EDITORIAL -March,5 2022

EDITORIAL NEWS - Saturday,March5,2022

 

                                     THE HINDU                                    PAGE NO.6

Being ready Vaccination was shown to have been a life saver during the third wave of the pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic is on a discernible wane. Just a month ago, India was reporting around 1,70,000 cases a day and the latest numbers suggest it has plummeted to around 6,000. India is now contributing to only 0.7% of global cases. Last year this time, cases were below 5,000 a day, encouraging several States and the Centre to claim that the pandemic was over, though within a matter of weeks there was a resurgence fuelled by the Delta variant which birthed a summer of catastrophe. There is, however, a crucial distinction between then and now in that over 75% of those over 15 years are now fully vaccinated in India. A small ad growing number of those over 60 have had the third dose. Reports suggest that over 90% of Indians have been exposed to the virus over the last two years and, therefore, combined with the vaccination, are sufficiently protected against disease – but not infection for many more months ahead. What bears emphasis is that avoiding vaccination makes one, particularly the elderly, vulnerable to serious infection. Balram Bhargava, Director-General, ICMR, said at a press meet this week that 92% of those who died of COVID-19 since January this year were unvaccinated, and underlined that vaccines and the wide vaccination coverage had played an important role in protecting hundreds of lives. India is fortunate in that it does not have to battle vaccine hesitancy in a large measure. The initial skepticism regarding the vaccines not having passed the typical stages of vaccine approval saw a certain degree of hesitation, but very soon it emerged, in April and May last year, that India’s main problem was an insufficient number of vaccines. Though India today has administered nearly 178 crore vaccine doses and has several indigenously developed vaccines that have been approved in emergency mode by authorities, there are still serious questions on supply. Currently, vaccine demand’ is low and the vaccination drive is in ‘mop up mode’ and administering second doses. But were the pandemic situation to suddenly turn for a fourth wave to take shape, there would be a spike in demand for vaccinations for children, particularly those below 15, as well as booster doses for adults. The experience of covaxin’s manufacturer being unable to ramp up vaccinations in time during the crises months ought to be a persistent reminder to other biotechnology companies that having vaccines is very different from being ready with a seamless supply chain. The Indian government has still not made public a timeline for when vaccines from Biological E, Gennova and Zydus Cadila will be practically available for mass use. Though the world is occupied with a different crisis, India must not let its guard down and should insist on companies being ready with a measurable timeline.   Capital verdict A.P. High Court judgment on Amaravati protects governance from political whimsy That policies change with governments may appear acceptable in a democracy, but no court will allow a transformation so fundamental that rights and entitlements that accrued during an earlier regime are abandoned or frustrated. In 2014, the Amaravati region was chosen as the site of the capital of Andhra Pradesh, the residuary State left after the creation of Telangana, but work was stopped after the present YSSRCP regime took over. Instead, Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy mooted the idea of ‘decentralized’ development, by which he meant that the State will have Amaravati as the legislative capital, while Visakhapatnam will be the executive capital, and Kurnool the seat of the High Court. In a stern rebuff to the ‘three capitals’ idea of the present regime, a Full Bench of the State’s High Court has ruled that it cannot abandon the project to develop Amaravati as the capital city after over 33,000 acres had been given up by farmers and city after over 33,000 acres had been given up by farmers and 15,000 crore rupees sunk in it over development expenditure. Holding the State government to its promise of developing the region into the capital city, it has directed the government to complete the required developmental work in Amaravati within six months. As a consequential relief to the farmers who had given up their land for the specific purpose, the court has asked the state and Andhra Pradesh Capital Region Development Authority to develop the surrendered land and deliver reconstituted plots to them within three months. In political terms, the decision to locate the three organs in different cities was possibly motivated by a wish to undo a key policy measure of the previous TDP regime, as well as negate speculative gains the erstwhile rulers may have allegedly made by choosing Amaravati. However, it was projected as a measure to decentralize governance and take the fruits of development to all parts of the State. After farmers approached the court, the government sought to render the matter infructuous by repealing its decentralization law, the one that it enacted in 2020 for spreading the capital city and proposing ‘inclusive development’ of all regions. However, the Bench took note of the government’s intention to pursue its multiple capital cities plan and decided that it will adjudicate on the petitioners’ grievances. It held that the State legislature lacked the competency to shift the organs of the State. The verdict, if undisturbed by the Supreme Court, may put an end to attempts to shift the capital city out of Amaravati. A welcome feature of the verdict is that it has invoked the doctrines of constitutional trust and promissory estoppels to prevent a regime from going back on its promises to citizens. It sends out a message that governance should not be buffeted by winds of political change or be held hostage to the passing whimsy of a particular regime.

