It’s turn for Google’s Climate Ethics - The Daily Guardian
Connect with us

Opinion

It’s turn for Google’s Climate Ethics

The digital ads promoting the triviality of claims made by climate change protagonists would now be pulled out from any public viewing.

Amita Singh

Published

on

Google is finally cracking down on ads falsifying the science of climate change to spread misinformation and to earn money. This is the second strong step taken against fake content by Google, the first taken a few days ago banning vaccine misinformation from YouTube. Climate deniers in a war front against climate protectors used social and digital media to counter claims on CFC-led global warming. These digital ads promoting the triviality of claims made by climate change protagonists would now be pulled out from any public viewing.

Climate deniers have always tried to be the best persuaders both online and offline. In 2010 I got a surprise parcel from USA at my office. It was a heavyweight book both in content and in pages which exceeded a thousand. It came from a Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which matched my prestigious university located Centre for the Study of Law and Governance in its title at least. The book titled, ‘Climate Change Reconsidered’. During those years when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had just published its 4th Assessment Report, this parcel contained a book that countered all claims of IPCC on anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and its impact on health of flora, fauna, food and future of planet earth. The time also matched with a new line of thinking emerging within the discipline of public administration as climate claims would find an immediate resonance with the way decisions would be taken, a core area of public administration. I was also trying to revisit and explore ecosystem approach given by a famous scholar of Public Administration in the 1960s Fred W. Riggs, in the context of climate challenges. The discipline was witnessing a full war between those who refused to buzz from the three seductress syndrome globalization, liberalization and privatization and those who wished to take back the discipline downwards from land to the legislature at the top, in a more discerning manner. My work at a Riggs Conclave of Washington DC found support from an unexpected quarter of senior scholars like David Rosenbloom and Jamil E. Jreisat who felt the that disciplinary restructuring was a necessity. The parceled book probably wished to persuade people like us into believing authentically on the irrelevance and frivolity of all the noise around climate change as it starts with a tricky question, ‘before facing major surgery, wouldn’t you want a second opinion?’

This huge research bundle book was produced by a group of serious scientists mostly from USA and UK under the banner of ‘Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)’.It emphasized a statement and a discourse, the mischief of which had deep philosophical and political echoes,in calling IPCC ‘as an activist organization right from the beginning…’ and a louder tone that IPCC’s agenda was to justify control of the emission of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide as by the states and by virtue of which it focused solely on human induced climate change in complete defiance of natural changes which make earth warmer. This had such a powerful impact upon minds of the young in universities that they saw the state as a culprit in talking about climate change simply to control money with the multinational corporates notwithstanding states-corporate nexus likely to define the predatory state. The not so benign state wore several masks to act benign at climate protection forums and back home become a rapid and rabid growth engine polluting air, water, and seas. The fuzzy logic of such heavy research-based publications excused governments in investing into transformatory alternatives to make growth climate-friendly. The environmental sciences centres of big universities ended up analyzing soil, rain drops,glaciers, forests and groundwater rather than taking few steps further into a mindful transdisciplinary research for times to come. Climate change in research institutions became a big mafia to extract national and international grants with little standardization of its link to futuristic alternatives to existing growth. IITs were researching on bio-friendly chulhas, fire proof leaf carpets, electric engines, water harvesting and solar rooftops but this was never scaled up for years of wastage. It suffered from the same problem that sociological research suffered during the 1970s, when a plethora of micro research accumulated without its powerful connect to macro institutions. Everything at the grassroot was important but only very few converged meaningfully at Panchayats to study institutions of real development and accountability. The failure of sociological research into Panchayati Raj institutions continues to haunt Indian Constitution’s third layer of governance as district administration remains the ‘Mai Baap’(parent). The Sarpanchas (head of rural governance) and the Ward Councilors (urban governance) rally around the District Commissioners for release of funds, right to be heard, and for programme implementation. Lately, even Mayor’s name is being sent from the dominant party office. So climate change did not receive appropriate leadership to be able to achieve pro-climate alternatives to technology, strategies, designs or processes for production and growth.

