A glimpse of inequality in India

**Food for thought: **
How many of us have watched ‘Parasite’? If not, then please watch it because for the first time a foreign language film has won the Academy Award for the Best Picture.
This must make you curious. What is so special in this movie?
No doubt that this movie has some of the best actors and technicians and the director. But as per media reports, what caught the attention of jury is the ‘inequality of society’, Korean society to be precise, as displayed in this movie. Perhaps, Jury members, who are mostly Americans compared it with the inequality in their own society and were much moved by the scenes and the script of this movie. The article shared above gives the comparative picture of inequality in South Korea and USA.
I was reading it last night and decided to find relevant data for India. As per the latest report (Jan 2020) of Oxfam on Inequality in India, top 1% Indians own 42.5% of the wealth in the country and bottom 50% own 2.8% of total wealth. Much more alarming than inequality in Korea or USA!
And what’s happening to inequality over time? Well, last year 73% of all the wealth generated in the country went to top 1% Indians!
So India is not only dangerously unequal but this inequality is also rising rapidly. While ‘wealth’ is a figure which captures cumulative asset of a person, ‘income’ on the other hand is the constant stream which adds to wealth every year. So inequality is measured in both, wealth as well as income. Wealth inequality gives the overall picture at any given time while income inequality tells a lot about what’s happening with the overall inequality with time, i.e., whether it’s rising, declining or being constant.
In 1983, total income going to top 1% of the country was 6% of the total income generated in the country in a year. This share has been rising ever since. In 2012, total income going to top 1% of the country was 22% of the total income generated. (based on studies of Chancel and Piketty - I expect Piketty to get Nobel in Economics within next 10 years).
So basically a highly unequal society is becoming more and more unequal over time. Oxfam has developed an Index to measure the efforts taken by governments to reduce inequality. Not surprisingly, out of 157 countries India ranks bottom 11th in its efforts to reduce inequality.
Let me change the language from Economics to daily life to understand it better. How do we know whether Govt is making efforts? We look at the annual Budget. We look at the economic policies. We look at the monetary policies, i.e. interest rate on loans.
We saw that top 1% of Indians are cornering ever increasing share of income every year. Now let’s see why such a trend instead of reversing is getting stronger with time.
In December 2019, Govt of India reduced the Corporate tax rate (this is a tax on profit) from 30% to 22%.
GST rate charged by most of the swanky restaurants in India is only 5% or 12%. Such restaurants are visited and patronised mostly by the top 10% income earners in the country.
Cumulative public spending on Health is 1% of GDP. We know how inadequate this public spending is. Most Indians do not have access to reliable and affordable health care. There are very few government run hospitals and all of them are understaffed, poorly managed and extremely dirty. Therefore even poor people prefer to go to private doctors. A poor person falls in poverty trap when he/she or any of their family member falls sick. They fall in this trap because they can get healthcare only when the spend out of pocket. So why will poverty and inequality not rise in such a society? I read somewhere that in a broken economies like India rich are getting very rich at the cost of poor! Think of this poor sick lady and think of Appolo, Max, Vedanta in the same frame. What do you see?
Similarly government spending on education is 2.7% of GDP. Not only normal developing countries but also countries of sub-Saharan Africa are spending more on education these days. So naturally you can’t expect the kids of Dalits, kids of traditional forest dwelling Aboriginal tribals, kids of repressed EBC people and kids of poor OBC people to join the ranks of Tharoor or Nadella. And if some such poor kids like Kanhaiya Kumar manage to go to school and pass school examinations and enter JNU for PhD then they are derided by the entire nation as their education is a burden on poor taxpayers of the country! Is cost of education really a burden on us?
We have been made to think like this because for us education has always been paid. We haven’t seen free education so we feel that universities like JNU are burden on the country. Ladies & Gentlemen, we need hundreds of universities like JNU in this country. We need all state governments to spend a large share of their budget on school education. We need State to spend on Health and provide free and reliable healthcare. We need solutions like Mohalla Clinic in every village of this country.
India is poor and unequal. State needs to provide free and quality education and healthcare to all its citizen to lessen the pain of poverty. And State needs to tax more progressively to address the problem of Inequality.

