Delimitation and Women's Reservation - Message for Mr Shashi Tharoor

I saw some of the statements made by Mr Shashi Tharoor regarding the latest delimitation and women's reservation bill which was tabled by GOI in the parliament.  He has made a very rational point about how increasing the number of seats in the Lok Sabha is counter productive to the functioning of the parliament and will make it unwieldy. I recall how Mr Tharoor was being repeatedly interrupted and were given only 7 minutes to make his statement in the parliament on the recently passed SHANTI Bill. A healthy and productive debate requires that members get sufficient time to debate in the parliament and such a large Lok Sabha will not only not allow for high quality debates, but given the tendency of several MPs to create ruckus during parliament proceedings more members will lead to more ruckus. The burden on taxpayers for additional MPs and their staff including security etc. will be an unnecessary burden. All citizens should support his stand on this issue. I would like to express my gratitude to Mr Tharror for raising this point.

Mr Tharoor has raised another question on how delimitation should not be linked with women's reservation. I have my reservations about the whole concept of reservations to start with and I can assure him many patriotic citizens want the politics of reservations to end in the country for its own better future. Just as socialism is a failed social engineering concept, so is quota system a failed system which tramples on individual rights and liberties under false pretext of social justice. No one can be given more rights than equal rights. Special rights are not equal rights and lead to distortion in the functioning of the state. Time has come to start reversing this failed system rather than entrenching it further. Why should the electorate be denied the choice of candidates? Just because of gender, why should someone who has worked in a constituency and can better represent it be denied the opportunity and the electorate denied the right to elect him. This nation has seen several long serving women Chief Ministers and a woman Prime Minister without the need for a special reservation for women. We do not need to distort the system to enable women's representation. If at all political parties are keen on more women MPs, let them field more women candidates and let the electorate decide if they are suitable. The constitution neither denied women their rights nor does it envisage such a reservation based system for their representation. By passing the Women's reservation bill in 2023 the parliament has created a distortion which was not needed to start with. I know I am making an argument for an already lost cause as there is near 100% political consensus on women's reservation in parliament but a start has to be made to free India from the reservation politics and work on building political consensus on ending reservations. Hence at the very least an amendment should be brought about in the women's reservation bill to do it without increasing seats and with a time limit for how long this reservation will last, say a 20 year period with no renewal thereafter. This is my humble suggestion for Mr Tharoor and other MPs to consider.

The argument made against delimitation based on census however baffles me. Mr Tharoor has worked at the UN and I am sure well aware of the long standing democratic principle around the world that in a one person one vote system each vote should have the same weight. From the very beginning India's constitution has recognized the need for equal weightage. If one considers the history of Article 81 and 82 and the various amendments made into it over the years, at no time was it not recognized that weightage should be equal. Equal weightage to each vote is in fact a fundamental principle of the constitution and altering it strikes at the very root of a representative democratic system. For 50 years delimitation has been postponed and many individual voters who do not even realize what rights they have been denied are being treated unequally because of regional interest in parts of the country. One must realize that in general elections the nation votes as one in direct elections, to the House of the People i.e. the Lok Sabha. The states don't miss out in the parliament and are represented in the Council of States i.e. the Rajya Sabha. The present generation of politicians are doing great disservice to the toils of the founders of India's constitution by distorting the very foundation of democracy and national interest by bringing petty regional interests in election to a body whose purpose is to serve the nation as a whole and make choices and decisions in larger national interest. An MP elected to the Lok Sabha represents the constituents and each vote of the MP counts equally. To say that cardinal directions, wealth and GDP, language etc. be factors limiting the principle of equality for the voters electing the MP is a dangerous trend and should not be legitimized further.

Kindly refer to the 1950 version of article 81 on Indian constitution. It says "⁠(b) For the purpose of sub-clause (a), the States shall be divided, grouped or formed into territorial constituencies" this particular clause was removed later on in 7th amendment when states were reorganized. But the original intent of the constitution makers is quite evident that they did not see a constituency for Lok Sabha elections to be somehow limited to the boundaries of a state. "State could be divided, it could be grouped or formed into territorial constituencies" means that it was always possible to have Lok Sabha constituencies spanning across multiple state borders for general elections. While it was never done so is another matter but perhaps had it been done for border districts of various states it would have created much needed spirit of integration in the nation. It further states "(c) The ratio between the number of members, allotted to each territorial constituency and the population of that constituency as ascertained at the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the territory of India."  There is no doubt left about the message that has been sent to the future generation of Indians by constituent assembly. Entire territory of India has to be treated with the same yardstick. The ratio is important because it ensures equal weightage for each vote. 

There is an entire article 82 which states "readjustment after each census". This is a fundamental constitutional principle that has been kept at abeyance because of petty regional political interests. While no one in the state objects to redrawing the territorial boundaries of constituencies based on census within the state, somehow an impression has been made in the polity of states that states are sacrosanct as sub nationalities and can demand special treatment when it comes to Lok Sabha elections. Whereas it is well understood that states are only administrative divisions and federalism in Indian context in no way means that national interest should be subservient to petty regional interests and power politics. This is a dangerous trend that has gone on for too long and one only hopes that after the 2026 census this distortion is finally corrected. 

Delimitation and Women's Reservation

There is uproar in southern states over the delimitation and women's reservation bill 2026. The argument being that southern states have done better family planning and hence the population growth rate in southern states is lower than northern states and these states will lose out on parliamentary seats if delimitation is done based on current population. This argument has kept the Lok Sabha constituencies fixed since 1973 delimitation which was done based on 1971 census. It has been more than 50 years or about 2/3 the life of the Republic since when the political parties in southern states have opposed delimitation of Lok Sabha constituencies based on the argument that fertility rates in southern states is less than the fertility rates in northern states and hence the southern states will lose out on parliamentary seats. It is not as if the fertility rate in northern states has not come down. There is uneven development in the country and when it comes to providing more support to the lagging states there is opposition form the southern states. This creates a chicken and egg situation because reduction is fertility rate depends on overall development and education of a region.

The argument of opposing census based delimitation is based on a flawed view of the parliamentary system under Indian constitution. It should be understood by everyone that Lok Sabha does not represent states. Lok Sabha is peoples council that is represented by constituencies. As far as representation of states in the parliament is concerned it is provided by the council of states which is the Rajya Sabha. States do not have a special status for election of member of parliaments to Lok Sabha. States are merely administrative divisions and do not represent any kind of sub nationality. New states have continuously been created for administrative and other reasons. But if they start giving rise to sub nationalism then that is not in interest of the republic. The idea of southern Indian states being at odds with northern Indian states is a constructed identity based politics of regional parties with is detrimental to national integration and fraternity between citizens of the country. 

In a one man one vote system each vote should have equal weightage in the Parliament. If we have certain constituencies which have electorate running into thousands of voters and other electorates with lakhs of voters then we have an imbalanced representation in the parliament. Nobody ever objects to delimitation based on census within state boundaries but somehow when the same logic is being applied to Lok Sabha constituencies suddenly the argument about states losing out on parliamentary seats is being raised thanks to regional politics. As if an MP elected for a parliamentary constituency in northern India is suddenly an enemy of the citizens in a constituency in Southern India and will not act in national interest. What ever regional or state interest exists are dealt with by the state governments which have sufficient powers. Member of parliaments elected from any part of the country should make decisions on national interest and as mentioned earlier the states are already represented in the Rajya Sabha which has an indirect election. 