Ideologically, anti-climate propaganda interestingly matched belief agendas of both the left and the right groups initially. The left groups wished to steer clear of the state trying to hijack the growth agenda and labour unions. The right groups encashed on the fears of the left. This philosophical battle came out in the open when our proposal for setting up a disaster research centre at JNU was scuttled by a powerful left-dominated association as they feared it would bring the Ministry of Home Affairs, under which disaster management falls, too close to university decision making bodies. It was ironical that the left played in the hands of the right and battled one of their own commandment of working close to communities. The Disaster Centre could finally come up with the support of a Minister who was incidentally a climate protagonist but the right groups immediately took over its control and the left had by then lost credibility to participate in its decision making. If propagandist forces had not created fuzzy logic, panchayats would have become an infantry to fight against climate change and research could have been on addressing the impacts of climate change on life. The heavy publication posted to my desk also generated a bad imagery for NGOs as a suspicious money-hungry lot rather than community based organizations (CBOs)with indispensable power to transform growth and development in a sustainable and cost-effective manner. As long as governments fail to see NGOs and CBOs as partners in growth, climate change will remain unattained despite solar and anti-plastics policies and laws.

The market of consumerism, materialism and commercialism is limitless but nature has limits as Aldo Leopold a famous conservationist wrote, ‘nature dries up under greed’. The cost of climate change is borne by those who do not benefit from the activities which cause degradation and are clustered at the grassroot of production industry. Rachael Carson who stirred America’s chemical industry with her book ‘Silent Springs’of 1962, a period of maddening chemical-based industrial growth, laments, ‘no witchcraft, no enemy action had silenced the rebirth of new life in this stricken world. The people had done it themselves’ is one of the strongest rebuff to propagandist climate deniers who need more land and ocean to spill and more fur and food from slaughterhouses. Addressing concerns of climate change is one of the surest directions to achieve inter and intra-generational equity and justice. Our world is once again standing before what Meadows and Meadows in 1972 called a ‘Red Signal’ when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) led to a severe increase in the price of oil. This led the Club of Rome (later FAO) to conduct a study on the ‘predicament of mankind’ called, ‘Limits to Growth’. This study brought out that man’s inability to limit five factors ie; population, agricultural production, natural resources, industrial production and pollution contribute to retarding sustainable growth.The report came up with provocative demands for alternatives but till today how many environmental scientists actually take their findings beyond analysis and discovery of negative feedback loops into a real-world of whistle-blowing in policy formulations. A social scientist who had been doing this task for them is today’s greatest suspect on the government agenda.

Google’s clampdown should have occurred long back. The global media advertising industry is

earning a worldwide revenue of more than USD 650 billion as per Statista 2021. While North America continues to be the largest advertising market worldwide it is interesting to note that the corporates which are spending the highest on digital media like Proctor and Gamble, Johnson and Johnson, Monsanto, and Bristol Meyers are those very same which had opposed Conventions on Climate Change and on Biological Diversity at the UN Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) Rio Meet of 1992. This has also retarded any advance by states on the Global Environment Facility (GEF) created in 1991 to address primarily global warming, destruction of biological diversity, pollution of international waters, and depletion of the Ozone layer.

Governments that have been ruthlessly deforesting and denotifying natural reserves for purposes of mining, roads and power projects may have to look back for alternatives rather than build behind the fuzzy logic of climate deniers. The third Constitutional layer of governance needs to be revived for risk identification and for first response when climate change strikes as disasters. The Sendai Framework of Action (2015-2030) and the Disaster Management Act 2005 has many recipes for the government to implement beyond the guarded boundaries of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) where the indispensability of NGOs and CBOs can work with more thoughtfulness and prescience. Climate change is a reality, the earlier we accept it the sooner we would be able to regulate human action in production. Governments and decision-making bodies need to move beyond launching programmes for climate protection to their regular and stringent monitoring by disaster management organizations as a slight slippage on monitoring may culminate into a devastating disaster. The Era of Trump brand of politics may be a passe but its psychological residues may continue to weaken action on climate protection since Google ads by climate-deniers have flourished on digital media simply because governments have not been doing enough to prevent climate change holistically.