J&K reorganisation

On 5^th of August 2019 at 11 am in the morning this country gets a sudden jolt. We get to know that Article 370 of the Constitution of India is being repealed (almost) and the State of Jammu & Kashmir will be reorganised into the Union Territories of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. This is a jolt which turns the history and politics of Kashmir on its head.

As media is reporting, more or less this move has been welcomed by everybody in the country. Still opposition parties like Congress, TMC, CPM, SP, JD(U) etc has opposed it. Leaders of J&K, most of whom are under house arrest right now, have called it a black day in the history of India’s democracy. And despite almost entire country welcoming it I have felt a need to open a bottle of beer and write something after a tiring day in office. 😊

Accession of J&K to the Union of India was different from the assimilation of other princely states. Due to its geographical location and demographic peculiarity the then ruler of J&K had agreed to accede to the Union of India under different terms and conditions. Most of these conditions are codified in Article 370. For academically oriented it is pertinent to mention here that though Article 370 codified the conditions of accession it was not inserted in the Constitution without debate or discussion (as widely propagated by a group of politicians, journalists and their followers). Maharaja Hari Singh had  signed Instrument of Accession on 27^th October 1947. That was also the time when Constituent Assembly was constituted. This Constituent Assembly had discussed Article 370 threadbare, like all other provisions of the Constitution. Here it is important to bring to the attention of everybody that out of 389 members only one member had opposed Article 370 and he was not named Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, as widely propagated. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee was a member of the Constituent Assembly and like everybody else he had also supported Article 370. Opposition for Article 370 had come from the lone voice of Maulana Mohammad Sayeed Masoodi. However that is not the point here. 

At that time Article 370 was a temporary provision. However that provision being so pivotal for the affairs of that State even after 69 years of adoption of this Constitution belies the meaning of temporary. It is understandable that those who had believed in the idea of a unified India were not happy with this special provision irrespective of the geographical and demographic peculiarity of the State. If Article 370 was temporary then a lasting, sustainable provision should have been worked out in the following years or decades. Previous governments of independent India had failed on this front. Present govt wanted to put the record straight and they have done it!

Then why so much foul cry? Why do I feel the need to pick a glass of beer on Monday evening after office?

Let me talk about the foul cry of the opposition parties first. 

This foul cry is as hollow, as meaningless and as misleading as the ‘temporary’ provision of Article 370. Congress and opposition is as insincere and as incapable of providing an alternate solution as they have been in the last 67 years since the first General Election of Loksabha. They are opposing because they are ‘opposition’. How laughable! Congress and most of Janata Parties (since JP days) have done the politics of appeasement. They are opposing the repeal of Article 370 not because they have the best interest of Kashmiris in mind. They are opposing because they are worried about ‘Muslim votes’. Despite the astounding success of Indian democracy this appeasement politics is one of the fallacies of practitioners of democratic politics in India. Absence of a Uniform Civil Code in a unified republic after 70 years of Independence is not secularism. Supporting Shah Bano decision of Rajiv Gandhi Govt is not secularism. Opposing Triple Talaque is not secularism. Opposing repeal of Article 370 for the sake of opposition is not a politics for secularism. Politics of appeasement has been practised in independent India in the name of secular politics. These opposition parties has no vision for the social and economic upliftment of millions of religious minorities in the country. (Though their politics is favourable, in the short run,  when compared to the politics of hatred and violence of BJP but they have done no less damage to the biggest religious community with their politics of appeasement for votes.)

That’s about foul cry. But why do I feel the need for deliberation and discussion on this? After all I am neither a parliamentarian (the decision makers) not a media person who earns a living from reporting, analysing and criticising such decisions. 

This is a question I wish everybody asks himself or herself. I have  grown up in an independent, democratic country. My life is a product of the success of Indian democracy. In a democracy, different sections of society with differing resources come together and make a common life out of it. They follow a common rule of law. They live in a unified administrative and governance structure. They have the freedom to chose. I am having beer, unfortunately (today), because previous three sentences are not true for the residents of J&K. 

