Bharatiya Janata Party

Subterms

    More stories

    • 75 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      Narendra Modi’s War With Social Media

      by

      The Wall Street Journal reports on the Indian government’s intention to clamp down on social platforms that have played a role in the recent farmers’ protests. According to Wall Street Journal sources, Narendra Modi’s government has threatened to jail employees of Facebook, WhatsApp and Twitter “as it seeks to quash political protests and gain far-reaching powers over discourse on foreign-owned tech platforms.”

      The article claims that this initiative constitutes the government’s response to the foreign tech companies’ refusal “to comply with data and takedown requests from the government related to protests by Indian farmers that have made international headlines.” In other words, the Indian government wishes to control the content that may be allowed to appear on these platforms.

      Why Are India’s Farmers Protesting?

      READ MORE

      But we also learn that it isn’t simply the response to a specific event, such as the farmers’ protests, but a matter of principle. It involves rewriting the rules of India’s democracy. “The rules would also compel companies to remove content that undermines security, public order and ‘decency of morality,’” The WSJ reports.

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      Undermine:

      Express ideas or facts that, however sincere truthful, are deemed dangerous because they challenge a government’s official narrative, the only one permissible for public dissemination.

      Contextual note

      Since the beginning of the “global war on terror” in 2001, governments across the world have regularly appealed to the theme of “national security,” applying it to oppose anything that might vaguely embarrass them. Prime Minister Modi’s government has boldly added the much broader categories of “public order” and “decency of morality” to the mix. States in the past that have actually managed to accomplish that kind of behavioral control have generally been referred to as fascist. While it may seem abusive to apply that term to any democratically elected government today, the similarity of such policies with those practiced by fascist regimes from the past should be obvious. 

      Embed from Getty Images

      Nations that seek to apply such policies today should only deserve to be called “aspirationally fascist.” Given the availability of communication technology to even the humblest among us, the effective repression of expression and enforcement of morality applied to an entire population would immediately undermine any nation’s pretension of democracy. We should ask ourselves if Modi is serious in his demands. The difficulty of achieving those goals in the era of global platforms appears to be insurmountable. If it were to succeed, it would imply dismantling one of the givens of the globalized economy and the stoutest pillar of any democracy: the free circulation of ideas.

      In its reporting on the same topic, Business Insider focuses on the immediate challenge to the Indian government represented by the farmer protests. It describes the government’s initiative as an attempt “to pressure the firms into sharing data related” to the protests. If this is true, the aim would no longer appear to be the mere prevention of unfavorable discourse disseminated through the media. It would imply the harnessing of data produced by these foreign platforms for surveillance purposes. That would then serve the state to crack down on elements suspected of subversion or threatening the public order.

      This would seem to contradict the idea that the government’s aim is simply to censor subversive ideas. Instead, its aim would be to partner with the social platforms to gain access to their data and metadata. This would serve, not to suppress certain ideas, but to suppress the people who express those ideas.

      Modi may simply be casting his lines in all directions at the same time, unconcerned with the type of fish he may reel in. It could be compared to the Trumpian foreign policy notion of “maximum pressure” to make the adversary bend. In Modi’s case, it is directed at the platforms to convince them to take some action that he finds acceptable — it doesn’t really matter which. He appears to be giving his victims the choice between applying his criteria of censorship, which means banning specific content, or quietly handing him the data they collect, which will make it possible for India to identify and punish the culprits. At the same time, by personally threatening the employees of the platform, Modi is showing that he means business, much like Donald Trump and Mike Pompeo when they imposed sanctions on the officials of the International Criminal Court to discourage them from investigating the US and Israel.

      The WSJ reveals the deeper ambitions of the Indian government concerning the surveillance of social media. It cites a member of the government who “said the rules would require platforms to track and store records of specific messages as they traveled among users.” This would have radical implications, defining user privacy in the use of social platforms as a relic of the past. The threats against employees of the platforms demonstrate the conclusion The WSJ has reached: “The Indian government appears ready for a fight.”

      Historical Note

      Narendra Modi’s government appears to see this as a possible historical turning point. India’s rivalry with China, at least in terms of soft power, has been defined in many people’s minds as the contest between the world’s two powerful but highly contrasted nations that can be called billionaires (in terms of population). One is an autocracy and the other a democracy. One ambiguously carries the heritage of Western colonization; the other defies it. 

      Seen as competition, it has turned out not to be a truly fair fight. China has obviously been progressing exponentially in its economic and military influence, whereas India seems to be handicapped by its confusing democratic institutions and traditions, coupled with its incomprehensible and ungovernable demography. The traditionally conflictual relationship that has prevailed between the two nations has recently been exacerbated not just by India’s unfocused economic orientations — illustrated by the complexity of the debate around the farmers’ protests — but also with regard to contested borders, where some recent skirmishes have taken place.