The author is president, NDRG, and former Professor of Administrative Reforms and Emergency Governance at JNU. The views expressed are personal.

Climate deniers have always tried to be the best persuaders both online and offline. In 2010 I got a surprise parcel from USA at my office. It was a heavyweight book both in content and in pages which exceeded a thousand. It came from a Centre for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change which matched my prestigious university located Centre for the Study of Law and Governance in its title at least. The book was titled, ‘Climate Change Reconsidered’. During those years when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had just published its 4th Assessment Report, this parcel contained a book that countered all claims of IPCC on anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and its impact on health of flora, fauna, food and future of planet earth.

The Daily Guardian is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@thedailyguardian) and stay updated with the latest headlines.

For the latest news Download The Daily Guardian App.

Opinion

INDIA MUST KEEP ITS OPTIONS OPEN ON BRICS

Joyeeta Basu

Published

on

There is some speculation about the direction that the BRICS platform comprising Brazil, Russia, India and China, is taking. The “three pillars” of BRICS are “Political and Security”, “Economic and Financial” and “Cultural and People-to-people exchanges”. In reality, the thrust of BRICS has always been economic—specifically, encouraging commercial and developmental cooperation. A result of this has been the BRICS bank, now known as the New Development Bank, a multilateral development bank headquartered in Shanghai, whose motto is resource mobilization for setting up infrastructure and development projects, both in BRICS countries and in other emerging economies and developing countries, apart from complementing the efforts of multilateral and regional financial institutions for global growth and development. The “political and security pillar” has an apparent multilateral thrust, with its focus being the enhancement of “cooperation and dialogue on issues of global and regional security, developments in the global political space as well as the reform of the multilateral system to make it relevant for the 21st century”. This “pillar” also talks of countering terrorism and its financing. However, on the political and security front BRICS has nothing to show, except for the platform’s utility as a “tool” that can be used by India to make a rather aggressive China give the concession of lowering tensions along the LAC ahead of a BRICS summit. As for countering terrorism, China has a long history of blocking India from getting known Pakistan-backed terrorists designated as global terrorists by the United Nations Security Council. As a result of which, it took a decade of lobbying by India to get Masood Azhar of Jaish-e-Mohammed listed as a global terrorist. Even as recently as last month, China put a hold on the Indian—as well as American—proposal to sanction a Lashkar e Tayyaba terrorist, Abdul Rehman Makki under the Al Qaeda Sanctions Committee of the UNSC. Given such a track record, it’s no wonder that the “political and security pillar” of the BRICS is wobbly.

And now China is pushing for the expansion of the platform to include countries such as Iran and Argentina on board. Post the virtual BRICS summit hosted by Beijing in June 2022, Russia announced that these two countries were on track to become BRICS members. On the margins of the Beijing summit, China hosted a meeting of leaders from Algeria, Argentina, Cambodia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Fiji, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Senegal, Thailand and Uzbekistan to discuss developmental issues. Pakistan too, apparently, wanted to be part of this “BRICS-plus” meeting, but alleged that it could not, because of opposition from a BRICS member, presumably India. There is already speculation that all these countries are potential BRICS members, Pakistan included—countries that are considered to be part of China’s orbit of influence, with Pakistan being actually anti-India. Hence, the entry of these countries can only strengthen China’s hands to turn this forum into an anti-western, anti-American bloc. In this, Russia too will be with China, given the antipathy that Vladimir Putin already had against the West, with his dislike exacerbating with the sanctions that have been pouring down on him post the invasion of Ukraine. Analysts are speculating that Xi Jinping may now attempt to push his “Global Security Initiative” into the BRICS. In April 2022, Xi, while speaking at the “Boao Forum for Asia’s” annual meeting, proposed a new “Global Security Initiative” that would be against the “Cold War mentality” and superpower hegemony, which, according to him are endangering world peace. It is an obviously anti-US move, apart from being anti-Quad. China, anyway, has been railing against forums like the Quad and AUKUS, accusing them of being anti-China in their focus. Broadly, GSI is about shutting out the US from the Indo-Pacific and making the Indian Ocean Region Beijing’s—the new hegemon’s—playing field. There is speculation that China will but naturally want the expanded BRICS to be a part of his Initiative—in fact, it is being said that this is the reason why it wants to expand the BRICS platform. It is a different matter that while railing against “hegemony” and “unilateralism”, China is guilty of practising exactly what it accuses the US of, and much worse—its aggression against India and Taiwan and its belligerence in the South China Sea being cases in point. In such a scenario, what will India do? As China pushes to make BRICS an anti-US bloc—which it inevitably will—what future does India have in such a forum, given the depth of its own strategic partnership with the US, its close ties with the western hemisphere, and given the fact that it’s an important player in the Indo-Pacific as a member of the Quad? Even otherwise, such an anti-US forum will go against the grain of India’s foreign policy, which is multilateralism. India may be a founding member of the BRICS, but it needs to keep all options open, including leaving in case it becomes difficult for New Delhi to continue to be a part of such a platform.