Residents of J&K are citizens of India but, unlike the rest of us, they do not have the freedom to chose – partly because of Article 370, partly because of covert war being waged by our neighbour and partly because of lack of vision and commitment on the part of Govt of India. But this lack of freedom to chose is the most fundamental difference between the residents of J&K and the rest of Indians. Absence of freedom to chose is the absence of democracy. 

Unlike most of you, I do not take pride in Kashmir being a part of India. I take pride in living in the the democratic republic of India. I take pride in the process which has changed the lives of millions for better. All citizens are equal in a democracy. But Kashmiris are not equal citizens. You and I can chose whom to be friends with, we can move freely in our villages and towns, we can invite friends over at our place without any worry but Kashmiris cannot do all these things without being snooped-in in the name of security. I agree that security of the unified India will be at risk but if I am a Kashmiri then I am not free and I am not happy. 

Today when the future of J&K is being decided, which has evaded any solution for more than 70 years, then a bill is presented in the Parliament of India at 11 in the morning and the House passes it after all the discussions in less than eight hours!!! That is how democratic the life of a Kashmiri is!

Some men (and women) may be wiser than others but how a few gentlemen (and women) have found a solution in complete secrecy to a problem which is so profound! Is this the democracy we are proud of? Call me an anti-national but my allegiance is more towards a democratic living than a map drawn by a few wise men sitting in high offices. 

Various provisions of Article 370 were inserted in late 1950s with the concurrence of Pt. Nehru and Shekh Abdulla. We call it undemocratic. Today’s repeal of Article 370 (barring Section-1) is no less undemocratic. If Article 370 failed to bring peace and lasting solution, its repeal will be equally disastrous. 

It will be disastrous because it does not embody the will of masses. It will fail because it doesn’t reflect the aspirations of those it aims to serve. 

You may ask how can I claim that it doesn’t reflect the aspirations of Kashmiris and other residents of Jammu and Ladakh. Answer is simple. It doesn’t reflect that because it has been designed in an undemocratic manner. The bill says that it has the assent of the government of J&K but in the absence of Assembly, technically speaking Governor is the government but when we examine it at practical level we know that this claim is as fallacious as the claim of genius of Shekh Abdulla and Pt Nehru in drafting the various provisions of Article 370. 

A powerful government of today can bring changes in the Constitution of India because it has numbers on its side but these numbers will not solve the problems of decades. History will judge the present government and all of us in the light of the consequences of today’s decision. People sitting on the opposing sides take the stand which suits them but I am skeptical because democratic methods have not been adopted in proposing these solutions. If it succeeds in bringing lasting peace then it will be the biggest gamble in the democratic history of India but there are all the reasons to believe that this will also fail J&K and its residents the way Article 370 has failed. It will fail despite taking, supposedly (and widely believed to take), best care of our national interest. It will fail because it is not democratic. It will fail because it does not reflect the Will of the masses. 

Before I wind up I must also say that today’s leadership in the valley is as directionless, as devoid of vision as today’s opposition in the parliament. They fail to connect to masses. They are also doing the politics of fear and politics of petty appeasement. They are equally responsible for lack of any lasting peace in the valley in the last three decades of insurgency. Unless they reinvent and reorient themselves, they will be discarded by the voters in J&K the way they have discarded the longest ruling party in Independent India from mainstream national politics. 

These are turbulent times for the residents of Jammu and Kashmir. These are turbulent times for India as a nation. Idea of India is at stake. 

CAA

Why you should oppose CAA if you care for the Idea of India

Citizenship Amendment Act has been passed by the Parliament of India and it has come into effect from 10^th January 2020. This has opened a window for the illegal immigrants to acquire Indian citizenship. It has several implications and I will take them up one by one. 

As per Sec.2 of CAA 2019, Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Buddhist and Jain immigrants from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan who are exempted from the application of Sec.3 of Passport Act 1920 and Foreigners Act 1946, will not be treated as ‘illegal migrants’. 

As per Sec.3 of CAA 2019, migrants of above mentioned six religious communities from the above mentioned three neighbouring countries, fulfilling the conditions under Passport Act and Foreigners Act and relevant Rules, are eligible to apply for Indian Citizenship. 