Russia’s war, the impracticality of violence The world must forgo any attempt to place ‘heroes of wars on higher pedestals than the apostles of non- violence’ Russia’s violent war on Ukraine has isolated it from the global community. Public attention has been diverted from Russia’s long-standing fears of suppression by the United States and western European nation to the misery of innocent Ukrainian citizens who are an inevitable collateral damage of war. Even countries with colonial histories, who could sympathies with Russia’s concerns of encirclement by and alliance of economically and militarily stronger nations, felt morally compelled to rally against Russia. India has been caught between a rock and a hard place. Across India’s long and insecure borders sits Pakistan, an implacable foe, and the mighty China, with an economy six time larger than India’s and more self-reliant in defense equipment. India is wary of relying on a distant U.S.: it needs continuing Russian support for high-tech defense needs. Leading the way India must never condone violence, no matter how just the cause. India is a global champion of non-violence; Mahatma Gandhi, the “father of the nation” is a global icon. “An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind,” Gandhi said. He even called off the civil disobedience movement when Indian citizens, fighting for freedom from British injustice, turned violent. Gandhi (picture) advocated nonviolence not only as a moral principle in fights for justice: whether in the struggles of colonized peoples against foreign rulers, or internal conflicts to correct structural conflicts to correct structural injustice, such as the oppression of lower castes by upper castes and the poor by the rich. He was also a practical man. He also honed methods of nonviolent resistance whereby the weaker masses, united for a just cause, could prevail against entrenched powers. Gandhi’s example was followed, with success, by leaders of the civil rights movement in the U.S., uprisings against Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and the anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa which won support around the world. The dynamics Strategies which work in ‘set piece’ conflicts and ‘bounded’ games, in which the opponents are clearly identifiable, cannot work in asymmetrical wars where the sources of power of the antagonists are very different: on one side, “organized” power and on the other, a diffused mass. Even leaders fighting for justice for powerless masses can lose the support of citizens if the movement turns violent. They must enroll citizens who neither have arms to fight with nor wish to risk their lives in violence. In the Politics of Nonviolent Action, Gene Sharpe, a great admirer of Mahatma Gandhi, and one of the world’s foremost scholars of non-violent movement distils the dynamics and methods of non-violent struggles from the histories of many countries. Attitudes and activities of wider populations associated with the struggle are critical because, if sympathetic, they may provide facilities and supplies. Gandhi’s strategy of non-violent civil disobedience was founded on this insight. Even leaders of invading armies need the support of civilian populations for the safety and supplies of their troops. They need support from their own civilian populations at home also. “Non-violent action is capable of striking at the availability of sources of political power of the ruling authority,” said Sharp. “Over-reacting on repression may, instead of weakening the resistance, react against sources of an opponent’s own power”. The deaths caused by its military action in Vietnam lost the U.S. government the support of its own citizens. In a war to end all wars neither Russia nor the U.S. can claim the moral high ground. Non-cooperation in the west Before Americans rose up in arms against the British, several civil resistance movements and the boycott of British goods were underway in the American colonies. Americans refused to comply with the stamp Act. The New York General Assemble and the people’s council of Boston refused to make provisions for the quartering of the king’s troops. The British were discovering that it is difficult to rule uncooperative people Though they had a strong army; they did not have weapons to win hearts and minds. On the other side, the non-violent resisters had to be patiently resolute while they wore the British down. Gandhi applied this strategy courageously and effectively to win India’s independence from the British, though he faced opprobrium from within that he abjured arms because he was weak. Subhas Chandra Bose broke with Gandhi and joined the Japanese to create and Indian army to fight the British. Leaders of non-violent resistance against the British had a hard time retraining hot heads chafing against British rule. When the Minutemen fired on British troops in Lexington in April 1775, the British called out more troops to crush the armed uprising. Then the revolutionaries, less equipped and less organized, had to fight the British in the conventional way. They suffered several defeats and many casualties before they won their war of Independence, with George Washington as their leader. Histories of conflicts valorize wars and generals, even when they are defeated; not the non-violent movers of change. Cities and streets are named after George Washington, Nathanael Greene, Henry Know, and the Marquis de Lafayette; their statues are raised on pedestals- even Robert Lee who lost the Civil War. Dates of major battles are memorized and war plans analyzed for lessons in strategy. Nowadays, children grow up playing violent gamed on videos but which rake in millions for their creators. In real life too, the makers of weapons nudge leaders towards violent wars. It is good for their business, whichever side wins or loses, so long as the wars last long. Soft power icon Mahatma Gandhi stood out in the 20th century. He led a massive movement of freedom non-violently in one of the most violent periods of human history, with two World Wars within 50 years and bloody battles that continue to be themes of popular movies a century later. He demonstrated there was a better, non-violent way to shake off oppression. “Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth, said Albert Einstein on Mahatma Gandhi’s 70’s birthday. Both Subhas Chandra Bose and Mahatma Gandhi were great men who dedicated their lives to the freedom of their country. They disagreed about methods to free India from the British. Bose collaborated with the Japanese army to fight the British with arms. He lost because the Japanese lost. One may wonder what would have happened had he succeeded and India had a government propped up by the Japanese when the Allies finally won the War. Years of further struggles would have followed for friendless India. Fortunately. India won its freedom the other way and became a beacon of hope for a world wearied by violence. Gandhi’s way became the greatest source of India’s soft power- greater than its ancient culture, yoga, and Bollywood. We weaken ourselves when we do not stand up against violence anywhere. Bose was a great man. His statue deserves to be on Rajpath the old Kingsway in India’s capital where armies parade and war memories stand. However, Indians must not place heroes of wars on higher pedestals in their minds than apostles of non-violence, like Gandhi and others who actually won our freedom. Let us not be tempted to take to violence in our country for settling our grievances, by rioting, lynching, and burning, and by war-mongering against our neighbours. We must be role models showing the world a non-violent path to justice for all by practicing what we preach.          -ARUN MAIRA   The new handbook to covering the U.P. elections With a confusing caste alignment emerging, the mediaperson needs to keep an eye on crucial micro-level changes The morning after Lucknow went to the polls last week, I met retired railway worker at a tea stall. Buddhu Rai told me how there was a swing in favor of the Samajwadi Party (SP). “Lag raha hai, cycle nikal legi (it looks like cycle will win),” he said, referring to the election symbol of the SP. As observers of the Uttar Pradesh elections of 2022 would tell you, it is largely a bipolar contest between the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) of Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath and the Samajwadi Party led by Akhilesh Yadav. Rai continued without my prompting: “Mehengai, berozgari… log pareshan hai (People are tired of inflation, unemployment…),” followed by a sudden pause midway to ask me what I do for a living. The moment I told him I was a journalist from Delhi, his tone changed dramatically. He began to explain how unemployment cannot be blamed on this government and why people should be willing to bear the burden of inflation if that helps the nation’s development. I was confused by now. Was he critical of the BJP or not? Pat came his reply. He was actually trying to make me understand why some people, including him, were still voting for the BJP and why Mr. Adityanath should be the Chief Minister again. Before I could untangle the claims, he got up suddenly and left. When people do not tell you what they mean, and they do not mean that they do not mean what they tell you, is any meaningful reportage possible? Undoubtedly, there is fear, personal calculation and often enough, the need to tactically mislead. For journalists from Delhi in particular, who are always short on time, low on patience, deadline driven and prone to see and hear precisely what they are looking for, the Uttar Pradesh election of 2022 is mined with psychological traps. For one, in many cases the person you are interviewing will most likely assume, unless proven otherwise, that you are with the current ruling establishment. I experienced this on many occasions in my recent travels through Uttar Pradesh, a fact corroborated when comparing notes with many of my journalist friends. The ‘very aware’ voter This radical difference between on-camera versions from the off-camera version when dealing with the same person, however, confirms that U.P. voters are not only playing their cards close to their chest but also making it clear that politics is serious business. Voting among the marginalized, in particular, is not simply about them exercising choice. It is also linked to an entire social and economic architecture that will subsequently enable their access to welfare schemes and the local administration. In other words, a journalist has to be extremely attentive about how to read the political changes at the micro-level. There is a churn Consequently, voting preferences, the talk around it, the entire web of claims, and even the general electoral noise have made the intensely fought U.P. election to date seeded with the flavors of postthruth; the need to understand a political culture that goes beyond a simple true/false or honesty/lying binary. And it is in such a post-truth context that non-voters and the silent voters might help us better understand the big ongoing churn within U.P.’s politics. A churn or caste realignment that is most certainly happening but not immediately visible to ready-made journalism and the usual observer. Looking at the constituency-level voter turnout data, we can draw some credible inferences about who is not voting. When the temple city of Ayodhya reported a drop in voter turnout despite a high voltage campaign, the question of who chose not to vote became significant. The needle of suspicion pointed to the BJP voter. Similarly, in Sardhana in western U.P., where the sitting MLA was facing visible disenchantment among his own supporters, voter turnout fell sharply by 4.5 percentage points. In both Ayodhya and Sardhana, the BJP has a tough fight on its hands and if some of its voters are not showing up that could spell bad news for the party. The same seems to be the case with several other constituencies where the BJP voter, by staying away, might actually be making a political statement. The voters to watch While the no-show voter could play a decisive role in some constituencies, especially if the contest is close, it will be the silent voter who is and will likely make a bigger difference in this election. By silent voter, we mean the socially and the economically marginalized but not politically visible. They include mostly women (especially from the lower economic strata), backward castes which go unrepresented by any political party and non-Jatav Dalits who have been voting for the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP). Although the BSP won only 19 seats in the 403member State Assembly in 2017, the party polled a formidable 22% share of votes. A sizeable part of such voters often remain well below the noisy campaign radar. This time, with the BSP missing from the contest in most places, these voters will likely choose between the BJP and the SP. The Big Picture that seems to be emerging is that the kaleidoscope of different castes that the BJP had assembled in 2017 is not so much disintegrating in one go as much as it seems to be fragmenting, ebbing and breaking away constituency wise. While bits and chunks of the core BJP voter are choosing not to vote, swathes and sections of silent voters might be making efforts to vote against their immediate fears. In other words, the 2022 U.P. State election seems to have set in motion a steady and confusing caste realignment. Only a careful scrutiny of the disaggregated picture might be able to tell us how tectonic or shallow the big churn in U.P. politics is. And, March 10 will tell us whether the results are the beginning or the end of this process.                 -RAJESH MAHAPATRA