paid just $ 470 million in compensation for the deaths it caused. That’s less than $500 dollars per victim, insufficient even to cover medical treatment costs for those who survived.

�
Would BP pay the same amount had the oil leak affected the Bay of Bengal? Or would the Union Carbide’s response be the same had the gas leak occurred on American soil?

According to the UIDAI, the UID project would provide unique numbers to all residents of India. Apart from providing identity, the UID will enable better delivery of services and effective governance. In becoming a single source of identity verification, it could enable the easier roll-out of wide number of services such as bank accounts, passports, driving licences, and LPG connections. Proof of identity and greater financial inclusion could lay the basis for checking fraud and corruption, avoiding duplication and targeting intended beneficiaries in a range of programs such as the NREGS and the PDS. The first set of UID numbers will be issued between August 2010 and February 2011. Thereafter, 600 million UID numbers will be issued in the next five years.

�
The UIDAI proposes to collect the data through various agencies of the Central and the State Governments and others who, in normal course of their activities, interact with the residents. These entities are described as “Registrars” of the UIDAI. Examples of such Registrars at the State level are the Departments of Rural Development (for MNREGA) and Public Distribution and Consumer Affairs (for PDS). At the central level these entities could be Banks, LIC and Oil Marketing Companies. As the NPR exercise is also going on, the Registrar General of India will also be an important Registrar for the purpose of collection of demographic and biometric data for the project.

�
The UID project has roused widespread concern and debate among intellectuals and civil society groups in India. The debate is focused on the following issues: �
First, UID numbers are not mandatory. During an interactive session at the Confederation of Indian Industry, Mr. Nandan Nilekani, Chairman UIDAI, pointed out the difficulties that would crop up if the number was made mandatory by service deliverers. If one did not have the number, one would be excluded from the benefit of that particular programme. If people can continue to access the same benefits with or without the UID, why will they opt for one, especially given the skepticism with regard to hacking and privacy invasion?

�
Second, there is some theoretical confusion about who is eligible to have an UID. The UIDAI website states that the UID number will be issued to all residents. In an interview Nandan Nilekani said that it was being offered to citizens, almost ruling out the possibility of entertaining the claims of NRIs. This implies that UID is not meant to create or foster a national identity. It is designed to create an aggregate for better governance. According to Nilekani, “Only if they [individuals] have stayed for a requisite time period in India, can they can be given one.” Does this mean that illegal immigrants who are living in India for a particular number of years are eligible to access Government services through the possession of UID? At the same time Indian citizens, residing in countries will not be able to share this privilege with their ‘resident’ Indian counterparts?

�
Third, Nandan Nilekani’s argument for the success of the UID project is based on the technology argument. He has explained this in an article in the Times of India. The title of the article appears problematic to me. It’s entitled ‘Giving Indians an Identity’. If non resident Indians are excluded from and illegal migrants are included in the project, how can Nilekani claim to implement a project encompassing ‘Indians’? Moreover, what kind of identity is he referring to here? It obviously is not an identity as citizen of a nation-state or as member of specific discursive groups (caste, language, religion) spawning the Indian landscape. Is it identity as politico-commercial aggregates? If you are a resident of India for n number of years with UID it will be easier for you to open a bank account or secure a new LPG connection. UID gives you an identity as a service consumer.
Nilekani’s technology argument is also not entirely convincing. The penetration of ICT in India has indeed been impressive. But to assume the future pervasiveness of technology in India is wishful thinking. The possession of a mobile phone by almost every roadside vendor in India is one thing and the possibility of smart phone in the hands of every Indian (as claimed by Nilekani) is something very different. Nilekani further claims, “We can expect that in less than this time, connectivity will be pervasive. In the near future, we will have unprecedented, universally accessible computing power, which can tap into information flows across a ubiquitous network.” The UID technology can remove the problems of authentication for service providers but can it instill confidence among the Indian population to use technology to access services? In a country where large sections of the population are skeptical of suing ATM cards and several people in metropolitan cities prefer to stand in long queue rather than make online reservations for rail travel, Nilekani’s vision of a technology driven India appears ambitious.

�
To some extent, the UID Project reminds me of Partha Chatterjee’s distinction between ‘population’ and ‘civil society’. According to Chatterjee, the concept of population is descriptive and empirical, not normative. Indeed, population is assumed to contain large elements of ‘naturalness’ and ‘primordiality’; the internal principles of the constitution of particular population groups is not expected to be rationally explicable since they are not the products of rational contractual association but are, as it were, pre-rational. What the concept of population does, however, is make available for governmental functions (economic policy, bureaucratic administration, law and political mobilization) a set of rationally manipulable instruments for reaching large sections of the inhabitants of a country as the targets of ‘policy.’

Nilekani’s UID project would be a great success if it can re-energize the ‘political society’ as explained by Chatterjee. In a political society, according to Chatterjee, the agencies of the state and of non-governmental organizations deal with these people not as bodies of citizens belonging to a lawfully constituted civil society, but as population groups deserving welfare. However, such artificial attempts are creating a technology driven political society could prove disastrous. It is too early to pronounce a verdict on India’s UID project; nevertheless cautious anticipation awaits its implementation.

�

P.M. Singh recognized that the composite dialogue has not moved forward since the Mumbai attacks. But in his words the “underlying cause” for this was the “lack of adequate amount of trust between our two countries.” Does this mean that India has not trusted Pakistan enough? I had thought that the underlying cause was Pakistan’s support of terrorism against India.

�
The P.M. was explicitly asked about why he believed that he would succeed in building a relationship based on trust with Pakistan?
The reply, in his words, was “Well, I can’t say that I know the answer. It is our obligation to make every effort to normalize relations with India’s neighbors. That is essential, I have always believed, to realize the development potential of our country. We will make every effort; whether we succeed or not, that only the future can tell.” This sounded more like the concept of ‘swadharma’ (doing one’s duty) rather than enunciation of India’s bilateral diplomacy.

�
In another attempt to push the P.M., a journalist asked him to mention the specific milestones Pakistan should fulfill to reduce the trust deficit. This question was coupled with the issue of David Headley. The P.M. simply responded to the issue of Headley, ignoring the reference to Pakistan.

�
I was amazed to realize the extent to which India’s progress was projected to be dependent on ‘good’ relations with Pakistan. Given the closely connected financial and technological destinies of contemporary states, regional and global realities do impact on national development. But it is difficult to accept P.M. Singh’s over-deterministic assessment of Pakistan’s influence on India’s development. According to P.M. Singh, India cannot realize its full development potential unless “we have the best possible relations with our neighbors and Pakistan happens to the largest neighbor of ours.”

�
P.M. Singh did mention that India was willing to discuss all outstanding issues with Pakistan on the condition that Pakistan’s territory should not used for spreading terrorism against India. But given the lack of a roadmap, both in event of Pakistan’s compliance or non-compliance to India’s condition, it is evident that this was convenient rhetoric by the Government in power rather than enunciation of India’s ‘Pakistan’ policy.