Having made and argument in the favor of delimitation based on census which is mandated in the constitution anyways I would like to make a separate argument against this bill. The number of seats in Lok Sabha since the first delimitation based on 1951 census have increased by approximately 50 members. We already have a large parliament. In various debates over laws in the parliament the MPs hardly get anytime to make their statements. An MP hardly gets 5-10 minutes of uninterrupted time to make his or her arguments. If the number of seats is increased from 543 to 816 that is a 50% increase in the strength of the Lok Sabha. This will certainly damage the quality of debate in the parliament. The financial burden on the tax payers of country for these additional VIP members and their entourage which lives on the exchequer will also increase. The idea of women's reservation of 33% and the sub reservation amongst women for SC/ST communities is also an unfortunate continuation of the one medicine of every ailment principle which has afflicted Indian political class. We need to now move away from reservation politics to save the republic. There are no structural nor legal barriers to women entering politics in the country. If in any constituency and electorate can benefit from a more suitable male candidate to represent them then why should they be limited for the choice of only female candidates. It is not as if there is any bar on women from contesting in any unreserved seats against male candidates. If political parties want to increase women's representation they should do so at party level by giving more tickets to women. We don't need to reserve seats in the parliament for this.

India should move on from such social engineering projects and instead of doing down the road of further reservations its time to do away with reservations starting with OBC reservations for a more merit based equal treatment under the law.

Iran War - A Fragile Ceasefire

After much bluster and genocidal threats, US President Trump has announced a 14 day cease fire with Iran. This Pakistan mediated ceasefire in which Pakistan has been characterized as more of a go between rather than a credible neutral mediator is already quite fragile. The hostilities between Iran and Arab states of UAE, Kuwait and Bahrain have not yet come to an end with report of continued targeting of infrastructure in these Arab states by Iran and UAE's retaliation on Iran's Lavan Islands as of Monday morning. Israel has also refused to include Lebanon in a any ceasefire. It operations in southern Lebanon continue as usual. 

Any ceasefire does take some time to come into effect while the communication to stop hostilities trickle down to local units. In the case of Iran, due to its decentralized regional command, there is the added issue of all commanders agreeing to the temporary ceasefire. So we will have to wait for a couple of days to see if this cease fire settles in and holds. Israel however is unlikely to give up on its objectives in Lebanon so easily, hence we still need to wait and see how this pans out. There are already some voices in Israel's security establishment criticizing Trump for his decision. Israeli President Netanyahu is also facing criticism from opposition politicians for failing to achieve his objectives. As analyzed earlier, Israel's achievable objective was primarily "Mowing the grass", which, one can argue has been achieved to a great extent. The collapse of Iran's government could not be realistically expected to happen by arial bombardments and decapitation of its leadership has so far not been able to bring about internal fracture. 

One cannot rule out an eventual weakening of the governance structures in Iran over a period of time. But for now it seems the Islamic State has won the war by not losing it. The control of Hormuz strait which it has de facto achieved and will hope to convert into a de jure agreement with USA may be problematic for the Arab states, Asian states and pretty much most of the world. Iran hopes to recover its war damages from the revenue from transit fees. This means the bystander Asian nations who had no role in this war and whose interests were set aside by US and Israel while initiating this war will have to foot the bill for this war in perpetuity. Iran may also seek to use access to Hormuz as a leverage to force Asian nations to resume normal economic relations with it.

The biggest economic loser in this War other than Iran and gulf states is indeed the large energy hungry Asian economies. India for now appears to have made a mistake by not being able to maintain its neutrality in this war. Its dependency on the Gulf monarchies for economic needs and on Israel for defense needs put it in a difficult situation. Its traditional warm relations with Iran were already under stress under the weight of US economic sanctions on Iran. Its current situation is in making for a long time ever since the 2010 Obama era sanctions on Iran. Complying with those and later sanctions on Iran and Russia has lead to weakening of its energy sovereignty over the years. Hence India's position as a supplicant of USA in international relations has been solidified thanks to US sanctions regime and unwillingness of India leadership to develop any kind sanctions evasion mechanisms like China has done. India's relations with Iran in particular and increasingly its relations with Russia have become subject to US Veto.

We will have to see how this cease fire holds and whether a lasting settlement is achieved during the negotiations between Iran and USA over the course of next weeks. The differing perceptions between Iran and USA on what has been agreed to as the draft 10 point proposal from Iran does not bear much confidence in this era of social media diplomacy, where the state leaders seem to make all kinds of often contradictory statements in social media, for one to make any coherent sense of their intentions. But even this temporary fragile cease fire has come as a respite to everyone and a hope of seeing and end to this latest West Asian conflict exists. Asian nations need to get involved in this peace process at least now and not just leave it to the principal actors because much is at stake for them. The prospect of another war in West Asia over unresolved differences exists and their economic interests and immigrant population in the Gulf are both at risk if this happens.

 

     

India's new nuclear liability law - SHANTI Act, 2025

On 17-18 Dec, 2025 the Indian parliament passed the Sustainable Harnessing and Advancements of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India (SHANTI) Act. There was little debate in main stream media on this bill before it was tabled. In prime minister's independence day speech in August he had mentioned about reforming India's nuclear power generation sector. Ever since the Indo US nuclear deal which was signed in 2008, it was hoped by US nuclear energy suppliers that they will be able to participate in growing Indian nuclear energy sector. After all new nuclear power plant construction had almost ground to halt in US ever since the 3 mile disaster in 1979. New reactor projects started only after 2013. India was seen as a new untapped market for US companies. 

The Fukushima nuclear disaster of 2011, however, put the nuclear power industry world wide under greater public scrutiny. Ever since the start of nuclear power generation in the mid of 20th century this industry has thrived on socializing the liability of nuclear power accident which is significant in case of a disaster and largely seen as uninsurable without public funds. The industry in most of the countries has followed a capped operator liability regime with channeling of all liability to the operator and no liability on the suppliers. Countries where public opinion has been sensitive to nuclear disasters like Japan, Russia, Germany and Finland follow a strict, no fault,  unlimited operator liability regime. Strict and no-fault means that the claimants need not prove that the operator is at fault of the nuclear accident to be able to claim damages. Unlimited liability means that there is not cap or limit on the liability of the operator. It should be noted that even in countries where a capped liability regime exists, a steady movement towards increasing the cap amount and shifting more liability to the industry from the society is in progress. 

The estimated total cost of the Fukushima nuclear disaster is in the range of $ 190-200 billion. The Japanese Law for compensation for nuclear damages has unlimited, strict no-fault operator liability, the operator needs to provide a security deposit of 120 billion Yen to the government and separately also have a liability insurance. Any person suffering from nuclear damage has priority over other creditors in respect of compensation from the amount provided by the liability insurance contract. There is right to recourse to a third party, where the employees of a nuclear operator have suffered nuclear damage and such damage was caused intentionally by a third party, the nuclear operator who has paid compensation for work accidents to the employees or families of the deceased shall retain a right of recourse against such third party.

The Price-Anderson Act of USA provides for $13.6 billion no fault liability without cost to the public or government Interestingly under the US Energy Independence and Security Act 2007, if an accident occurred outside the USA, nuclear suppliers would be required to reimburse the federal government for the amount allocated to the USA under the CSC’s formula for second-tier coverage.

As noted earlier the world over in the course of time the liability regime has changed in the way that International liability laws have moved the onus of insurance from the society to the industry. Also the amount of liability has been increasing. In such an environment, India's SHANTI Act stands out for not only reducing the liability amount compared to previous regime but also shifting the onus from industry to the state. For instance in 2004, contracting parties to the OECD Paris (and Brussels) Conventions signed Amending Protocols which removed the required for states to set a cap on liabilities. Thus allowing states to have unlimited liability just as Japan. Though these amendments are yet to be ratified in absence of Industry's agreement, we can see that the governments around the world are recognizing the need to expand the scope of liability of nuclear accident where as India has moved in the opposite direction.

We have to analyze this new law in this background. Let us note the major changes that have taken place in the SHANTI act:-

1) The strict no-fault liability clause which was part of the CLND act 2010 has been removed from the SHANTI Act. Earlier law had this clause in the Liability of Operator section "(4) The liability of the operator of the nuclear installation shall be strict and shall be based on the principle of no-fault liability.". This clause has been totally removed from the SHANTI ACT

2) The Operator liability for small and medium power plants has been reduced by introducing a graded system in which plants less than 150 MW the operator liability has been reduced to merely Rs 100 Crore from a Rs 1500 Crores in the earlier act of 2010. The maximum lability for plants more than 3600 MW has been increased to Rs 3000 Crores. One would expect that with inflation and in light of global trend the liability amount should increase not decrease.

