CIHS – Centre for Integrated and Holistic Studies

Date/Time:

Stay Off Politics!

Big tech companies and media outlets must refrain from pushing political envelope and hidden agenda in India, US and elsewhere K.A.Badarinath Has Meta, US-based technology giant that owns Facebook, Whatsapp and Instagram commit an unpardonable crime by reportedly allowing a large Indian political party leader to tamper with posts that were inimical to its interests? Or, ‘The Wire’, a news partner organisation of The Washington Post commit a grave unethical act that sullied the entire Indian media industry? The debate has not led to plausible logical answers to the state of play vis-à-vis the large technology companies seeking to dictate the political narrative globally and Indian media companies playing dirty in the process. One thing for sure is that ‘The Wire’ four part news stories do not stand scrutiny of making basic checks after a possible story tipoff was got as required in any given journalistic pursuit. One of the two experts that apparently served as technical consultants Kanishk Karan has stated unambiguously that he never helped in the outlet’s reporting on the issue though ‘The Wire’ claims exactly the opposite. Can The Washington Post disown its responsibility in entering into reporting partnerships like ‘The Wire’ that was found wanting in even making basic checks on a story before pointing to Meta – BJP leader Amit Malaviya arrangement on wetting posts? Or, the partnership with ‘The Wire’ was borne out of The Washington Post editorial board’s steadfast policy of pursuing an anti-India, anti-Modi, anti-BJP and anti-Hindu editorial line? From the Meta angle, does it not tantamount to extending its policy of playing truant in US while debunking the earlier Donald Trump’s Republican administration and siding with the Democrats to overthrow a democratically elected government? Like its large technology peers, Meta seem to have plunged itself full time to determine the political trajectory either against or in favour of the ruling alliance.  If there’s any grain of truth in the accusation of giving some privileges to BJP leaders on its platforms, what prevents Meta from reaching out to the opposition for playing the role of kingmaker in India? Big question therefore is should technology companies not refrain from politicking and do their businesses as per Indian Laws? Businesses in technology space or others, have to be apolitical globally and in India as well. Siding with political parties or overthrowing governments is an unacceptable business crime should be an unacceptable agenda point to any company, big, small or medium enterprise. It’s not just commercial enterprises that need to display complete transparency on political posturing or narrative management. Large or small media outlets cannot shed their responsibility towards their readers sans hidden political agendas and proclivities. (Author is Director and Chief Executive  of CIHS)