Continue Reading

Opinion

Harassment of ‘cannabis offenders’ calls for amendment of the Narcotics Act

One of the major concerns is how police treats the offenders caught under the NDPS Act. A big question arises: why don’t we legalise cannabis and tax it like tobacco and alcohol?

Published

on

India brought the Narcotics and Psychotropic Act (NDPS) legislation in 1985 under the Congress regime, succumbing to pressure by the Americans who spearheaded a worldwide campaign against drugs, resulting in adoption of single convention on Narcotics drugs in 1961. Before 1985, all the banned substances such as ganja, charas, hashish, opium were sold freely and used enthusiastically in India. India has had a rich tradition of cannabis consumption since the vedic ages. The earliest reference to cannabis is contained in the fourth book of the Vedas, the Atharveda, which refers to it as one of the “five kingdoms of herbs that release us from anxiety”. A reference in the Ashtadhyayi of Panini reinforces the view that cannabis was known to Indians even 2,300 years ago. Some call is as “food of god”, some as “amrit”, in various texts.

Weed and charas are popularly called in today’s context as the “intoxication of the poor”, and one in every 11 Indians is directly addicted to cannabis. There are a volley of questions as to whether the passed legislation has regulated the proliferation of consumption of cannabis or whether there has been no gain . Central government in 2021 filled an affidavit in the Delhi High court replying to a petition claiming that it has “adopted a balanced approach on cannabis” by empowering the state governments to “permit, control and regulate the cultivation of any cannabis plant, production, manufacture, possession, transport, import inter-state, export inter-state, sale, purchase, consumption or use of cannabis (excluding charas) for medical, scientific and industrial purposes”. A big question arises: why don’t we legalise cannabis and tax it like tobacco and alcohol? India earned a whopping Rs 1,75,000 crore and Rs 53,000 crore in 2019-2020 from taxes on alcohol and tobacco.

In 2019 alone, 72,000 people were arrested in the whole country under the NDPS Act with the vast majority criminalized for cannabis consumption and procurement. Many crimes and accidents are committed under the influence of alcohol and a 2015 study by Lachenmeie and Rehm found that alcohol and nicotine were far riskier in consumption than cannabis. This study prompted many US states and other countries to legalise cannabis for recreational use. So, a big argument is this, on whose pressure we brought the NDPS Act are themselves legislated, legalizing its recreational use, how are we justified with the present NDPS Act?

One of the major concerns is how police treats the offenders caught under the NDPS Act. On the condition of anonymity, a source revealed that he was caught with a very small amount of hash for recreational use and he smoked it once in a while. He was caught smoking and the police checked his purse wherein a very small amount of hash was found from his purse. Later, the police harassed him and extorted Rs 27,000 rupees on the pretext of not filing a case. The social stigma attached to it and the whole burden of criminal justice system and the ill-treatment meted out to a person caught under the NDPS Act can traumatize anyone which gives an undue advantage to the police to harass and extort money from the offender. A person is treated as a hardened criminal and is made to get mixed up with hardened criminals inside the jail if he is remanded to custody. People also get a hard time getting bail under the NDPS Act and even first time offenders are not shown much by the judges.