      The WSJ article offers a curious hint that Modi’s government may be seeking to emulate China: “The big difference between the earlier history and where we are now is that China has done just fine without those companies.” Coming from Modi’s government, this sounds either like an expression of envy or the resolution to mobilize all its forces to go to battle with the social platforms, applying the logic of China which has peremptorily curtailed their freedom to operate.

      .custom-post-from {float:left; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      The fact that Facebook and Twitter are banned in China has enabled the emergence of Chinese non-global equivalents such as Weibo and Renren. Modi would appear to be dreaming that something similar could take place in India, though the government’s ability to control what happens on such networks as effectively as the Chinese seems more than unlikely. Modi may simply be citing the Chinese case to frighten the American owners of the dominant platforms.

      The WSJ presents Modi’s gambit as a negotiating stance. The prime minister believes he is in a position to “threaten the tech companies’ future in a market of more than 1.3 billion people that, since they are locked out of China, is the key to their global growth.” The article cites Jason Pielemeyer, the policy director of the Global Network Initiative, focused on human rights: “In a market the size of India, it’s hard to take the nuclear option, which is to say, ‘We’re not going to comply, and if you block us, we’ll call your bluff or accept the consequences.’” 

      At the same time, The WSJ reveals what may be the truly “noble” underlying motive of the Indians, one we should all applaud. It’s a motive that sounds far more generous and respectful than either threats against American tech companies or the desire to emulate China’s policy of social control. “Officials have said the government wants to protect small Indian businesses, secure user data and allow room for India’s own tech firms to grow,” The Journal reports. 

      So, which one is it: the emulation of China’s surveillance society and despotic control of the media or a democratic encouragement of small businesses? Because India is a democracy, all that will only become clear in the next election, in 2024. Only three years to wait for the moment of clarity. Isn’t that what democracy is all about, waiting for the next election in the hope that the truth will then become manifest?

      *[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on Fair Observer.]

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 150 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Kashmir Votes, and India Hails It as Normalcy in a Dominated Region