Read More

Indo-Japanese Relations Go Beyond the Pacific

Modi and Kishida talks point to evolving common strategies that may spill over to multi-lateral engagement at G-20 and G-7 Amritpal Kaur Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s recent Japan visit was not limited to paying tributes to Abe San. Apart from representing India at his former Japanese counterpart’s funeral, Prime Minister Modi seems to have established a rather similar working understanding with the host government led by Fumio Kishida. Kishida, who was foreign minister in Shinzo Abe’s government, did not want to miss the opportunity in striking a relationship with Prime Minister Modi and his right wing BJP government in India. The two sides have thrown enough hints that Shinzo Abe’s vision for Indo Pacific partnership and larger alliance will continue to be the guiding principle in their relationship. Both sides have recognized that Quad was evolving as the operative group to implement the Abe’s vision for Indo Pacific region. Enough commitments were also made to move substantively in the path laid out by Shinzo Abe. Ease of doing business between two countries spread across trade, investments and manufacturing as well as services were a given in the whole gambit of bilateral relations. While this is second time Fumio Kishido met Modi on September 27 after having been anointed as Prime Minister, evolving intricate relations between the two countries has become a talking point in global diplomatic circles for right reasons. Insiders in Modi government do reveal that the Prime Minister chose to head to Japan for paying tributes to his friend Abe San rather than descending on London for Queen Elizabeth’s funeral. Increased relevance of the East Asia in Indian diplomacy matrix is yet another talking point. This was at display a few days before when Defense Minister Rajnath Singh and foreign minister S. Jaishankar were in Tokyo for two plus two dialogue. Defence Minister Rajnath Singh visited Inner Mongolia in September to forge defense and diplomatic ties between India and Mongolia. Minister Singh met Mongolia’s President Ukhnaagiin Khurelsukh and the Chairman of State Great Khural of Mongolia G. Zandanshatar. Apart from holding delegation level talks with his Mongolian counterpart to hasten implementation of strategic partnership between the two countries, Rajnath Singh inaugurated Cyber security Training Centre built with Indian assistance at the National Defense University in Ulaanbaatar. India Mongolia Friendship School also got wings during Singh’s visit.  On September 8, Indian Defence Minister and Foreign Minister held a two plus two ministerial dialogue at Tokyo with Japanese leadership centred around substantive engagement between Joint Staff of Japanese Self Defense Forces and Integrated Defense Staff of India. Japan participated for the first time in multilateral exercise MILAN. Both countries have operationalized the Reciprocal Provision of Supply Service Agreement. It was agreed that in the near future, Indian and Japanese Air forces will hold Air Force fighter exercise. India invited Japan to engage in development of the emerging and critical technology domains and Japanese defense companies to invest defense corridors in India. India pushed for maritime cooperation with Japan through its Indo-Pacific Oceans Initiative (IPOI) which is in line with Japan’s Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP). Also, through Asean’s framework India and Japan have moved ahead to work on a greater Asian region. Rightly so, S. Jaishankar noted that given the tumultuous international environment, the 2+2 meeting between India and Japan promoted Rules-based order ensuring respect for international laws, norms and commitment to safeguard common resources of the world. Interestingly, both sides seem to have utilized the 2+2 meeting to reflect and coordinate approach on international issues. Also, in the scenario of aggravated environmental concerns, grim economic situation, Indo-Japanese cooperation seems to have moved beyond the immediate region, into the multilateral frameworks like QUAD, ASEAN platform, Re-CAAP and Supply Chain Resilience Initiative. Fortified India – Japan relations will come handy when New Delhi takes over as G-20 chair and Tokyo taking charge of G-7. (Author is a contributing scholar with CIHS)

Read More

State of Religious Minorities in India

Indian minorities are at the forefront of socio-economic development of the nation. The Indian government has set up a separate ministry named the Ministry of Minority Affairs to work for the all round growth of minorities. The ministry designs and implements schemes and programs for their welfare. The Constitution of India recognises six religious minorities in India, which are, Muslims, Parsis, Jains, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Christians, which constitute around 20 percent of the Indian population (Census 2011). Indian government and those at the state level have invested consider able resources in the upliftment of minorities, however, their efforts get sidelined by narratives that are propagated by divisive forces. Hence, an in-depth analysis based on evidence and data provided by the government and other relevant authorities becomes crucial. This report presents an overview of the efforts of the government and its agencies in the development and welfare of Indian minori-ties. Read More…

Read More

Foreign Contribution Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2020 And Examining The Role Of NGOs.