What we want is an amendment in the NDPS Act of 1985 and a popular debate on reason for uplifting the ban on cannabis. Any mature functioning democracy should have proper debate on issues such as this which is affecting the lives of millions of people. The only beneficiary in this whole ordeal are the policemen who can extort anything out of a person caught.

(Shitij Rao is a political commentator)

Continue Reading

Opinion

Maharashtra thriller is not the first of its kind, nor will it be the last

Published

on

Maybe it’s a good time to remember the celebrated playwright George Bernard Shaw’s words: “Any man who is not a communist at the age of 20 is a fool. Any man who is still a communist at 30 is an even bigger fool. We should have had socialism already, but for the socialists.”

Often when asked why he miserably failed in making his political fortune despite his high intellect and people connect, Bernard Shaw’s response used to be that “possessing knowledge” and “pursuing politics as a career” are oxymorons. He said, “He knows nothing; he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career”.

Like Samuel Johnson once said: “Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.” He meant that every crime and every misbehavior was tolerated as long as the perpetrator screamed that he loved his country. On the other hand, if you questioned the behavior of the country or government, you were promptly dubbed a traitor, no matter how noble you were.”

In spirit of this discussion, Nation and State are to be treated interchangeably as a governance unit. Interesting to note the latest twist to the ongoing Maharashtra Political Thriller: Yes, you heard it right—Eknath Shinde becoming the Chief Minister of the state. While it almost came out of syllabus, in hindsight it looks politically not just expedient, even otherwise prudent given the political equation between major players active on the ground.

This move is expected to achieve more than just one objective and if some can be detailed: (i) BJP would go to the next election with an absolute clean slate; (ii) All issues internal to the Sena and BJP was not fishing in the troubled water; (iii) Aligned to the principle “eliminate the competition” is the best way to deal with the competition; (iv) Gels well with the critical factors relevant to so called caste politics—widely prevalent in the Indian context for all states.

But all said and done, as always, the country has been caught off guard when it comes to BJP’s strategic moves and hope those who underestimate the acumen of the political class in general would introspect.

The political drama is reminiscent of many past political events. Analysts would draw an analogy from the defection engineered in 1978 when Sharad Pawar pulled himself away from the ruling Congress legislative party to become chief minister. He was just 38 and had upstaged the incumbent, Vasantdada Patil. Of course, that was long before the anti-defection law kicked in in 1985 through the 52nd Amendment to the Constitution. It’s another matter that Indira Gandhi dismissed his government when he did not heed her call to merge with Congress (I).

Several such separation events have happened in different states as well. Nonetheless, the peculiarity embedded in the current instance is that the breakaway faction is in the majority, which puts it on a different footing in terms of legality in getting the party symbol. But such situations are likely to be eased out by the judiciary in supersonic speed and rightfully so to avoid a potential anarchy.

One other exciting aspect is the unfolding race to appropriate Bala Saheb’s name and legacy. This reminded me of 2000 when Naveen Patnaik formed the Biju Janata Dal carved out of the erstwhile Janata Dal, of which his father Biju Patnaik was part. The president of the state unit of Janata Dal then, Ashok Das, developed issues with Naveen Patnaik primarily around who has a higher right to Biju’s legacy apart from sharing party coffers. In fact, Ashok Das went to the election in 2000 by coining the below tag line with the hope of confusing the electorate that it’s he who represented Biju’s Bonafide political heir:

(Translation: We do not know who is from which party & whose symbol is what? The country knows we are the true heirs of Biju & our symbol is Chakra!) Of course, this emotive assertion did not cut ice with the electorate. Instead, Naveen Patnaik won in 2000 and has been in charge of governance since. That’s the power of inheritance and more significantly possessing the art of using it to one’s advantage to keep rivals away from the hot seat of power.