So far ‘illegal immigrants’ were not eligible to apply for Indian citizenship. Illegal migrants have been defined in the CAA 2003 as those migrants who have entered India without legal travel documents/permits as well as those also who entered with valid travel documents/permits but have not returned afterwards and have been residing in India even after the expiry of visa/permit. CAA 2003 also made it explicit that illegal immigrants are not eligible to apply for Indian citizenship. 

You must be bored reading all these provisions of CAA. Moreover, I am not saying in clear words why you should oppose CAA, right? 

That is the problem. CAA 2019 is cryptic and it looks innocuous. And perhaps it is intentional. I see country divided over CAA but there are very few people who actually understand CAA 2019 and its implications. But when you combine CAA 2019 with CAA 2003 and amendments in Passport (Entry) Act 1920 and Foreigners Act 1946 made in 2015 a clear picture will emerge. 

Without wasting your precious time let me speak in clear words now. Amendments made in Passport Act and Foreigners Act in 2015 says that migrants coming from Bangladesh and Pakistan (Afghanistan was also added in this list in 2016) who belong to six religious communities viz. Hindu, Sikh, Christian, Buddhist, Jain and Parsis and have entered India before 31^st Dec 2014 as a result of persecution (or the fear of persecution) will not be treated as illegal migrants and provisions of identification and deportation will not apply to them.  

This was the real deal – the Amendment of 2015. Millions of non-Muslim migrants who were illegal immigrants as per Indian laws were now elevated to the category of legal migrants and this made them eligible for Indian citizenship. Muslim migrants were still illegal immigrants. Discrimination on religious lines started in 2015. CAA 2019 has only taken it forward. I am surprised why there was no protest then and why all the protests are seen only now!

With the 2015 Amendments in Passport Act and Foreigners Act India has accepted all these migrants and has offered them a home. So those who are rejoicing today should have rejoiced in September 2015 when these Amendments were notified. Similarly, those who are protesting today should have started their protest in 2015. These migrants were made eligible for Indian citizenship in 2015 itself. 

Then what was the need for CAA 2019? And why people are protesting now?

It is difficult to understand why there was no street protest in 2015. Those who are protesting against religious discrimination they should have started their protest in 2015. That was the actual discrimination. And those who are protesting because granting citizenship to all the migrants will be a burden on economic resources or will destroy the purity of their culture or heritage they should also have started protest in 2015. Because with those amendments these migrants were eligible to apply for Indian citizenship. CAA 2019 has only reduced the time limit for naturalisation. Earlier, a foreign migrant to India could have applied for Indian citizenship on the principle of Naturalisation after staying in India for 11 years and now with CAA government has reduced this time period to five years for the migrants coming from above mentioned three countries who belong to the six religious communities.

Ok. So once the basics of CAA are clear then let me come to its implications for our society. 

India is not a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees. This is for obvious reasons as in 1947 after Independence and Partition which led to large scale relocation of population across borders India was not in a position to identify refugees and adhere to the principles of relief to refugees. Therefore refugee word does not appear anywhere in Indian laws. We only use ‘migrants’.

Conceptually speaking, all the migrants who have been forced out of their native land as a result of ethnic, religious or linguistic persecution are refugees. 

2015 Amendment in Passport Act and Foreigners Act exempts all the migrants of six religious communities from these three countries who have entered India as a result of religious persecution (or a fear of religious persecution) to be treated as illegal migrants. Provisions of Passport Act and Foreigners Act and relevant rules for the identification and deportation of such migrants will not apply to them. So basically all the benefits of 2015 Amendments as well as CAA 2019 are for those migrants who have come to India as a result of religious persecution. 

Now let’s see who all can benefit from these provisions. If we go by our Acts and Rules then migrants of religious persecution should benefit. How many such migrants (coming from Bangladesh, Pakistan and Afghanistan) do we have in India? Government of India has never published any official figures. We have some independent estimates made by some researchers and some organisations. Let us take the estimates of UNHCR.

As per the estimates of UNHCR (2018) there are less than 10 religious refugees in India who have come from Pakistan. Really, less than 10! These estimates further say that there are hardly any religious refugees have come to India from Bangladesh. All the migrants from Bangladesh (and they are definitely in tens of millions) have infiltrated into India for better economic prospects. Further, there are no estimates on the Afghan national who have entered India as a result of religious persecution. And in any case as per official figures less than 7500 Afghan nationals are residing in India illegally. 