3) The operator right to recourse to a supplier liability has been removed. CLND had the clause " (b) the nuclear incident has resulted as a consequence of an act of supplier or his employee, which includes supply of equipment or material with patent or latent defects or sub-standard services; ". This has been removed.

4) Patent regime in the nuclear sector has been changed. Since 1962 any invention in the field of nuclear energy was not patentable. As per patents act 1970 "No patent shall be granted in respect of an invention relating to atomic energy falling within sub-section (1) of section 20 of the Atomic Energy Act, 1962." As per clause 38 of the new law inventions in nuclear energy are now patentable. "38. (1) The Central Government may grant patents for inventions which in its opinion are for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and radiation:"

Patent restriction ensured that all innovation and development of technologies in nuclear science remained strictly in public interest. It did monopolize the nuclear energy sector, limited private investment and but it also enabled India to freely develop technologies in public interest which, may have been patented outside of India and hence denied to it in practical terms. The removal of the patent restrictions will benefit companies to be able to market their patented technologies like fuel in India. Reduction of operator liability to almost a pittance for small reactors will transfer the liability for Small Modular Reactors, which is seen as a new growth sector, from the industry to the society. Removal of supplier liability clause will remove the operator's right to recourse against the technology supplier for any disaster, opening the door for foreign suppliers to freely enter the nuclear energy market with lesser financial risk. 

However what stands out most egregiously is the removal of the strict, no-fault, liability clause from the nuclear liability law. If following the international standards of liability was the justification of removing the supplier liability clause then the strict and no-fault liability clause is a long standing feature of nuclear liability laws world over. Its removal is quite inexplicable. So is reduction of liability cap where as the world over the movement is towards increasing the cap and moving more and more liability towards the Industry. Unlimited operator liability is also long standing international practice followed in major Nuclear energy states like Japan, Russia and Germany. One could justify its introduction on the account of the very high estimated cost of the latest large nuclear disaster which was in Fukushima nuclear plant. In fact the central government in the Financial Memorandum section of SHANTI Act it self states "Clause 14 of the Bill provides for the liability of the Central Government in the event of a nuclear incident. However, as the actual liability in the event of nuclear incident would depend on the magnitude of the incident, it is difficult to estimate the cost of liability at this stage. The Central Government has established a Nuclear Liability Fund for the purpose of meeting its liability under the Bill. "  

Finally I would remind the reader to what I had explored in my previous article. In last few years one person from India's nuclear energy establishment who stands out in promoting nuclear power industry is Dr Anil Kakodkar. He has been most active in his public writings about building small modular reactor and thorium based fuel. It should to be noted that Dr Kakodkar has been associated with a US company "Clean Core Thorium Energy Inc" as an advisor for development of a thorium based fuel which has been named ANEEL after him. He has been seen promoting private investment in the nuclear power generation sector in India, both before and after the SHANTI act has been passed by the parliament. Clear Core Thorium Energy had a partnership with India's L&T and NTPC is also expected to acquire a minority stake it in. This company is seen as the first beneficiary of the new SHANTI Act. For More about ANEEL fuel read here.

PS: Readers would be interested in the parliament debate on SHANTI Bill. The speech by Mr Shashi Tharoor stands out in articulating many relevant points. 

Mowing the Grass in Iran

The US-Israeli air raids in Iran raised questions about the reason and objectives of this latest war in West Asia. Various justifications and objectives were shared primarily by the US government which really appeared as an after thought rather than a well articulated justification. Ever changing objectives makes it difficult to predict how far this war will go and for how long. However it should not be difficult for any observer of the Israeli actions in its neighborhood that this is nothing but a "Mowing The Grass" war. The objective of Israel is to reduce the military apparatus of Iran as much as possible while Iran is at its weakest. 

The second Trump administration has more or less followed the recommendation of the 100 days plan prepared by the advocacy group United Against Nuclear Iran(UANI). Which involved recommendations like Psyops, anti regime protests, using Starlink for information dissemination inside Iran, declared policy of use of force by US, transfer of refuelers and bunker busters to Israel. weaponizing Arab states, targeted assassinations, encourage defection in military, target IRGC via cyber and kinetic means. US defense secretary Pete Hegseth has long been associated with UANI hence his presence in the second Trump administration would have been a decisive factor in US finally being persuaded to engage in military action against Iran first in the June 2025 12 day war and now a repeat war with objectives beyond merely the destruction of Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

Since there are no clear end goals of this second Iran war it is expected that when both sides are exhausted enough, US and Israel will declare the objectives met and a much weaker Iranian government will survive and will be left licking it's wounds. Iran has indicated that such an outcome is not in its interest as it does not want to be faced with another war a few months or years down the line and hence would like to impose an unacceptable cost on US and Israel before it stops its hostilities. 

While the war has been initiated by Israel and USA it did not take long for other western powers to indirectly or directly endorse this US-Israeli action. Amongst western nations only Spain has has openly opposed this war calling it an illegal war. Opposition from Russia and China was expected who are believed to have joined in to provide direct assistance to Iran's war effort in terms of ISR.

Gulf monarchy's have borne the bulk of Iran's retaliation in this war. Iran had earlier warned that any war imposed on it will result in a regional war and that is precisely what it has hoped to do with its war strategy. Knowing fully well that Israel is better prepared for this war and perhaps calling out the duplicity of the Gulf states which wanted all the benefit of having a weakened Iran in West Asia without necessarily engaging in direct confrontation with it, Iran decided to attack US defense infrastructure in the Gulf states. It has a large number of missiles and drones to effect this strategy which involves using up its old missile and drone arsenal first while dying up the air defenses of its adversaries before moving on the newer age weapons. 

UAE and Bahrain have so far suffered the bulk of Iranian attacks. UAE perhaps because of its recognition of Israel and Bahrain because of hosting the head quarters of US 5th Fleet. Civil infrastructure in these states has not been spared either with Iranian attacks being reported in residential building, hotels, airports, oil storage facilities and even water desalination plant in Bahrain. Oil tankers and commercial ships in the Straits of Hormuz have been attacked by both sides and Natural Gas production in Qatar has been stopped. Russia's energy sector has benefited temporarily from this war since it has emerged as one of the primary remaining viable sources of energy for the energy hungry economies of Asia.  

Ever since the October 7 2023 Hamas atrocities, Israel, with US help has systematically dealt with its neighboring adversaries who were primarily financed and endorsed by Iran in Gaza, Syria and Lebanon. Then last year it went after the nuclear infrastructure of Iran to destroy its capability of developing nuclear weapons. One cannot reliably say whether Iran did not have stockpile of nuclear weapons already when Israel attacked its nuclear infrastructure in June 2025 in the so called "Twelve Day War". However one can reliably say that if it did have a bomb, the numbers were perhaps not substantial yet. Leaving only a small window of opportunity for Israel and USA to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure before it could enrich sufficient quantities of fissile material for creating a bigger weapon stock pile. 

One should also not overlook that this action took place not so long after India's operation Sindoor which demonstrated not only that there is room for limited war even between two nuclear weapons states but it also showed the limit of how far such a conventional war could proceed between established nuclear powers. The deterrence ability of nuclear weapons are never in question. Hence for Israel it would have further raised the now or never question for dealing with the nuclear ambitions of its adversary.

It is possible that Iran really does not have any nuclear weapon and has not enriched any fissile material to weapons grade and was merely using its fissile stockpile as a bargaining chip to lift western sanctions. At the same time and a more likely scenario is that perhaps Iran wanted to eat its cake and have it too. It wanted to be an ambiguous nuclear weapons power like Israel while being fully integrated in the world economy rather than be an overt nuclear pariah state like North Korea. The prospect of Saudi Arabia, Israel and perhaps even Turkey becoming overt nuclear weapons state as a response to Iranian nuclear weapons testing and strong opposition by the partners of Iran namely Russia and China to such a scenario in West Asia  perhaps made the choice of overt nuclear testing a difficult one for Iran.