Recall what happened recently in the case of the LJP after the demise of its founder Ram Vilas Paswan. The brother and the son of the late leader, Chacha and Bhatija, split, and eventually, the majority group got the party symbol from the EC after a long-drawn process though. In short, the Maharashtra imbroglio is not the first of its kind, nor will it be the last. The fact is that every time such political drama unfolds, some new challenging aspects do emerge not just in terms of constitutionality, but even with political implications. In a way, this may signal some formidable message for the satraps of regional parties who often draw comfort of enjoying absolute control of the respective party.

The least that can be said is that Maharashtra, as the financial nerve center of India, deserves better, though the masala that emerges from such fiascos is entertaining in the short run.

Continue Reading

Opinion

BJP HERE TO STAY

Priya Sahgal

Published

on

At the BJP National Executive in Hyderabad, Home Minister Amit Shah made an interesting comment—that the way he sees it the BJP is here to stay for the next three decades. There is no breaking news in this statement for the way the Congress is going it is clear that there is no stopping the BJP. But at the same time it would be interesting to see what kind of a governance model the BJP has in plan for the next three years. Will he be able to promote India as a vishwa-guru? Will the BJP be able to end the politics of jaatiwad and parivarwaad?

Well Maharashtra seems a step in the right direction if the limited goal is to strike at dynasty politics. For the short term, Chief Minister Eknath Shinde has shown that there can be a Sena without the Thackerays—though we have to see how this plays out in the courts which will take into account the strength of Shiv Sainiks outside the House as well. But if Eknath Shinde (aided and abetted by the BJP) is able to wrest the party symbol from the Thackerays then that sends a very strong message to other political dynasties.

Already Akhilesh Yadav is feeling the heat. In the recent bypolls, the Samajwadi Party lost two Muslim dominated strongholds Azamgarh and Rampur to the BJP. Akhilesh’s silence on the hijab controversy during the recent assembly polls was noticed by the minority community. And now during the national executive Prime Minister Modi pointed out that they need to woo backwards amongst the Muslim community as well. Already the party leadership is divided between Akhilesh and his Uncle Shivpal Yadav. The young SP chief has a tough task ahead and he made the right decision when he gave up his Lok Sabha seat for the MLA one. He has to show he is serious about state politics. Then comes the curious and curiouser case of Rahul Gandhi, the dynast who doesn’t know what to do with his silver spoon. Should he shake it or stir it or exchange it! Party sources claim that the Congress is still not sure as to whether it would be holding its inner party polls in September as planned. Which means that Rahul’s elevation could get further delayed. Which means the confusion will further continue over the leadership issue. Well, on one side, there is a party that has the next three decades chalked out and, on the other side, is a party that is to come up with a definite plan for the next three months!

Continue Reading

Opinion

Team Modi should involve end stakeholders to push reforms

If PM Modi’s natural style is ‘just do it, and do it fast’, now the government needs to pay greater attention to change management to make the reforms more acceptable.

Published

on

In response to the Agnipath scheme, when people took to the streets, it seemed like a familiar sight. One more “good” reform scheme of the Narendra Modi government was being opposed vehemently by the masses. And this time, many noticed a trend in terms of repeat of protests against government schemes— demonetisation, CAA, farm laws and, now, the Agnipath scheme. Even genuine Modi supporters, in a way, felt the fatigue of “defeat” of one more Modi scheme in the durbar of the masses.

Interestingly, team Modi itself had not anticipated the kind of resistance that we have seen repeatedly. So why is it that Team Modi that seems to understand the voters’ mind fairly well when seeking votes fails to predict the pushback to their reforms from the masses? Why has this government failed in pushing through quite a few big reforms despite PM Modi’s popularity and his supposed positive intent? There are a few theories. The first theory is that PM Modi does not involve experts when forming policies. While this seemed true at the beginning of his tenure as PM, learning from the demonetisation “fiasco”, over a period of time, Modi has surely increased the level of consultation—at least the technical aspects, if not other aspects like change management required–with experts when designing big reform policies. GST was almost entirely designed and detailed by “experts”. The scrapping of Article 370 was thought through to the last level of details, including the push back and potential riots. The Agnipath scheme was evidently reviewed and detailed by the heads of Armed forces as mentioned by themselves in various forums.