      by

      AdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyKashmir Votes, and India Hails It as Normalcy in a Dominated RegionIndia’s ruling party worked to make Kashmir’s rural development council elections a showcase. But a visit by Times reporters showed a place still struggling under heavy-handed rule.An Indian soldier stood guard outside a polling station in Kashmir’s northern Bandipora district during its first local election since the government’s crackdown.Credit…Showkat Nanda for The New York TimesDec. 22, 2020, 12:17 p.m. ETSRINAGAR, Kashmir — Votes were counted on Tuesday in the first local elections in Kashmir since the Indian government waged a harsh political and security crackdown in the restive region last year. Officials hailed a solid turnout as a sign that democracy has been restored, but little in Kashmir feels normal.“The voting shows democracy being alive at the grass roots,” the region’s top civil servant, B.V.R. Subrahmanyam, told a group of reporters. “People taking value of their own lives is visible, palpable.”The election — a vote to choose rural development officials — was called suddenly, giving parties only a week to register candidates before the first round of the eight-phase polling began in November, political leaders said. Many prominent Kashmiri politicians and public figures remain in detention with no recourse, or under threat. And hundreds of thousands of political workers for India’s Hindu-nationalist ruling party, the Bharatiya Janata Party, traveled through the region carrying banners and signs, hoping to make a strong showing in a mostly Muslim territory where it has traditionally been loathed.The party, known as the B.J.P., did appear to make some inroads, winning at least three seats and leading in several dozen races in the 280-seat District Development Council. But some of the voter engagement appeared to stem more from defiance than satisfaction.“We’d never want B.J.P. to be in power in Kashmir,” said Kulsoom Chopan, 21, who warmed her hands over a wicker fire pot while waiting to vote at a public boys’ high school in Bandipora, a northern district hemmed in by the Himalayas and Asia’s second-largest freshwater lake. “We would never vote for India.”The New York Times was part of a small group of international media outlets permitted to visit Kashmir on a tightly controlled, government-organized trip to cover the polls.Voters waiting in line outside a polling station in Kashmir’s central Budgam district.Credit…Showkat Nanda for The New York TimesThis relatively small-stakes election was the first time India has allowed foreign reporters into Jammu and Kashmir since August 2019, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government revoked the constitutional provision that gave the region some political autonomy. Jammu and Kashmir, which used to be India’s only Muslim-predominant state, is now a federal territory ruled directly by the Indian government.Mr. Modi said at the time that Kashmir’s special status had helped fuel a 30-year-old armed separatist struggle that resulted in tens of thousands of deaths of security forces, rebels and civilians, and was an impediment to outside investors.However, just as the security clampdown eased, the pandemic hit. Kashmir’s tourism-reliant economy and civil society are now on the verge of collapse: In a year and a half, there’s been no new private investment in Kashmir, and police officials say that recruitment by militant groups is on the rise.Activists say hundreds of people, including separatists, political moderates, civil society advocates and journalists remain in jail after they were swept up last year. Accusations of torture by security forces were widespread.In this climate of fear and uncertainty, the B.J.P. has made a big push into the Kashmir Valley, the center of the separatist struggle, unleashing 300,000 party workers and bringing Muslim politicians in Kashmir into its fold for the first time.“We’re only in the takeoff stage,” said Ghulam Mohammad Mir, B.J.P.’s Kashmir spokesman and a candidate for the development council elections in the valley’s Kupwara district.“We have thousands in election areas in every nook and corner of the valley, open, with flags,” he said.Shepherding sheep outside a polling station in Bandipora. The polls cover 280 District Development Council seats across Jammu and Kashmir.Credit…Showkat Nanda for The New York TimesSeven B.J.P. party workers have been killed in 2020, and a candidate affiliated with the party was shot and injured in November by militants, according to the Jammu and Kashmir police.In the days before the Indian government unilaterally stripped Kashmir’s autonomy, Mr. Modi sent in thousands of army troops to quell anticipated unrest.Prominent Kashmiri politicians, including former chief ministers of Kashmir, some of their relatives and other opposition party leaders, were arrested and detained in government houses for months. Cellphone and internet access were blocked.A dozen petitions challenging the constitutionality of the move remain pending with India’s Supreme Court.Among those detained were Mehbooba Mufti, the head of a powerful regional party, and Farooq and Omar Abdullah, the father and son who led another influential bloc. They have since been released, but when contacted by The Times, they said they were unable to grant interviews. On Saturday, it was announced that the Indian government was investigating Farooq Abdullah on money-laundering charges.Despite the pressure, Waheed ur Rehman Para, a youth leader of Ms. Mufti’s party, trounced his B.J.P. competitor in the restive southern district of Pulwama from a jail cell in Jammu, where he is being held under accusation of being linked to militants. He and his family deny the accusation.A demonstration in Soura, Srinagar, last year, after the Indian government stripped Jammu and Kashmir of its autonomy.Credit…Atul Loke for The New York TimesMohamed Bhat ran as an independent candidate in Bandipora as part of the Gukpar Alliance, a coalition of opposition parties led by Farooq Abdullah promising to restore Kashmir’s autonomy.“There was democracy in Kashmir previously, but with abrogation it was trampled upon,” Mr. Bhat said, speaking of the constitutional provision that was scrapped. “We have united to bring back the special status,” he said.Hasnain Masoodi, a member of Indian Parliament from Mr. Abdullah’s party, complained about the haste with which the central government unilaterally decided to hold the development council elections.“We were not given a level playing field,” he said. “There was no campaign at all. Most of the time we were either denied permission or senior leaders were confined.”Mr. Masoodi, who earlier served as chief justice of Jammu and Kashmir before joining Mr. Abdullah’s party, said the coalition partners weren’t able to vet candidates, but fielded them anyway to avoid leaving the field open for the B.J.P.“They made it into a referendum” on the change to Kashmir’s political status, he said of the B.J.P.Dilbag Singh, the top Indian police officer in the region, denied that opposition parties were refused permission for campaign events. He also denied accusations that police had tortured people.Mr. Singh said that of the hundreds of people detained in August 2019, only 155 remained in custody in Kashmir and other jails around India.“Today we have shown restraint. Not a single bullet has been fired, no civilian has been killed,” Mr. Singh said. “That’s a fact — let them prove it otherwise.”Soldiers guarding the area near a polling station in Bandipora district. Hasnain Masoodi, a member of Indian Parliament, complained about the haste with which the elections were held.Credit…Showkat Nanda for The New York TimesShowkat Nanda contributed reporting from Srinagar, and Sameer Yasir from New Delhi.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More

    • 138 Shares99 Views

      in World Politics

      The Indian Government Is Not Letting a Pandemic Go to Waste

      by

      Indian culture venerates tools of trade. Indeed, a special day in the festival calendar is dedicated to worshiping them. In this context, tractors and farm implements are considered almost sacred. Burning a tractor is one of the most symbolic forms of protest. Members of the main opposition party decided to engage in precisely this act. They recently burned a tractor in the high-security zone of India Gate in New Delhi.