The 2003 Fatwa placed against nuclear weapons by Ayatollah Khamenei which was issued soon after the US invasion of Iraq made it impossible for Iran to openly test a nuclear device, however the west continued to suspect that a clandestine Iranian nuclear weapons program was well in progress. This lead to the enhanced US economic sanctions on Iran the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA), signed by President Obama on July 1, 2010. These Obama era sanctions and India's nuclear deal with USA made it difficult even for India to continue its purchase of Iranian oil and India progressively stopped oil imports from Iran. This was perhaps the first such occasion in recent memory when US was so brazenly able to inject itself into India's foreign policy through its domestic laws and enforce compliance by India in its sanctions regime against Iran which until then was its second largest oil export destination.

The economic sanctions on Iran had its effect and it resulted in US lead nuclear deal between the P5+1 and Iran called JCPOA in 2015. Iran agreed to reduce uranium enrichment to approx. 3% and to IAEA monitoring of its nuclear sites. Thus allowing Iran to regain access to international markets and financial system. However the Trump administration in 2018 unilaterally withdrew from the deal and reimposed sanctions on Iran. India also once again left Iran in lurch by complying with the US  unilateral sanction on Iran and stopped purchase of Iranian oil in 2019. As a side effect to this Iran-US tussle, it was revealed for everyone to see, that India's foreign and trade policy was now increasingly being determined by the US domestic law and US interests, and not by India's national interests. Its much touted strategic autonomy was progressively under stress.

With this latest war imposed on Iran by Israel and USA, India's position in West Asia and Indian ocean region has been much weakened. Not only are its millions of nationals in the gulf states in the firing line as civilian casualties of its war, its energy security and fertilizer imports are at risk due to the Gulf region being the primary source of these commodities. Already LPG supplies in India are under stress. The sinking of Iranian Naval ship which had been participating in naval exercises in India and had participated in the International Fleet review in February, so close to Indian waters just off the coast of Sri Lanka has caused embarrassment to India. GOI has tried to play down this incident but this brazen action by US Navy has dented Indian Navy's often touted claim of being the net security provider in the Indian Ocean Region. PM Modi's state visit to Israel and acceptance of Knesset Speaker's medal just on the eve of this War, has been bad optics for India. The delayed and muted reaction to this war by India is also noticeable. India, by not condemning this war, stood out from its BRICS partners Russia, China and Brazil.  

The cost of this war is not limited to West Asia alone but has global ramifications. Gulf being the energy center of the world and a region with overwhelming number of immigrant population, any instability in this region directly or indirectly affects every household in the the world. Given such a large impact of this war, it is essential that the west should have had very well thought out reason for engaging in this war. Regime change was not a likely outcome of this war without out right invasion which was unlikely from the outset. The prospect of another mowing the grass war every few months or years will plunge West Asia into another crisis and the world economy will continue to remain hostage to instability in the Gulf. India will have to find its feet and break from Israel and USA on this issue and stand with those bystander countries whose economies are being damaged by this war, to ensure that this war now comes to an end and a repeat war of this nature is not imposed by Israel and US again. 

The risk of Iran now overtly becoming a nuclear weapons power by testing a device and causing a ripple effect in the region with Saudi Arabia, Israel and Turkey following suite also exists. Iran has every incentive to test a nuclear device now, if it still has the capability left. In such a scenario it would become necessary for India to resume open ended nuclear testing and develop a robust thermonuclear arsenal (as has been advocated in past by Bharat Karnad, K Santhanam, P K Iyengar and Ashok Parthasarathi) and much longer range delivery systems to secure itself in a changing world order.

Strategic Sellout 2.0

PM Narendra Modi in his latest independence day address to the nation, had mentioned about the coming reform in the nuclear power generation sector. There is also some hint in the media, about a change in the civil liability law, in order to facilitate private sector investment in nuclear energy. Everyone in the country is also aware of the way the US government, under the new administration, has begun pressurizing India on economic and national security issues. This is perhaps the most direct public rebuke that Indian leadership has faced from a western government since our Independence. Anyone with even a little understanding of the history of India's relationship with the west is aware of the risk of defence and technological cooperation with the west. It was always said and every child in India knows that most of what comes from the US comes with strings attached.

Our leadership in the past has attempted to keep a healthy distance with the world powers knowing fully well their tendency to use leverage on us in ways which may be detrimental to our national interest. We have been since independence trying to negotiate our growth while breaking various shackles put on us and avoiding new ones being placed. However ever since the Civil nuclear deal between US and India, we have been building a close partnership with the US hoping that it would be mutually beneficial in economic and defence domains. There has always been skepticism in India among a few about too close a cooperation and analysts have always warned that there should be sufficient guard rails in place in our relationship. The gross display of coercion that is coming from Washington today has again given credence to such skepticism.

Given this context, this recent interview to The Print given by Dr Anil Kakodkar regarding India's Thorium based civil nuclear program is worth noting. The core of the discussion was around a special patented thorium based reactor fuel that has been developed by a US company "Clean Core Thorium Energy Inc". Interestingly Dr Kakodkar is an advisor to this company along with India's former NSA Mr M K Narayanan. This fuel is now being developed in cooperation with L&T for use in PHWR and CANDU reactors. The description of their profile on the company website(public access to the website is now restricted) is interesting. Mr Naraynan's contribution to the Indo US nuclear deal has been mentioned and the fuel has been specifically named ANEEL; recognizing the contribution of Dr Anil Kakodkar in its development. Incidentally India's L&T has an MOU with this company for the development of this fuel for "developing countries".

  

Clearly the primary customer in mind for the use of this fuel is India and we can see ominous signs here of India's three stage nuclear program and its energy security being made dependent on the US. The revolving door involving some primary actors behind the Indo-US nuclear deal also raises red flags. One wonders why Dr Kakodkar did not deem it fit to use his expertise to advise BARC where he was the director to develop such a fuel in India rather than promote a US patented fuel for India's thorium based nuclear program. This appears to be a critical technology. One cannot fathom that China would ever allow dependency on any foreign country on such critical areas. Even in high-end Chips it is now promoting local industry rather than becoming dependent on the west. 

On the one hand Mr Kakodkar says imported uranium makes India vulnerable, on the other hand he promotes a properietory imported Thorium fuel from a US based company, instead of "advising" BARC to make such a fuel indigenously within India.

The transfer of this fuel technology from the US also requires the US government's so called 810 approval which entails a requirement to satisfy the US government's non proliferation concerns and national security interests. Quite likely dependence on this fuel will make India's nuclear program susceptible to US sanctions pressure in future. This is equivalent to attaching another shackle on ourselves. India's three stage nuclear program and fuel reprocessing has so far been kept out of any IAEA inspections under the Indo US nuclear deal. With this imported fuel from the US all this independence India had carved out for itself appears to be in jeopardy.

One needs to be reminded of the red flags that were raised in the book Strategic Sellout by Bharat Karnad, PK Iyengar et al immediately after the Indo US nuclear deal. Mr Ashok Parthasarathi had specifically mentioned in a press conference organized by him and Mr Santhanam circa 2009 that India had 11 years since the Pokhran test yet to deploy a Thermonuclear weapon. Several scientists had mentioned the need for India to resume nuclear testing in order to get a credible Hydrogen bomb deterrence against China since the yield of 1998 test is questionable. We seem to be walking into another trap with this talk of changes to nuclear liability laws and increasing dependency on the US for our civil nuclear program. GOI needs to tread this carefully and not mortgage India's energy future to a US company by using patented fuel for its reactors. It appears that people like Dr Kakodkar and Mr Narayanan who have been at the echelons of India's nuclear establishment are contributing to making the country's energy future vulnerable to a mercurial US government. There is also a conflict of interest that such persons who have served in senior positions in government of India are post retirement cooperating with a foreign company in such a critical area.  

