Modi’s population control talk raises concern

BRP Bhaskar

Narendra Modi

On Independence Day Prime Minister Narendra Modi caused eyebrows to rise by stating in his address that the rate of growth of the country’s population is worrisome.

At the last count in 2011 India’s population was about 1.25 billion. Modi’s foreboding is out of tune with the optimistic note of the Economic Survey his government placed before Parliament. It said population in the 0-19 age group had peaked and the total fertility rate was expected to fall below the replacement level by 2021.

India had launched a family planning programme in the 1950s when there was acute food shortage and the population was growing at a higher rate than the economy.

On a visit to Tokyo in 1969 Prime Minister Indira Gandhi told her Japanese counterpart Eisaku Sato about the efforts to check population growth. “I do not know if you are doing the right thing,” he said.  “After the War we undertook a very successful birth control programme. We are now experiencing severe labour shortage.”

The two leaders were looking at population from different angles. For Mrs Gandhi, saddled with a struggling economy, people meant mouths to feed. For Saito, presiding over a booming economy, people meant hands to work.

Except for a brief period during Indira Gandhi’s Emergency, when her son, Sanjay, functioning as an extra-constitutional authority, promoted forced sterilisation, India’s population control programme, unlike China’s, was voluntary and did not involve penal provisions. 

Once India became self-sufficient in food production, population control lost its sense of urgency. Successive governments cut budget allocations for family planning or diverted the funds to other programmes.

Census data testifies to a steady fall in the rate of growth of the population from 2.21 per cent a year in 1971-81 to 2.16 per cent in 1981-91, 1.97 per cent in 1991-2001 and 1.64 per cent in 2001-11. The next census is due only in 2021. But, in this year’s State of the World Population report, the UN said India’s growth rate fell to 1.2 per cent during 2010-2019.

Studies across the globe have established that population growth declines as education spreads and economic conditions improve. India’s own experience confirms this.

With a large young population, resulting from the high growth rate of earlier decades, India is said to be in a position to get a demographic dividend in the current phase of speedy growth.

The Prime Minister’s harking back to the population problem even as he talks of building a $5 trillion economy, therefore, came as a surprise.

One possible explanation is that the source of his worry is the inability to create jobs for the new entrants to the workforce. Currently the country is experiencing jobless growth.

Another possibility is that, coming after the abrogation of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status, the population issue is a bogey raised to set the stage for the next part of the Bharatiya Janata Party’s Hindu rashtra (nation) project.

Modi spoke of population growth without mentioning any religious group. But the Shiv Sena, the BJP ally which shares its Hindutva ideology, immediately linked it to the growth of the Muslim population. Hindutva votaries have often kindled fears of the Muslim minority becoming the majority community in order to promote Hindu consolidation. 

The 2011 census indicated that during the previous decade the Muslim population grew at 2.2 per cent a year and the Hindu population at 1.55 per cent.  During this period the Hindu population fell from 80.45 per cent to 79.8 per cent and the Muslim population rose from 13.4 per cent to 14.2 per cent.

Citing these figures, some argued that eventually India will have a Muslim majority. They conveniently overlooked the fact that the Muslim growth rate was falling faster than the Hindu growth rate. Projections based on current trends indicate that, far from Muslims outnumbering Hindus, the Hindu and Muslim populations will stabilise in the 4:1 ratio by the middle of the century.

Speculative reports that Modi is planning legislation to enforce population control have engendered fears that, like Sanjay Gandhi’s Emergency exercise, it will be directed primarily against the minority community.

The southern states have already lowered the growth rate drastically. Kerala’s population growth during the 2001-11 decade was less than five per cent as against the national average of 17.7 per cent.

Any genuine population control programme must focus on the large Hindi heartland states, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh, all of which recorded decadal growth rates above 20 per cent. ---Gulf Today, Sharjah, Augusr 20, 2019.

The tale of Kashmir behind an iron curtain

BRP Bhaskar

Photo has been used for illustrative purposes.

A week after the Indian government ordered a lockdown, imposed an indefinite curfew and detained several hundred leaders, including two former Chief Ministers, there is deep concern in Kashmir and the region over what is in store for its embattled people.

As the trouble-torn valley remained behind an iron curtain, the government pushed through the two houses of Parliament measures to dismantle the state, which has been at the centre of a dispute that led to three wars between India and Pakistan since their emergence as free nations in 1947.

One law abrogated Articles 35-A and 370 of the Constitution of India which gave the state of Jammu & Kashmir a special status. This was a long-standing demand of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party and its predecessor, the Jana Sangh.

Article 35-A had protected a 1927 law which allowed only permanent residents of J&K to buy land in the state. Contrary to BJP claims, it protected the interests of all people of the state, not just those of the Muslims of the valley. Its abrogation opens the way for outsiders to grab land in the state.

Under Article 370, conceived as a temporary measure, the state’s concurrence was needed to extend to J&K laws enacted by Parliament. With its abolition the limited autonomy the state enjoyed has ended. Also, J&K’s separate constitution has ceased to exist.

J&K was not the only state which had a special status in India. The Constitution still has a score of temporary or transitional provisions which grant special status to 10 other states.

Ironically, J&K loses its constitution and flag even as the Centre is thinking of allowing the predominantly tribal Nagaland state in the northeast the privilege of having a constitution, a flag and a passport of its own.   

The most audacious part of the Centre’s scheme envisages extinction of the state of J&K, which was carved out of the defeated Sikh empire by one of its military commanders in 1848 with the blessings of the victorious British.

J&K is comprised of three asymmetrical divisions — Muslim-majority Kashmir (area 15,948 sq km, population 6.91 million), Hindu-majority Jammu (area 25,293 sq km, population 5.35 million) and Buddhist-majority Ladakh (area 59,146 sq km, population 290,492).