The second theory is that the government isn’t communicating enough about their reform policies. This seems to be true to a fair extent. The government does make grand announcements and circulates information about the features and (supposed) benefits of their schemes on traditional and social media. But the problem is, people don’t get to hear what they want to hear in those communications. The communications aren’t convincingly conveying “what’s-in-it-for-me”, and, on the contrary, are giving rise to “why-it’s-not-for-me”, which the government has not been able to address. Generally, people of no country like sudden changes—more so Indian masses, a large section of whom are economically vulnerable and hovering around the poverty levels. In a zeal to announce “big transformative” changes, the government might actually be scaring the stakeholders who may not be prepared for reforms like open market competition (farmers, MSMEs) or short-term contractual arrangement (for army) rather than lifelong safe jobs. There are tactics on effective political messaging to push through reforms with relatively lesser resistance like those used in 1991 liberalization which the government might want to deploy.

The third theory is that the government is trying to do “too much too soon”. Team Modi seems to be in a hurry, which could arguably be a good thing, but the changes are probably appearing too suddenly and happening too fast for the people to keep pace with. If a relatively small reform like increasing FDI limit in the insurance sector took more than a decade, the present government aspires to push through big reforms like CAA and GST (from planning to launch to stabilisation) in 4-5 years. That also means that big reforms are not spaced out or phased adequately. The Agnipath scheme could have coexisted with regular recruitment for a few years before it completely replaced the regular recruitment to reduce the pain and fear among the young aspirants. Further, the government could have avoided launching the Agnipath scheme now when Army recruitment had been on hold for a few years due to Covid and lakhs of young aspirants were eagerly waiting for their dream jobs. Balancing speedy reforms with minimising pain of the stakeholders involves careful trade-offs which this government doesn’t seem to be making effectively.

The fourth theory is that this government isn’t seeking feedback from the beneficiaries. This, too, seems to be often true and probably the biggest of their shortcomings. If adequate inputs are taken from “beneficiaries” during the design stage and pilots are conducted, then policy related communications could be smarter and initiatives could be phased better. Be it GST, CAA or the farm laws, the government was caught off-guard for not knowing upfront what beneficiaries or stakeholders would actually want and how they would react.

The root cause of the above flaws in implementing big reforms could be PM Modi’s overconfidence or overenthusiasm or a combination both. Also, if PM Modi’s natural style is “Just do it, and do it fast”, he needs to learn from the experience of the last eight years and do more to alter his natural style with the goal to take the stakeholders along by being more empathetic and sensitive to their real and perceived needs. The government needs to pay greater attention to change management to make the reforms more acceptable. Nothing to take away the government’s efforts in pushing probably the maximum number of reforms and initiatives in India’s history within just eight years even in the challenging times of Covid pandemic and Ukraine conflict. The Modi government has initiated big reforms like Cooperative Banks Regulation Act, disbanding of Ordinance Board, privatisation of Air India, public listing of LIC, merger of PSU banks, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, scrapping ofArticle 370 and implementing GST. History shows that it is relatively easier to push through reforms relating to businesses and corporates compared to those relating to citizens and it is no different for the Modi government. It has faced maximum opposition and failures in reforms relating to farmers, labour laws, land laws, army recruitment and citizenship status of people of India. The Modi government has eight years to look back at, reflect upon, draw lessons from and get better at pushing through reforms successfully. For this, Team Modi needs to ensure greater involvement of end stakeholders when designing reforms, pay greater attention to managing change, have a more palliative communication strategy and phase the reforms better. India needs more reforms from this government and a little more effort towards this will do the trick.

Alpesh Patel is a tech entrepreneur and has been a management consultant with Big4. He is the author of the book ‘Chalta Hai India’ by Bloomsbury, India.

Team Modi seems to be in a hurry, which could arguably be a good thing, but the changes are probably appearing too suddenly and happening too fast for the people to keep pace with. If a relatively small reform like increasing FDI limit in the insurance sector took more than a decade, the present government aspires to push through big reforms like CAA and GST (from planning to launch to stabilisation) in 4-5 years. That also means that big reforms are not spaced out or phased adequately. The Agnipath scheme could have coexisted with regular recruitment for a few years before it completely replaced the regular recruitment to reduce the pain and fear among the young aspirants.