 

A number of senior scientists who had raised red flags about the Indo-US nuclear deal and some of the primary actors who had contributed to the deal are no longer with us. I am sure a few like Mr Bharat Karnad and some others who may not be as well known publicly are still with us. At a minimum we should have a public debate about the future direction we need to take on our relationship with the West in nuclear technology and whether we should really risk creating dependence on the US and the West rather than pursue self-reliance like China.

India's Thorium nuclear program under threat?

Dr Anil Kakodkar has recently been interviewed by The Print on the patented ANEEL thorium fuel developed by US company "Clean Core Thorium Energy Inc" in which Dr Kakodkar is an advisor along with former NSA M K Naraynan. This fuel has been specifically designed for use in PHWR and CANDU reactors. The description of their profile on the company website is interesting. Mr Naraynan's contribution to the Indo US nuclear deal has been mentioned and the fuel has been specifically named ANEEL recognizing the contribution of Dr Anil Kakodkar in its development. Incidentally India's L&T has an MOU with this company for the development of this fuel for "developing countries".

Clearly the primary customer in mind for the use of this fuel is India and we can see ominous signs here of India's three stage nuclear program and its energy security being made dependent on the US. The revolving door involving some primary actors behind the Indo US nuclear deal also raises red flags. One wonders why Dr Kakodkar did not deem it fit to use his expertise to advise BARC where he was the Director to develop such a fuel in India rather than promote a US patented fuel for India's Thorium based nuclear program. The transfer of this fuel technology also requires the US government's so called 810 approval which entails a requirement to satisfy US government's non proliferation concerns and national security interests. Quite likely this will make India's nuclear program susceptible to US sanctions pressure. Readers should note that India's three stage nuclear program and fuel reprocessing has so far been kept out of any IAEA inspections under the Indo US nuclear deal. With this imported fuel from US all this appears to be in jeopardy.

The Strategic Sellout which Bharat Karnad, PK Iyengar and K Santhanam had warned off, seems to be paying dividends for a few. Given that PM Modi had specifically mentioned plans for reforms in nuclear energy sector in the country during his recent independence day speech and some talk in media about change in India's nuclear liability laws, GOI needs to tread this carefully and not mortgage India's energy future to a US company by using patented fuel for its reactors. It is disappointing that people like Dr Kakodkar and Mr Narayanan who have been at the echelons of India's nuclear establishment are contributing to making the country's energy future vulnerable to a mercurial US government.

On Trade Deal with USA

It is only India which painstakingly worked on an FTA with USA, a draft of which, is already on Trump's table. No other country has any written deal let alone a full blown FTA. India already conceded on zero tariff on capital goods import and open market for agriculture in certain areas like meat, fruits and even milk products like cheese(what happened to blood meal?) and defence purchases. India got a bad deal because it started off with appeasement. India removed Google tax, alcohol duties, Harleys, Tesla and Starlink even before Modi went to US and even before trade deal. So all this was a tribute that India paid to Trump. Trump's trade minister had already conceded that India will not open agriculture and has bluntly said in mafia like tone that India buying russian weapons gets under the skin of USA. So agriculture is a red herring that leaders on both sides are waving at gullible citizens.

Having got the deal he wanted, Trump decided to push India more and hence raised issue of Russian oil to settle non trade related issues like Ukraine deal and who knows what else behind the scenes. Trump team is gloating that no country except China has retaliated. Trump team is not expecting any retaliation from India because it understands that decision makers' will to respond is already compromised. It is a result of not building guard rails over the years in US relationship.

China is indeed gloating and its media is egging on India to stand up to USA. A hard break in US India relations is to its advantage. One is skeptical if there will be any real response or weather India has any cards left. WTO afterall is dead now, Lula wanting collective action by WTO does not work. The only thing India should definitely do now is not sign any FTA with USA and work on diversifying trade with other countries. Hopefully India will also stop further defense purchases from USA. After all no one else has signed any FTA with USA since trump tariffs everyone had only a framework agreement, details of which they are incessantly disputing. So Trump has got no deal with anyone till now. A US China grand bargain looks inevitable though since only China cose to standup to USA. All cards are now with China.

India should wait for internal court proceedings in USA to strike down Trump tariffs as they definitely will and wait for political turmoil in USA to start, once tariff lead inflation begins to pinch. It needs to scale back its ties with USA especially defence. It is the security dependence on US which makes USA's allies vulnerable to pressure on trade. Hopefully Indian decision makes have that much independence still left to ride it out rather than strike a bad deal. Their dream of becoming China plus has been already been shattered by Trump.

On Sixth Schedule for Ladakh

I can sense some red flags in this demand from Ladakh for inclusion in the 6th schedule of the constitution which is currently applicable to certain states in the north-east. I somewhat understand why center government is reluctant to do this. In negotiations with Ladakh representatives center had proposed art 371 instead.

One would prefer that all citizens irrespective of their background are all treated equal and equal fundamental rights are applied to all and that there be no special provisions, laws etc. which are discriminatory in nature in any way. Hence, I find even art 371 to be an aberration but it appears to be a lesser evil than the 6th schedule which I find to be encouraging sub nationalism and separatism.

It was under British legacy of keeping north-eastern regions separate which unfortunately led to a continuation of the policy by means of 6th schedule provision in Indian constitution. Our constitution makers were sold to this idea of separate identity, otherwise there was no need to have separate provision of 5th schedule for the "tribal" regions of other states, say central India. In the words of Ambedkar as I picked from Wikipedia " The tribal people in areas other than Assam are more or less Hinduised, more or less assimilated with the civilisation and culture of the majority of the people in whose midst they live."  This sort of civilizational distinction I can relate with Ambedkar, his world view and his strong belief in the Aryan invasion theory etc.

The effect of the inner line permit, Elviniasm and the likes on separatist politics in north-eastern states is well known. The inner line permit did not prevent westernization and christianisation but it certainly did prevent the "assimilation" and "hinduisation" that Ambedkar speaks of for the tribes. Shillong, I am told by some, is the most "westernized" city in India with its flourishing rock band culture. 

As far as tribal identities are concerned, I am of the opinion that we are all tribal after all. Every Hindu at least retains his tribal identity with his "Ishta" and "Kula". Are the westernized and Christianized (a "world" religion) residents of Shillong still considered tribal is a larger question in a domain which is above politics. One can certainly sympathize with the separate civilizational identity of the Sentinelese and the Jarawa (to some extent) of A&N but is the idea to keep tribals as such, in perpetuity? Can the normal governance structures of state, districts, block, panchayats etc. not guarantee rights, freedoms and governance in the same way as the rest of India? Do the tribals never aspire to linking with the larger population around them at all?

Anyhow coming to the demands of Ladakh from some news reports it appears that some in Ladakh lament the removal/dilution of article 370 and 35A and see the sixth schedule as a way to status quo ante. I am wary of any discrimination of Indian citizens and any restriction on the right to equality of Indian citizens. These fundamental rights I believe are sacrosanct and I am saying this from the perspective of an Individual and not any people group. Hence, I find such insertion of possible discriminatory tendencies in the governance structure of Ladakh as potentially damaging in the long run. I understand that arguments will be made about the patriotism and unique environment etc. of Ladakh. Can the environment protection not be ensured by a regular legislature?

Ladakh has never been so Isolated in history, after all, it has been at the crossroads of great civilizations. The ancient Silk Road passed through Ladakh. One reads about new reports of gold smuggling from China and the proximity to Tibet and Xinjiang shows the future potential of a flourishing trade in the region if by some miracle we see a political change in China some time in future. So, I am not so convinced about any civilizational Isolation of Ladakh as in Ambedkar's words which should call for any 6th schedule like provisions. I say " 6th schedule like ", rather than 6th schedule itself, since 97% population of Ladakh is tribal, this in fact actually makes the idea of applying 6th schedule quite illogical Once Nagaland and Mizoram became separate states the 6th schedule became irrelevant to the erstwhile "Naga hills" and "Lushai Hills" of Assam as such. The state within a state concept of 6th schedule became moot. 