“There are NGOs, often funded from USA & the Scandinavian Countries, which are not fully appreciative of the development challenges that our country faces. But we are a democracy. We are not like China. You know for example, what’s happening in Kundakulum [In Southern India, where local NGO-led protest have stalled commissioning of two 1000-Megawatt nuclear reactors]. The atomic energy programme has got into difficulty, because these NGOs, mostly I think based in United States, don’t appreciate the need for country to increase the energy supply.” [The Then PM, Shri Manmohan Singh in an interview in February 2012.] The Background To FCRA (Amendment) Act, 2020. The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) is a piece of legislation having a long and chequered history. It was first enacted in the year 1976, and the Statement & Object of Reasons of the original Act read as follows: “An Act to regulate the acceptance and utilisation of foreign contribution or foreign hospitality by certain persons or associations, with a view to ensuring that parliamentary institutions, political associations and academic and other voluntary organisations as well as individuals working in the important areas of national life may function in a manner consistent with the values of a sovereign democratic republic, and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” One of the original intents of the 1976 Act, brought in by the Indira Gandhi Government at the peak of emergency, was to stop political funding of its rivals, who were starved of funds within the country. The Act was enacted to insulate the sensitive areas of national life like- Journalism, judiciary and politics from extraneous influence from outside the country. Unwarranted Criticism Of The FCRA (Amendment) Act, 2020. Since 1976, much ink has been spilled on paper, and the original Act has undergone several Amendments, including the recent Amendments of 2020, FCRA (Amendment) Act, 2020. The aforesaid Amendment has met with criticism from several quarters on the premises that the foreign aid is not a new concept. Even the mighty US had been a beneficiary. Without appreciating the correct intention behind the Amendments, it was said that the Amendments are meant to crush dissent and concentrate powers in the hands of this Government. Surprisingly, even the United Nations criticised the new Amendments on the premise that access to resources, including foreign funding, is a fundamental part of the Right to Freedom of Association under International Law, standards, and principles, and more particularly part of forming an association. Therefore, any restriction on access to foreign funding must meet the stringent test for allowable restrictions for the right to association developed by the International Human Rights bodies. Given this narrow test, restricting access to foreign funding for associations based on notions such as “political nature”, “economic interest of the State” or “public interest” violates the right because these terms or definitions are overly broad, do not conform to a prescribed aim, and are not a proportionate response to the purported goal of the restriction. Such stipulations create an unacceptable risk that the law could be used to silence any association involved in advocating political, economic, social, environmental or cultural priorities which differ from those espoused by the government of the day. The Formal Response of The Government Of India On The New Amendments.  There is absolutely no justification in the allegations or understanding that these Amendments in any way prevent or impede the inflow of foreign contributions in India. Shri Nityanand Rai, Minister of State for Home Affairs, Govt. of India has stated in the Parliament, that; “FCRA is a national and internal security law with the main objective of ensuring that foreign money does not dominate India’s public life, politics, and social discourse. Internal security, cultural security, national security and protection of Democracy are the utmost priority and specialty of this Government. This amendment is also necessary for Atma Nirbhar India. This government wants NGOs to make their sincere contribution to meet the specific needs of society. They should bring transparency in the expenditure of foreign contributions and ensure that it is spent on the right objectives and the work for which foreign contributions is received. There is a provision of foreign contributions for social education, cultural, religious, and economic activities. These Amendments has not been brought to threaten any political opponents. The only aim behind the Amendment is to ensure that the funds are not misused to throttle Indian democracy and suppress Indian people”. Justification And Necessity Of The New Amendments. It has to be appreciated that India is a vibrant and pluralistic democracy with a robust domestic grievance redressal mechanism, overseen by an independent judiciary and a Category ‘A’ National Human Rights Commission, compliant with the Paris Principles. Framing of Laws is power & prerogative of the sovereign, so long as the new law or amendments in existing law are made for achieving legitimate aims & objective and, inter alia, is in national interest and public order. It is a misconceived notion that the aforesaid Amendments are against NGOs. Had that been the case, a large majority of the NGOs and individuals in this sector would not have already complied with the new requirements of the FCRA (Amendment) Act, 2020. The Indian Parliament, representing the will of the people, has enacted the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act thereby laying down a clear legislative policy of regulating foreign contributions for certain activities in the country. As a matter of principle, there exits no Right to receive any foreign contribution outside the framework designed by the Parliament and implemented by the executive. The existing regime in place, which enables receiving of foreign contribution, envisages certain regulations and procedural preconditions and compliances for accepting foreign contributions. No part of any purported Right to receive foreign contributions can be said to be a part of the Fundamental Rights granted to citizens. There is no question of Fundamental Rights being violated through controls of acceptance of foreign contribution by certain type of organisations as the said organisations or individuals are