J&K is the only one of the 550-odd former princely states which is still intact.

A bill passed into law last week provides for its bifurcation into the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir and the Union Territory of Ladakh. The division will take effect on October 31.

Apparently this date has been chosen for effecting the change as, under a practice dating back to the Maharaja’s days, the J&K government will then be based not in Srinagar but in Jammu City, the winter capital.

Some Union Territories have elected legislatures, some others don’t. J&K will have one, but not Ladakh.  Whether or not there is a legislature and an elected government, law and order in the UTs is the Centre’s responsibility and the police is under its control.

As removal of Articles 35-A and 370 figured in its election manifesto, the BJP believes it has the mandate to make these changes. However, the action lacks democratic credibility as there was no consultation with the affected people and the parliamentary proceedings were rushed through.

Ladakhi Buddhists, who felt J&K had neglected them, were demanding UT status for their region since long. They have welcomed the Centre’s decision. But the predominantly Shia Muslim population of Kargil district, which is part of Ladakh division, has opposed it.

Downgrading of residuary J&K to the status of UT is unjust and untenable as it curtails democratic rights its people have enjoyed so far.

In a broadcast, Modi said Assembly elections would be held in J&K and its status as state restored. However, he set no time-frame for it, and it is unlikely to happen soon.

On Friday curfew was relaxed to permit the faithful to go to mosques for prayers. Officials said 18,000 people offered prayers at mosques in Srinagar.  

On Saturday, curbs in Jammu and in half of Kashmir were lifted to enable people to make Eid purchases. But few shops were open, and the curbs were quickly re-imposed in the valley. Officials said the situation in the valley, where about 700,000 troops are said to be stationed, was under control.

The Supreme Court has before it two petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Centre’s action.  It has set no dates for the hearing.

The test Kashmir poses to India is not whether it has the strength to hold down rebellious elements but whether it has the resilience to accommodate diversities.  -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, August 13, 2019.

After the ICJ verdict in Kulbhushan Jadhav case, let diplomacy take over

BRP Bhaskar

Judges are seen at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, Netherlands. Reuters

Amid Indian and Pakistani claims of victory in the International Court of Justice, the fate of Kulbhushan Jadhav, a former Naval commander, held for allegedly spying and aiding terrorism in Balochistan, is in limbo.

The ICJ’s was a unanimous decision. It became a 15-1 verdict as the Pakistani judge dissented.

It is customary for the world court to include in the bench a judge from each litigant country while hearing inter-state disputes.

The verdict offered scope for both India and Pakistan to claim victory. India was happy as it saved Jadhav from the gallows, for the time being at any rate.

Pakistan was happy too.  Although the court held that the death sentence awarded to Jadhav by a military court was vitiated by Pakistan’s failure to respect the provisions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Access, it afforded the country an opportunity to remedy the mistake and review the trial.

India had raised objections to Jadhav’s trial by a military court and demanded that he be tried by a civil court under the normal law of the land. The ICJ did not accept this demand.

This means there is nothing to prevent Pakistan from leaving it to the military court to review the trial.

The Pakistan government has stated that it will provide consular access to Jadhav, as directed by the ICJ. It has also indicated that the review will be undertaken by the military court.

The two governments’ claims of victory, accompanied by media fanfare, are aimed at impressing domestic audiences.

After the ICJ verdict, Prime Minister Narendra Modi asked Pakistan to release Jadhav forthwith.  The demand, no doubt, echoes the wishes of all Indians. However, it was ill-timed as India had raised it in the ICJ without success.

Former Minister Arun Jaitley, who is perhaps the best legal mind in the Modi camp, pointed out in a blog that the ICJ ruling was based on the principle that consular access is a basic human right and a conviction based on violation of basic human rights of the accused is not acceptable.

One hopes this verdict will persuade the Modi government, which has been singling out human rights defenders for vexatious prosecution, inviting sharp criticism from the United Nations for gross violations of human rights, to be more mindful of the rights of the people, especially the minorities and the marginalised.

One also hopes the governments of India and Pakistan realise that the Jadhav issue involves the fate of an individual who is entitled to human rights.

Jadhav was tried by a Pakistan military court in secrecy.  He was denied the right to be defended by an attorney of his choice.

There is nothing in the public domain about the evidence the prosecution placed before the military court to substantiate the allegation that Jadhav was a spy and had aided terrorists in Pakistan’s Balochistan province.

Thus, there is no material before the public to satisfy themselves about the justness of the court proceedings. Jaitley noted that the ICJ has stressed that the proposed review of the trial must be an effective one. It specifically enjoined upon Pakistan to take “all measures to provide for effective review and reconsideration, including, if necessary, by enacting appropriate legislation.”

An effective review and reconsideration of the kind envisaged by the ICJ may well take a long time. Must India let Kulbhushan Jadhav rot in jail indefinitely while Pakistani authorities review and reconsider the case?

There are many instances of nationals of one country found in the other being hauled to courts and sent to jail for violation of some law. Often they rot there even after they have completed the jail term awarded by courts because the two governments have forgotten them.

All too often fishermen, carried away by winds or currents to the neighbouring country’s territorial waters, also land in jail and are forced to remain there for long periods as the governments take their own time to look into their cases.

India and Pakistan must take note of the gross violation of human rights this entails, and, as civilised nations, evolve mechanisms to reduce the hardship of their nationals who fall into evil circumstances.

Espionage cases, of curse, stand on a different footing.  But, then, spying is a fact of life and those caught in the process are also entitled to basic human rights, as the ICJ has just underlined.

The best course open in such cases is not that of law but that of diplomacy. Those who get caught should not be made hostages in political games meant to impress domestic supporters. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, August 2, 2019.