Similarly, as already the population is overwhelmingly tribal what do the people of Ladakh envisage? It is not as if there is a small tribal population in a large state surrounded by a non-tribal population necessitating an autonomous region within the state. Do the people of Ladakh envisage a separate autonomous division of Kargil and separate for Leh? Is that really needed when a combined legislature can bring better integration between the two districts rather than overly complicating the system with autonomous councils, that can encourage creation of discriminatory laws by these councils, which may lead to perpetual separation of the peoples of these regions and create political problems in future where none exist at present.

With these facts especially that 6th schedule was specific to a unique situation of Assam at the time it was envisaged under very different circumstances which do not exist in Ladakh and even 5th schedule is irrelevant given that almost entire population of Ladakh is tribal, the question now becomes ensuring the rights of the 3% non-tribal population of Ladakh and continued integration and development of the region. I request the people of Ladakh to review their position on this matter and the representatives of Ladakh to reconsider and move towards a normal state-center governance relationship like any other state or union territory of India.

I understand that my views on this subject are limited by my knowledge as a layman, but I suspect few in Ladakh fully realize the implications of what they are demanding either. I only hope that lack of full understanding of the legal & constitutional reasons why 6th schedule is inapplicable now that J&K state has been split does not lead to unnecessarily hardening of positions to a point of no return and lead to public unrest in the region which is detrimental to the peace and security in Ladakh.

Basic mistakes in India's response to Covid-19

It's been more than 2 months since the global spread of the new Coronavirus which originated in Wuhan, China. The extensive lock down implemented by China seems to have help slowed down the spread of the Covid-19 disease with in China and outside. While the numbers reported by China are not reliable it is unquestionable that they have a fairly developed hospital infrastructure and production capability which has played a role in bringing the epidemic in control in China.

India had a two month advance warning and there were certain basic capability gaps that India had compared to China which it had to make and attempt to bridge in these two months.

1) Personal protection of medical staff and training for treatment of infectious disease.
2) Hospital capacity increase for critical care including procurement of required equipment.
3) Diagnostic Kits for Covid-19 disease detection in the numbers needed.

These are obvious gaps that are public knowledge, yet we have not seen the effort required at the scale needed to fill these gaps. We had two months to do this but only yesterday have we seen some communication from ICMR on a plan to increase the testing capacity. They have said that we have only two rapid diagnostic labs with capacity of 1400 tests per day. Total of 121 labs will be brought online by week ending 20/Mar/2020 most of them have the capacity of 90 tests per day. ICMR has mentioned that there is limit on how many tests can be conducted which is limited by number of probes available which are to be imported. India has ordered 1 million probes and has requested WHO for another 1 million probes. They have also now started to tie up with private labs for testing to increase capacity.

But the testing guidelines that India follows assumes that there is no community transmission of this disease in India. It involves testing only travel cases and their contacts. WHO guideline includes all atypical pneumonia cases for Covid-19. But India has not included that in its guideline. India is doing a surveillance testing which involves sample of 20 per lab in 52 government medical college hospital labs for severe acute respiratory illness patients to check for Covid-19 disease. This testing is seems can only reveal if there is a widespread Covid-19 epidemic in the country but it does not appear such a sampling method will catch the disease spread in its initial stages. The best way to catch that is to perform a more aggressive testing of GP doctors, respiratory ICU medical staff, atypical pneumonia cases and the like as per WHO guidelines.

There hasn't been any effort spent on increasing the hospital ICU capacity in the last 2 months. This is something which could have been started on a war footing immediately in mid January once the pattern of the disease in China had become clear. It was known that this disease is unstoppable because of asymptomatic transmission and has a high percentage of sever illness requiring ICU care. Hence this step of mass procurement of ICU equipment for hospitals should have been started immediately. But till date we have not heard of any effort by central or state governments to bridge the gap. Recently GOI has declared Covid-19 as a national disaster allowing states to utilize State Disaster Response Funds for procurement of medical equipment but there has been a cap of 10% put on the state spending for ICU equipment, PPE and training. Its inexplicable why there should be this cap of 10% put on these funds.

Finally on the front of personal protection equipment again the scale at which this equipment is needed has not been addressed. You can gauge the availability of this equipment with India on this figure the number of N95 masks which India could spare to send to China for Covid-19 relief sent by India in February was a total of 4,000.  We need millions of N95 masks and other high quality personal protection equipment for our medical staff in hospitals but it is not clear how much India is prepared on this front. The news reports coming out of several states on their handling of the first cases which were sent to isolation wards is not encouraging. The medical staff did not have correct equipment, they were not trained, no drills had been conducted, isolation wards were not proper negative pressure rooms, ICU beds were not available in isolation wards.

No doubt India has put a lot of effort in airport screening, contact tracing of confirmed cases and travel restrictions. India has also started implementing the so called social distancing measures slowly. But most of the testing that India has done has been a result of voluntary disclosures. There have been several cases where the patients have hidden their travel history before first approaching a medical professional or seeking medical care in hospitals. We can only conclude that there would be several silent chains of transmission of this disease and it is only prudent to assume that community transmission of the disease is taking place already. It is important to start testing for it and that required relaxing the test criterion and increasing the testing capacity asap.

India's response to Wuhan Coronavirus lacking

In one word the Indian response so far to Wuhan Coronavirus seems 'casual'. There have been some news reports of a shortage of N95 respirators and surgical masks in India due to demand in China.  But the public concern as well as more importantly the response from GOI on a threat of nCoV epidemic has been lacking any real urgency. We have seen the action which has been taken in terms of body temperature screening of inbound passengers from China on airports and some reports of certain states monitoring the returnees. But the effectiveness of such a screening is suspect. Given the studies emerging that this virus is infectious even in asymptomatic patients. China's health minister has also said the same. A study in Germany has shown that the virus is infectious both before the onset of symptoms and after the symptoms have disappeared. This makes is very difficult to contain the spread of this virus in populations since there is no existing immunity to it yet in any population cluster.

There have been some people returning from Wuhan who have been found with flu likes symptoms and have been isolated in certain hospitals across India out of which one person has so far tested positive in Kerala. Other tests have either come negative or are still awaiting results. From the news reports about the diagnostics which have come out till now it appears that the turn around time of PCR testing result from National Institute of Virology, Pune is upwards of 2 days. NIV itself takes 3-6 hours to test and total of 12-18 hours to prepare and upload a report. So far it remains the only centre for testing this virus. A report suggested that NIV was awaiting fast diagnostic test kits from abroad. One report even suggested that for a certain patient in Kolkata NIV determined not to conduct an nCoV test based on description of symptoms and other report of the patient. All this points to the expected current scenario that testing infrastructure is not adequate yet. Also it is not clear if  proper contact tracing is being done to ensure that all potentially infected people are being tested. This is a clear case where media should be asking questions to GOI and union health ministry should be addressing this seriously.

There are a number of Indian medical students studying in China and the infected person is also one of them. Indian government is also airlifting some 600 odd students from Hubei province and plans to house them in a military establishment in Haryana for a duration of 14 days. Now that may be fine but here are some lax deficiencies which are visible already. The Wuhan returnees will be housed in dormitories. With such a large number of 600 people I suppose India lacks infrastructure to be able to provide them all with isolated accommodation. The is a huge risk factor and shows how this epidemic can cause devastation in India which lacks woefully in terms of infrastructure. China which has a much better infrastructure than India is struggling to control this epidemic, for India this will be 10 times tougher.

It appears that nCoV is much more contagious than a normal flu and the severity of infection in some patients and percentage of complications including death rate is much higher. Though the severity is lower than SARS or MERS but is much more contagious with exponential growth rate so far. Clearly given the risk of an epidemic in India a lot more needs to be done and to avoid any panic among the people a transparent communication is needed regularly from the health ministries in state and centre both. I find that the updates from government about what action they are taking are very low especially when compared to what is being done across the world. This needs to change fast. In a media briefing today the Ministry of External affairs has mentioned that while preparations are on way to get the stranded Indians from Wuhan back to India there have been no moves to restrict any travel to and from China. Only the ministry of health has issued an advisory to avoid travel to China but no VISA restrictions have been placed on Chinese nationals visiting India nor has there been any action by the civil aviation ministry to issue any instructions to airlines to stop flying to China/ Hong Kong.