      Why Are the Indian and Chinese Economies Decoupling?

      READ MORE

      As per the World Bank, 41.5% of Indians are employed in agriculture. Another 20% are dependent on it. This has implications for Indian politics. Support of farmers is critical to winning elections. Agriculture is to India what the military-industrial complex is to the US. Politicians promise goodies and operate elaborate patronage systems in rural India to secure votes.

      The chaos, unruliness and terrible state of Indian cities can partly be explained by the disproportionate doling out of subsidies to rural areas. This leaves little money for urban infrastructure, which is almost invariably ramshackle across the country. Most state governments in India are headed by rural politicians. Even Karnataka, which is home to Bengaluru, the information technology capital of the country, is no exception.

      The Biggest Reform Since 1991

      With such powerful vested interests, hinting at reform is a tall proposition. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi has done the unthinkable. It has dismantled state control over agricultural markets. Opposition parties are protesting because they represent rural power brokers who are deeply upset. By freeing farmers from such power brokers, the Modi government has ushered in a brave new era both for Indian politics and the economy. 

      A little bit of context is essential to understand the true implications of this move. Until now, farmers were forced to sell their produce to agricultural produce market committees (APMCs). They are dominated by rural politicians and local bigwigs who exploit farmers. For decades, farmers got pitiably low amounts while consumers paid ridiculously high prices. The middlemen who run APMCs pocketed the difference.

      At a time when GDP has been shrinking and COVID-19 has been barely tackled, the Modi-led government has introduced the most significant economic reforms since 1991. In that historic year when the US fought Iraq in the Gulf War and the Soviet Union fell, India liberalized its economy and ushered in an era of high growth. The liberalization of agricultural markets will boost farm incomes significantly. With about 60% of India’s population reliant on agriculture and allied activities, this move will increase domestic demand and bolster Modi’s political base. In addition to this, Modi is also pioneering a scheme inspired by Peruvian economist Hernando De Soto’s work that seeks to better define the property rights of the farmers.

      Other Major Measures

      Apart from agricultural liberalization, the Modi government has instituted other far-reaching reforms. It has simplified longstanding labor laws that held back manufacturing. The Modi government has also curbed the flow of foreign funding into India’s nonprofits. Many of them have been opponents of the Modi government and its policies. Now, these nonprofits stand weakened, leaving the BJP in a stronger position.

      Another development has strengthened the BJP. For decades, Bollywood has been a bastion for opponents of the ruling party. Recently, the film industry has been in trouble. The death of a small-town actor has put the spotlight on nepotism and corruption in Bollywood. Some key figures are now under investigation. As a result, Bollywood’s criticism of the BJP has become muted in some quarters but more strident in others. Bollywood’s target is a section of the media that it deems to be sympathetic to the BJP’s brand of politics.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Such is the BJP’s domination that its ambitious legislative agenda has escaped public scrutiny and effective opposition. In June, these authors sent out a brief that explained how the ruling party needed just seven more members of parliament to control the 245-member Rajya Sabha, the upper house of the parliament. Now, the BJP has achieved that control and its MPs are ramming through reforms their party deems fit.

      Foreign correspondents working for big media outlets in New Delhi who frequent the Khan Market have failed to understand the major implications of recent moves. The Modi-led government has embarked on a new chapter. The legislative reforms it is pushing through are ambitious, far-reaching and potentially transformative. While COVID-19 is ravaging the country and China is making threatening moves on its border, India has bet boldly on big reforms. The BJP might reap a rich political harvest as a result.

      Yet even as it seems all smooth sailing for the BJP, the ruling party faces a big risk. Voters expect it to govern well. So far, several key reforms and policy initiatives have failed miserably. India’s colonial-era bureaucracy has built toilets and opened bank accounts because these did not threaten its power. In contrast, measures that threatened bureaucratic privilege, such as manufacturing reforms or indirect tax reforms, have been quietly scuttled.

      If India’s powerful bureaucracy tries similar tricks with the latest set of reforms, the ambitious Modi government might finally turn on the purveyors of red tape themselves.

      The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 88 Shares169 Views

      in World Politics

      India’s Citizenship Act Is About Vote Banks

      by

      On December 15, 2019, the police of India’s capital state, Delhi, forcefully entered the campus of Jamia Millia Islamia, a premier university of higher education, to dispel peaceful protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA). What happened next sent shockwaves throughout the nation. The police beat up protesters and innocent students, sparing none, including those […] More