So what does it mean? Are messrs Narendra Modi and Amit Shah concerned about such negligible numbers of refugees??? Answer would be a definite, NO. There is a greater design in this. Let us understand. 

Assuming that all migrants of these six religious communities apply for citizenship how will it be judged whether they have come to India as a result of religious persecution or not? Will burden of proof will be on the applicant or will State assume that responsibility? And how will it be established that the applicant actually migrated because of actual or feared religious persecution? How long will this process take?

I am leaving you to make all the guess and come to an answer.

Do you see anything getting established? 

So what will be the end result? Citizenship for all? Or another carrot dangling before millions of these migrants for decades and flourishing of vote bank politics? And what about Muslims who have come as illegal migrants? Will they be deported back to their country of origin? Or will we lock them in the ghettos of detention centres?

This brings us to another important concern. Irrespective of religious persecution, how many total migrants from these three countries are residing in India at present? Again we don’t have any official figure. But there are several estimates available. Some estimates put this figure to as low as 6 millions. But most estimates put this figure between 21 and 24 million.  These numbers are definitely huge. Do we have enough resources available to meet the demands of this extra population? And mind you these people are already on Indian soil and well integrated in the informal or formal economy of the country. What will change after granting citizenship to these migrants is their rights. Once Indian citizen they can rightfully claim a job, a school, a hospital, a pension and so on. So are we ready? After all government will start receiving applications of citizenship soon. 

I have talked about total migrants. But citizenship is available only to those who are not illegal migrants. So let’s find out how many of them have been elevated to the category of legal migrants. 

As of today we don’t have an all India figure for legal and illegal migrants on religious lines. But we can get some idea if we analyse the case of Assam. Why Assam? Well, as you have noticed I haven’t used another acronym which is synonymous with the CAA protest and that is NRC. Without going into details of NRC I will continue our discussion by using the results of NRC in Assam. Assam is the only State which has taken up the exercise of NRC. (There is a separate history to it but a discussion on that would be a digression for our present cause. So more on this later.)

Through NRC citizens and non-citizen residents are being identified and counted. NRC result of Assam says that 1.9 million residents of Assam are non-citizens. So they are definitely migrants. But what about the division of legal and illegal migrants? Well, out of total 1.9 million migrants, more than 1.5 million are legal migrants. So less than 20% Bangladeshi migrants of Assam are illegal. As the result of CAA 2019 Govt of India has decided to accept 80% Bangladeshi migrants in Assam and all of them will be called Indians soon. So what happens to the struggle of early 1980s in Assam? What will happen to Assam Accord? How will Assam accept CAA?

If you understand the anti-CAA protest of Assam then you will understand that all anti-CAA protest is not only on the religious lines. 

Condition in other bordering States of Tripura and Mizoram are not much different. 

But the most important piece in this puzzle is West Bengal. What about Bengal? Various estimates project the figure of total migrants in West Bengal to more than 15 million. This figure may be anywhere between 1.5 Crore to 2 Crore, or may be even more. How many legal and illegal migrants? If Assam is any indication then more than half of these migrants have become legal after CAA. Can our economy and polity absorb them and grant them full rights as citizens? Moreover, there are countless instances of Muslims acquiring new Hindu names and Adhar card and voter identification card in new name. Can you prove now that they are illegal migrants?

Now let us turn our attention to other aspects. 

India has always been a gracious host for all cultures and all ethnicities since time immemorial. Perhaps Modi ji attempted to take a new leap in the same direction. But alas, his agenda of polarisation of votes for immediate electoral interests has done an irreparable loss to India’s image rather than enhancing it. By selecting these three countries and leaving out Muslims he has brought the Two Nation Theory of Jinnah to another ignominious height. Till today India had not accepted that theory and we always found ways to not only believe in the idea of India as enshrined in our freedom struggle but we also have been successful in living like India as enshrined in the Constitution. CAA changes all that. 

CAA will have implications for not only demographics but also for the politics and diplomacy in South Asia.