Given the kind of disease we are dealing with and the severity of contagion in China, one would expect that GOI will do more than a mere airport screening, which they keep repeating as a reply to every question, as if its going to solve the issue. It is clearly not effective in preventing this disease from spreading in India. GOI ministers seems to be acting this was to avoid panic when in fact they should be erring in favour of caution here and take a leaf from what other countries are doing. Russia and Mongolia have stopped land border with China. US has issue strong warning to its citizens against travel to whole of China. Several foreign airlines have already stopped all to and fro flights to China or have curtailed the number of flights. So far Indian airliners like Air India and Indigo have curtailed the number of flights and destinations in China and Hong Kong but there is no blanket ban yet.

While World Health Organisation has declared this a world wide health emergency, but it has cautioned countries against taking any travel or trade restrictions on China. In its press conference on 30/Jan/2020 it even suggested that it would be questioning countries which declare a unilateral trade or travel restriction on China. This seems puzzling to say the least. On the one hand WHO commends China for its quarantine efforts, while the spread of the disease in China and around the world looks quite extensive including the disease spreading from person to person outside of China, including cases of asymptomatic spread and yet WHO is favouring economic reasons over health reasons in its advisory. So far it seems GOI is not going to do anything to restrict movement of people to and from China and other affected counties. One hopes the truth dawns on GOI soon and these travel and VISA restrictions are put in place. Israel has decided to suspend all flight to China and quarantine all travellers from China. Singapore has decided to not issue VISA to any Chinese passport holder nor to anyone who has been to China in last 14 days. I hope India too takes some drastic steps now when there may still be time.

Sadhguru on Citizenship Amendment Act

Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev has given a lucid explanation on the noble motives of Citizenship Amendment Act in response to a question to him. He has urged the protesters to read and understand the act rather than fall for the malicious propaganda that has been going on over it.

His entire explanation can be seen here.

Unfortunately the same journalists who have been spreading misinformation on CAA have started questioning Sadhguru's statement as factually incorrect by nitpicking on irrelevant points rather than understanding the thrust of his argument.

I clear the air here and explain how Sadhguru is absolutely correct and those questioning him are engaging in dishonest journalism driven by prejudice and mala fide intent, which can also be gauged from the disrespectful tone and tenor of their statements against a respected religious figure like him.

1) The religion census of Pakistan was not released since 1998. There is no doubt that there has been drastic decline in percentage of Hindus in these Islamic countries. In West Pakistan the bulk of (>90%) Hindus reside on Sindh. Of which majority are in princely state of Amarkot which was a Hindu majority state which joined Pakistan after Independence. In rest of Pakistan Hindus have been nearly wiped out. Some people are nitpicking over the number of 23% as population of minorities in whole of Pakistan(East + West) at the time of independence, this figure may be accurate if one looks as pre- partition population before migration induced by partition.  In fact in West Pakistan the percentage of Indian religions had reduced from 16% in 1901 to 1.68% in 1991. The thrust of Sadhguru's argument was correct that there is reduction due to persecution & violence.

2) Sadhguru cites an incident of his visit to Jwala Mata temple in Baku where he met a Hindu whose wife had been abducted, converted to Islam and married to someone else on same day. He mentioned in context of this incident that Pakistan did not recognize Hindu marriages which is why this man had no legal case to protect his wife. This was an incident in past not recent. In 2016 Sindh province passed a Hindu marriage act and in 2017 rest of the provinces got a Hindu marriage act. But this in no way changes what Sadhguru said. This is a clear case of persecution of Hindus in Pakistan. Even the current law of Pakistan is being criticized for its annulment clause which causes the marriage to be annulled if any spouse converts to Islam. This is a loophole that can be exploited to abduct and convert even married Hindu women. . There are several cases of abduction of Hindus girls reported from Pakistan.So Sadhguru's example of persecution of Hindus stands valid.

3) A propaganda is being spread that the Citizenship Amendment Act does not mention persecution hence it is not about religious persecution of minorities in Islamic countries in subcontinent. Fact is that in the statement of objects and reasons of the act it is clearly mentioned that religious persecution is the reason. There are associated government notifications on Passport Act and Foreigners Act of 2015 which clearly mention exemption based on religious persecution or fear of religious persecution. When there is overwhelming evidence of an obvious religious persecution based on state discrimination in these countries then such media propaganda is condemn able. Sadhguru in fact says that discrimination in these countries is state defined by law, because of the Islamic nature of these states. So he is again absolutely correct.

4) Sadhguru mentioned that police response has been relatively restrained compared to the kind of riots taking place. He is absolutely correct on this point. One need not go to far back in history just compare this with how 36 people were shot dead by Police after Baba Ram Rahim's followers rioted in Haryana in 2017. Now consider at the Police action in Jamia Milia Islamia university. Sadhguru mentioned that if students pelt stones then won't police enter the university to control the crowds. A lot of noise has been created in police action in Jamia Millia. It must be noted that even courts have not entertained such motivated arguments of police excesses. It is interesting to note that police has sought access to the CCTV footage from the University which has still not been provided to them. What's the justification for this denial? What is there to hide? Sadhguru is again correct in saying that police action was going to happen when there is rioting and even innocents will unfortunately get caught in this action.

5) Sadhguru is correct when he says that rumour are being spread that Muslims will lose their Citizenship because of CAA. This is a malicious propaganda that many people including students have fallen for. If they simply read the act they will know this is not the case. Thus act simply provides a faster path to citizenship to persecuted religious minorities from 3 Islamic states. Does not affect ant Indian citizen. Does not adversely affect anybody's case for seeking citizenship of India under existing process.

6) Sadhguru was asked about NRC so he responded with his views about it how every nation needs to know who its legal citizens are. It is obvious this is needed. He mentioned that for proving citizenship by birth several documents can be accepted. People are arguing they don't have documents. So he question who are these people who have no ID documents. How is it possible for people in this day and age to have no documentary proof. He further states that people who don't have documents can produce witnesses. The possible list of documents can clearly be deduced based in Assam NRC. Spokesperson of home ministry has recently tweeted that witnesses may be considered for illiterate people who don't have documents and a process around that be created. So Sadhguru's entire reply to the question on CAA-NRC is absolutely correct. Those trying to nitpick are dishonest and reflect the same kind or media propaganda journalism that has spread disinformation on CAA in the country.

Information War on Citizenship Act

In the past couple of weeks, the kind of reporting we have seen in Indian and in world media backed by several motivated academicians and politicians on the recent amendment to Indian’s Citizenship Act, can only be described as an Information War, that has been unleashed on the Indian state. It is well known that the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party is seen as a right-wing nationalist party. In India it is seen as a party with primarily Hindu voter base. In international media it is often described as a Hindu nationalist party which in their eyes is a negative portrayal. The ideological opposition to BJP is well entrenched in the left leaning English media in India and also in similarly inclined western media. In general, western media has a negative view of India as a result of cold war dynamics of the past, but off late with the political rise of BJP in India, they have a particularly negative view about India under BJP government.

Various reasons can be attributed to this entrenched opinion. Political positions viewed as right wing are automatically disliked by self-described left liberal media. Influence of Christian evangelical organizations on western and even local Indian media is another factor, since these organizations see the BJP as a less conducive to their evangelical project in India. Similar motive can be attributed to media organizations under influence of Islamic evangelical organizations and Islamic countries. When such motivations are at play then its is almost impossible to expect reasonable analysis of events in India from these media organizations. Their criticism however is often cloaked in the language of liberalism, pluralism, women’s rights, democratic values etc.