Read More

Biden’s Summit for Democracy and Human Rights around the World

Prachi Mishra / New Delhi The United States of America under the leadership of President Biden launched the first Summit for Democracy, held virtually on 9th and 10th of December 2021. This Summit lays the foundation for deliberation and discussion on the preservation of democracy and human rights in the coming decade. A week before the Summit, the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) released a paper on total democracy under one party rule as a strong assertion to the Summit. In a white paper released by the CPC, titled, “China: Democracy That Works”, China stated that it is the ‘largest democracy’ in the world. This is the first time that both the PRC and the CPC have claimed that China’s governance structures and policies run on democratic principles. U.S. President Joe Biden’s Summit and CPC’s white paper provide a fitting context to this analysis on human rights in various forms of governance systems around the world.   In the last few years, there have been unprecedented challenges that have plagued most democracies. Be it the widening digital divide or the issue of gender-based crime, the nature of socio-economic challenges seemed to have weakened the democratic systems around the world. Similarly, over the course of the last decade, human rights violations around the world have also increased manifold. Non-democratic regimes, like China and Qatar, witness growing number of such cases but owing to their system of governance and media reportage, human rights violations in these countries are underreported or not reported at all. In this context, there is a pressing need to strengthen democratic systems and ensure that violation of people’s basic rights is addressed. In this brief, we draw a comparative analysis of human rights violations in different forms of governance systems. We present – Communist regimes, with a focus on China Theocratic regimes, with a focus on Pakistan Absolute monarchies, with a focus on Qatar Democracies, with a focus on India; and Totalitarian regimes, with a focus on North Korea The analysis is based on several indicators, viz., the nature of rights that are most often violated in a regime. These include women’s rights, rights to freedom of religion, children’s rights, freedom of expression and privacy, minority rights inter alia. Be it the suppression of Uyghur Muslims in China or the unlawful persecution of religious minorities in Pakistan’s Gilgit-Baltistan or the inequality faced by women in Qatar, human rights are violated in each of these regimes but are sparsely covered in the media. In totalitarian regimes, like North Korea, violations are seldom reported, and data is unavailable for most of these indicators. In a functioning democracy, reasonably India, where the four pillars of democracy work independent of each other, human rights violations are duly reported, and the judiciary has been playing a crucial role in providing justice to the aggrieved. The independence of media has led to greater reportage of violations which is often misconceived as failure of democratic systems. This calls for a balanced view of all governance systems and how reporting of violations are suppressed in many of them. Based on the interventions provided during the Summit, this brief lays down a few recommendations on upholding the human rights in democratic systems. Violations based on the nature of governance system Qatar Qatar’s political system is a de facto absolute monarchy, with the Emir of Qatar serving as the country’s head of state and administration. Qatari legislation is primarily based on Sharia law. According to the 2003 Qatari constitutional referendum, it was decided that the state of Qatar will be a constitutional monarchy with an elected legislature, yet elections were repeatedly postponed since 2013. Finally, in November 2020, Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani announced that the elections will take place in October 2021. Following an announcement by the Emir of Qatar on August 22, 2021, general elections were held for the first time on October 2, 2021. Men and women over the age of 18 years were eligible to vote for thirty (30) of the fourty-five (45) seats in the Consultative Assembly, with the remaining fifteen (15) selected by the Emir. The thirty 30 seats were contested by two hundred eighty-four (284) individuals, including 29 women aspiring leaders. All candidates ran as independents as political parties are prohibited by constitution. No female candidates were elected and according to various non-governmental organisations, thousands of Qataris were denied the right to vote. Thereby, casting shadows on the Qatari constitutional monarchy claims. Freedom of Expression Qatar’s hereditary emir is in charge of all executive and legislative powers, as well as the judiciary. There are no political parties allowed, and while Qatari citizens are among the world’s wealthiest, the vast bulk of the population is made up of non-citizens who lack political rights, civil liberties, curtailed freedom of expression, freedom of religion and economic opportunities. In Qatar both print and broadcast media are influenced by powerful families and censored by the government. The international television network Al-Jazeera is showcased and branded to be exhibited as privately owned, however, the government is said to have compensated for its operating costs since 1996. In Qatar, all journalists practice some form of self-censorship and may risk jail time for defamation and other press violations. Access to the independent English-language website Doha News was restored in May 2020, after it had been prohibited in late 2016 due to a lack of an operating authorization. In 2017, and 2020, the outlet once more changed hands before resuming full operations. A change to the penal code in January 2020 makes spreading or publishing “fake news” punishable by up to five years in prison or a fine of 100,000 riyals ($27,500). The new ambiguously written rule that criminalises a wide variety of speech and publication activities threatens to severely curtail Qatar’s freedom of expression in Qatar. Religious Freedom Islam is the official religion in the State of Qatar. There is no constitutional protection for freedom of religion. However, the constitution

Read More