Continue Reading

Opinion

ALL LIVES MATTER, HINDU LIVES INCLUDED

Joyeeta Basu

Published

on

Just when one thought that western legacy media had already hit the nadir with its tendentious coverage of India and India’s majority community, in comes another report that is so mendacious in its interpretation of facts that it plumbs new depths of insensitivity and treads into the territory of religiophobia. We are talking about a new article from the famous—or infamous, seen from an Indian perspective—Time magazine, which has found the social media trend “Hindu Lives Matter” to be dangerous. The headline of the report written by a Kashmiri lady (according to her Twitter bio) blatantly says, “‘Hindu Lives Matter’ Emerges as Dangerous Slogan After Horrific Killing in India” (1 July 2022). It is as if the token use of “horrific” to describe the gruesome beheading of a Hindu tailor by two Islamist terrorists is enough lip service paid, and the main issue is the reaction to the incident on social media, inspired by the movement “Black Lives Matter”. Does one of the world’s best-known news weeklies realise that by publishing such a report it is essentially implying that the lives of people belonging to a particular religion—Hinduism—do not matter? That they could die like flies for all Time cared, as long as the mantle of victimhood stayed with a particular minority community in India. It is as if Hindu victimhood in the face of radical terrorism must be “cancelled”, as Time editors have pre-supposed that Hindus being in a majority in India are naturally oppressors. An Indian/Indian origin leftist commentator quoted in the article has this to say: “‘Hindu Lives Matter’ presumes those lives have been overlooked. Hindu lives have not been overlooked in a Hindu majoritarian state. This is a revisionist fabrication of history and the present.” This is a rather appalling and fabricated narrative where one community is the perpetual victim and another the oppressor, when in reality, India has had a history of conquest and subjugation of the majority community, and the resultant troubled inter-community relations. Even in the present, the situation is anything but black and white. There is nothing revisionist about a beheading on account of “blasphemy”. It is a reality. It happened, and no claims of victimhood by anyone can justify such an action. Instead of acknowledging this, the article normalises violence against Hindus. If this is not Hinduphobia, then what is? That one of the most well-known international news weeklies is providing a platform to such a phobia, and thus legitimising it, is extremely problematic.

In fact, it is the same Time that published another extremely problematic piece on the film, The Kashmir Files—The Kashmir Files: How a New Bollywood Film Marks India’s Further Descent Into Bigotry, 30 March 2022—where the Indian/Indian-origin author claimed the film to be a part of “Indian cinema’s revisionist trend, used to justify the brazen Hindu extremism of the present”. To say that a film on the suffering of Kashmiri Pandits is revisionist is itself a revisionist claim. Hence, one can argue that the trend is now for woke leftists to delegitimise all that India’s majority community has suffered as “revisionist history”.

In journalism, there is a practice of writing the headline before writing the story, where the story is tailored to fit the headline. The problem is that, in such cases, facts often get sacrificed at the altar of a pre-determined agenda or narrative. When it comes to western media’s coverage of India’s current government, and increasingly of the majority population—presumably because the western media sees them as supportive of the government—a template of bigotry and majoritarianism has been pre-decided. This confirmation bias has just to be fed by those who know how to do it, and are willing to do it. This antagonism of the western mainstream media could be because of actual ignorance or plain laziness to learn about the ground situation. It could be ideological, or may have elements of racism in it. It could also be inspired by forces inimical to India, who want to show this country as a cauldron of hatred and thus not a stable investment destination. It could be any of these reasons, or a combination of some or all of these, but the bottom line is that the demonisation of India sells with the western legacy media, resulting in a one-way street of negative coverage.

But the mistake these people make is not realising that India is too big a power to be felled by keyboard warriors. It may be dented, but not felled. It is just that it is sad to see institutions such as Time, instead of promoting “All Lives Matter”, should find “Hindu Lives Matter” to be a dangerous slogan. What a downfall.

Continue Reading

Trending