There is also a set of Indian urban population which has primarily grown cut off from the civilizational ethos of India under the influence of an education system that specializes in turning the mindset of people away from anything that is culturally Indian in general and Hindu in particular. There is a belief in this population that being less Indian, less Hindu is somehow being more modern. This population has long considered itself to be the guardian of “Indian secularism”. A term which is as difficult to define if not more, than the term Hindutva or Hindu-ness which BJP espouses. In this scenario those who consider themselves anti-Hindutva also consider themselves to be the sole guardians of secularism in India. This group is most turned off by the “Hindu nationalist” image of BJP and views every action by BJP with suspicion. They are also most easily influenced by the western media being English speaking themselves. Many among them consider themselves global citizens who happen to hold an Indian passport.

This urban Indian population especially students of humanities discipline in Indian universities have been under influence of certain ideological groups namely Ambedkarites, extreme Marxist, Islamists and to a lesser degree evangelical Christian groups. The influence of last of these is most subtle since it is not explicitly in Christian fundamentalist terms in most Indian universities but instead in the language of western universalism. This student population has seen BJP as antitheses of what they understand should be the future direction of India. With rise of BJP and loss of political space in electoral democracy to these ideologies they have chosen to combine forces in campus politics by projecting their most extreme form on impressionable college students who are easier to mould towards these ideologies due to a fertile ground created by absence of civilizational knowledge and cultural awareness. In short due to a lack of emic perspective in the humanities education in India these students are most prone to be turned towards these ideologies that are often described as breaking India forces (read Breaking India by Rajiv Malhotra, Aravindan Neelakandan) since they see the cultural underpinnings of India and the mainstream culture as oppressive and worthy of being thrown out.

Some of the recent political decisions by the BJP government like the law banning Muslim practice of triple divorce, curb on foreign funding of Indian NGOs which either work for evangelical purposes or influencing Indian political process, the revocation of article 370 which gave a separate constitution to the J&K state and the judicial decision on Ayodhya Ram temple case which went in the favour of Hindus, left these ideological groups completely shattered. It was unexpected by them that these important issues on which they had staked their entire existence had gone out of their hands completely. They were confident that no Indian government will be able to change the constitutional status of J&K, that their case on Ayodhya Ram temple was undefeatable and that no government will be able to touch the Muslim personal laws. They considered these issues to be the touchstone of Indian secularism and set back on these issues hurt their cause greatly.

Under this back drop one must see another issue that these forces see as important which is the status of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants in India. Whether you look at the liberal left, or the Islamist both see that inaction by GOI in the problem of illegal Bangladeshi immigrants is the happy state of affairs. No government in past had been able to deal with this problem even when there was a widespread movement in Assam to deal with this problem of forced demographic change in north eastern states especially Assam. One of the reasons for this inaction was the difficulty of dealing with this problem without also affecting the Bangladeshi Hindu population which had come to Indian since the 1971 genocide of Bengali Hindus. It is now well known that 80% of the 10 million refugees of the Bangladesh war that came to India were Hindus so were the approximately 3 million victims who were killed in East Pakistan by the Pakistani army. It would not be wrong to say that it was genocide particularly of Bangladeshi Hindus which is easy to see if one compares the census figures of Bangladesh from the pre and post war periods. 

The recent change to the citizenship act which was done by the BJP can be seen as an attempt to solve this conundrum. How to protect the population of religious minorities from Bangladesh living in India from any legal action for deportation back to Bangladesh, where they are vulnerable, but at the same time be able to act on the illegal economic migration from Bangladesh, which has changed the demographics in North eastern states in particular, but has also led to creation of settlements of Bangladeshi populations in several cities in rest of India? This law which provides a faster path to Indian citizenship to religious minorities from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Bangladesh and prevents their deportation on grounds of illegal entry or lack of valid documents of entry is a safety net to protect this population for any future state action against illegal economic migrants living in India. A vast majority of such migrants are Bangladeshi.

This distinction between refugees escaping religious persecution a majority of whom happen to be Hindus and the illegal economic immigrants a majority of whom happen to be Muslims does not go down well for the self-described liberal secularists in India. Thus, the Citizenship Amendment Act and the expected national register for citizens which would follow was seen as the final nail in the coffin of secularism by them. They first argued that the CAA is not permitted in Indian constitution which is secular. When it is pointed out that the same constitution permits special consideration to religious minorities when its comes to freedom of operating their educational and religious institutions which Hindus don’t get, or how it is permitted for the state to provide special scholarships and run state funded educational institutions which provide reservations based on religion, how it can run a special minorities affairs ministry and can tolerate separate personal laws, these inconvenient questions are completely avoided by them. The question of legality of this law has been challenged by them in the courts, which has for now refused to stay the act and given the central government one month to respond to the objections.

Without waiting for the court decision to arrive they immediately cried foul of the motive of the government in bringing the CAA in conjunction with yet to be announced pan India National Register for Citizens. While their concern is that with the difficulty of Bangladeshi Hindu refugees being resolved by CAA the illegal Bangladeshi economic migrants now become vulnerable to state action in any future NRC, they chose to project the CAA and NRC exercise being somehow against Indian Muslims. Their weird argument was that Hindus and other religions except Muslims are protected by CAA safety net in any future NRC. Which is completely wrong since CAA is for foreign refugees not for Indian citizens. No Indian will ever choose to apply for naturalization using the CAA route just because his or her name is missed in any future NRC due to lack of any required documents. Naturalization is a longer process and will require clearance by intelligence agencies etc. If such an application is rejected that this person will be left in the lurch despite being an Indian citizen for several generations. It would be utterly foolish for an Indian national to do this rather than produce a community certificate or witnesses from the community in lieu of government issued ID. This was also clarified by spokesperson of the home ministry.

On this rumour that NRC+CAA combine will disenfranchise Indian Muslims in particular they ran a nation-wide campaign against CAA. In this media war the central government of India was projected as being of fascist intent that wishes to put Muslims in detention camps also called in some circles as concentration camps. Such absurd claims and hijacking of the movement by radical Islamists lead to large scale rioting in several urban centers of the country with higher concentration of Muslims. The international media outlets have carried front page articles, editorials and oped criticizing the Citizenship Amendment Act as a “Muslim ban”. When the reality is that it simply provides a faster path and easier process for naturalization to persecuted religious minorities from 3 Islamic countries in the subcontinent. It does not take away any opportunity for anyone no matter what their background on seeking Indian citizenship by naturalization etc by the existing process. What they have described as an action being taken by India for the first time is also not correct. While there was no law as such, it has been the policy of GOI to give special consideration to religious minorities from Pakistan in particular for providing then Indian citizenship by registration or naturalization. It has been seen a commitment by post partition India to provide a refuge to people escaping the Islamic state created in India after partition. This was provided specifically to the non-Muslim communities coming from Pakistan. One is not able to fathom how the executive action remains in the realm of secularism even if favours a particular religion but a legislative action is suddenly a threat to the secular principles of the state.

Given the level of misinformation that is being spread on this issue in India as well as world over, one is struck by the vulnerability of the Indian state to information war of this kind. No matter how many clarifications are given by several quarters, whether state institutions or private individuals, the rumour and the fear mongering around it refuses to die. Riots and protests by university students against the CAA continue unabated. Several lives have been lost, corers of rupees of public property has been damaged and India’s reputation abroad is tarnished in the campaign which has flimsy factual grounds. While one would have understood the academic disagreement on the approach or the legal questions raised on the Law which could have been discussed and resolved in rational manner, the irrational public outrage at display has every marking of an information war that the Indian state needs to better prepare itself for and be able to pre-empt and counter in future, through appropriate communication strategy. The grip of combined breaking India forces on Indian universities is also a cause for worry and the long-term security risk for India that needs to be solved by introducing the emic perspective in Humanities education and making it the mainstream perspective rather than the fringe perspective it currently is. It is only though giving primacy to civilizational knowledge systems in humanities education can this be done. Which is of course another battle ground for the “secularists” who will resist it at every level in the name of it being Hindu.