Jharkhand is a mandate of the poor, for their rights
Manisha Priyam | Associate professor, National University for Educational Planning and Administration
Hindustan Times
Priyam argues that the Jharkhand mandate is “a verdict in favour of new localism, and is a reflection of people’s voice overwhelming the arena of state elections in India”. The issue that helped frame the meaning of the verdict was the “struggle of adivasis against purported amendments to their land rights by the Raghubar Das-led BJP government, with its acquisition deemed unjust in the name of intended development”.
It is the “demand side of politics, especially from the asymmetrically placed poor voter, powerless and vulnerable, that has overwhelmed and realigned the ‘supply side’ on offer from political parties,” writes Priyam. The BJP must learn that the “unabashed adoption of developmentalism alienating tribal rights cannot be premised in majoritarianism or strong political backing of the Centre,” she adds.
“Many would like to see this as a return of the regional party politics, a victory of loose coalitions against a strong centre,” writes Priyam but adds that “when one aligns oneself to the ground, listening to the voices of the poor, and adopts a lens of political geography that foregrounds the meaning of Jharkhand, it is clear that this is a massive mandate of the poor”.
Illegal Indians in Bangladesh?
Neeraj Kaushal | Professor of social policy, Columbia University
Economic Times
In light of the recent Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the proposed nationwide NRC, there is a climate of fear about illegal Bangladeshi migrants coming into India. However, Kaushal argues that Indians have more motive to be “sneaking into Bangladesh for better economic and developmental opportunities”. She makes economic and developmental comparisons between the two countries to show this.
Kaushal writes that the Bangladeshi economy is forging ahead at 8 per cent GDP growth while India lags behind and the latter’s “employment scenario…is [also] much better”. Unlike India, Bangladesh has benefited from the US-China trade war and “American retailers are shifting orders to Bangladesh”, she explains. India’s per-capita GDP is higher but “Bangladesh is catching up fast”, she adds.
In the last 50 years, Bangladesh has performed better than India on developmental indicators like infant mortality, ratio of girls-boys high-school enrolment, women’s empowerment and gender equality, writes Kaushal. A stuttering economy and “atmosphere of fear and divisiveness will ensure that immigrants — legal as well as illegal — will shun India,” concludes Kaushal.
When politics hurts diplomacy
C. Raja Mohan | Director, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore
The Indian Express
Mohan writes that the “Islamic summit in Kuala Lumpur last week raised many familiar questions about the role of religion in promoting solidarity between nations”. The summit also “reminded us of the well-known answer that national interest often tends to trump shared faith,” he adds.
Even though “the idea that religion can bind people together has an enduring appeal”, in practice “religion has not been enough to sustain unity within and among nations that profess a common faith,” he writes. If “keeping the faithful together within a nation is hard enough, it is a lot harder to promote supra-national solidarity in the name of Islam”.
Mohan states that the “decline of pan-Arabism has been evident” but the “idea of Asian solidarity endures”. At the same time, “shared values — political and economic liberalism — have been far more successful in holding together the so-called political and economic ‘West’”. However, he notes that the main difference between the splits in the Islamic world “are about political Islam and its role in shaping the domestic structures in Muslim nations”.
South Asian “political discourse” views the “Muslim world as a monolith” but this has become “increasingly difficult to maintain amidst the current conflicts in the Middle east”, writes Mohan. He further calls for an urgent need for Delhi to “remove the growing negative perceptions of its domestic politics in the Middle East and more broadly the Muslim world” or else the Modi government might not be successful in improving the diplomatic ties with these countries.
It’s a climate and environment emergency
Anirban Ghosh | Chief Sustainability Officer, Mahindra Group
The Times of India
Ghosh maintains that “as a human race we have done very well in the last century”. However, “each of the miracle technologies that have enhanced living standards have major downsides” as well. He argues that unless “we adopt ways to live in harmony with nature and find ways to undo at least some of the damage already done, human habitation on earth is under severe threat”.
A pan-India survey “commissioned by the Mahindra Group this year revealed that four out of five Indians are aware of the impact of their actions on nature and climate change”. However, Ghosh notes that “such awareness and good intentions” are not “matched by actual behaviour”.
He argues that the “ball is in the court of corporations”. In 2017, a Business & Sustainable Development Commission report stated that sustainable business models could “open economic opportunities worth up to $12 trillion and increase employment by up to 380 million jobs by 2030.” This opportunity is “almost like rebooting the world, only we have to do it while the world is alive and kicking”, writes Ghosh. Finally, he writes that “innovation must happen now if we are to prevent catastrophic impact on human lives”.
Deal offers nothing but superficial symbolism
Amitendu Palit | Senior research fellow & research lead (trade and economic policy), NUS
Financial Express
Palit terms the Phase-1 deal of the US-China trade deal a “symbolic” one, which is unlikely “to end the US-China trade war”.
Key issues like “data governance, and surveillance concerns arising out of suspicions over Huawei” were left unaddressed and the two countries “continue to view each other suspiciously”, he writes. While they have agreed to hold back retaliatory trade actions, this and other commitments are symbolic, more so for the US since it was the one that started unilateral tariff actions, he explains.
Palit argues that the US has tried to paint this narrative — “a naughty, ill-behaved kid (China) has promised to behave in the future, following stern action (tariffs) by a strict guardian (the US)”. The US is keen on using the deal as evidence of “the success of its efforts to put China ‘in line’”, explains Palit, and the topic is likely to feature in the upcoming 2020 Presidential elections as well.
Despite China’s commitments to the trade talks, Palit warns of the country’s ability to restrict market access through other means, such as “creative protectionism or notwithstanding official grant of concessions in several respects”.
Constraints on govt spending overblown
V. Kumaraswamy | Author of Making Growth Happen in India
Hindu Business Line
Kumaraswamy argues that the government is unaware of its fiscal strengths in reviving the economy by revisiting assumptions about “fiscal and inflation bounds”. With regard to inflation targets, “the more demand grows, the more inflation is likely to rise”, he writes. Adhering to a 4 per cent central rate, followed by “a hysterical reaction when the economy gets close to it, is a sure way of suppressing demand”, he explains.
Furthermore, Kumaraswamy writes that the government’s “fiscal rectitude” has brought down debt and revenue receipts but “expenditure has fallen by 20 per cent and subsidies by 32 per cent” and this has “taken its toll” on the currently fragile economy. A look at sustaining deficits shows an “unexplained inability of the government to use its strength to bring down yields on government securities”, he adds.
The central government must “cast aside …the needless and contextually out-of-sync inflation and fiscal targets and really try to revive the economy,” he concludes.