Only shame
Abhinav Kumar | Serving IPS Officer
The Indian Express
Recent incidents of brutal rape make Kumar “angry as a citizen, scared as a parent, and deeply ashamed as a police officer”. He finds the “misplaced idealism” simply outrageous.
“On one end of the political spectrum, structural misogyny and gender bias, embedded in our cultural norms” are offered “as an omnibus explanation for these brutal acts”. Kumar argues that this may contain “important insights” but “this diagnosis is unhelpful in offering urgent practical solutions”. It is a “lofty ideal” to think that “violent rapes would go away if only all men could be equally conditioned to view women with respect and equality”.
Kumar states that “enlightened social values will not suffice in dealing” with men who behave like beasts. There is a need for an “effective criminal justice system”. Further, “we need to start asking hard questions and go beyond outrage, the clamour for harsher laws, and for outrageous solutions such as lynchings and public executions”. He also calls for the need to change the police’s “recruitment and training standards to better incorporate their role in dealing with crimes against women”. Even though these incidents “shock our collective conscience”, venting on social media and public protests won’t solve the problem.
It is time for a new social contract
Swapan Dasgupta | MP, Rajya Sabha
Hindustan Times
Dasgupta claims that the dispute in Ayodhya “affected the politics of the country, caused innumerable deaths, led to sharp polarisation along communal lines and even changed governments”. However, when “the resolution of the dispute was announced by the Supreme Court, the reactions were very muted”.
Dasgupta, however, notes “some heartburn in the ranks of the secular intelligentsia”, adding that the “proclamation of a funeral service for Indian secularism evoked very little response”.
If the “muted public reaction stands the test of time, it would suggest that the end of the Ayodhya dispute could be a signal for moving beyond the communal-secular schism”. Dasgupta argues that “it is quite clear that the Supreme Court verdict has met the demand for the construction of a Ram temple on the site of a pre-existing temple”. Further, the Muslim community has, “by and large, accepted the Ayodhya verdict with equanimity”, but there is “concern over lynchings and the erosion of Muslim representation in the political sphere”.
It is unfortunate that the “gulf between the Hindus and Muslims” has increased. This problem “cannot be resolved overnight or with electoral verdicts”. There is a need for a “sustained conversation at different levels of society between members of the two communities”, adds Dasgupta.
Lessons from Ambedkar
Mohammed Ayoob | University Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University
The Hindu
Marking B.R. Ambedkar’s 63rd death anniversary, Ayoob writes that “his strategies to achieve the goal of empowering Dalits shifted with changing contexts but the goal always remained the same” — to attain equality with caste Hindus in all spheres of life.
Ambedkar’s “devotion to the cause of Dalit empowerment has continued to galvanise Dalits until today”. Even though Dalit awakening is represented in student activism, Ayoob claims there are three issues that continue to bedevil it.
First, “intra-Dalit differences based on sub-castes allows forces opposed to Dalit empowerment to divide Dalits and deny them the clout that they can wield in the Indian polity”. Second, “interpersonal rivalry among Dalit politicians leads to the same result”. Third, the “inability of the Dalit leadership to stick with their non-Dalit allies” makes them “appear as unreliable political partners”.
In conclusion, Ayoob maintains that the “most important lesson to learn from Ambedkar’s repeated exhortations is that unless they remain united, the Dalits will be denied their due share of political power”.
Welfare State measures do not hurt wealth creation
Prabhat Patnaik | Professor emeritus, Centre for Economic Studies, JNU
The Telegraph
Patnaik states that in the post-truth world, the “pervasive use of arguments based on chicanery should not surprise us”. One such argument is, capitalists have “to be ‘incentivised’ to ‘create wealth’ in the interest of society, since it is the people at large who would be beneficiaries of what the capitalists ‘create’ and possess”.
However, “whenever any talk of actual redistribution arises, exactly the same argument is repeated, namely that it would come in the way of wealth creation”. The argument that “redistributive measures disrupt wealth creation” and must be “eschewed in the interest of society” is dishonest on two accounts. One, “it entails a perpetual postponement of redistribution”. Second, it is “logically flawed”.
Finally, “if a government is not to cave in to capitalists’ opposition expressed through such an investment strike, then it would have to use public sector investment as a counterweight”. An honest effort to build a Welfare State within capitalism may thus set in motion a process that goes beyond capitalism itself; but the chicanery lies in pretending that Welfare State measures damage wealth creation per se”, writes Ayoob.
Let’s not delay the NEP
Ashish Dhavan | Founder & chairman, Central Square Foundation
The Financial Express
Dhawan calls the recent National Education Policy (NEP) 2019 a “game changer” as it lays great focus on foundational learning. He credits the committee with “synthesising diverse viewpoints” and paying heed to primary school students who will join India’s workforce by 2030.
NEP must be implemented as soon as possible, he writes. For this, the government can “ring-fence funding to states for early grade interventions” and states should come out with “three- to five-year plan on how they plan to achieve universal foundational learning”.
There must also be a “clear goal setting and alignment of sharp metrics”, he adds.
Demand, supply and growth slowdowns
Rathin Roy | Director, National Institute of Public Finance and Policy
Business Standard
Roy suggests “a broad-based and inclusive growth process” can be a “medium-term” solution to India’s sputtering economy. First, he describes the inherent structural flaws of the economy that has precipitated the slowdown.
Structural slowdowns are an interplay between demand and supply factors, he writes. In the case of India, prices of goods that the top 150 million people consume have fallen after the economy opened up in 1991. “Rising incomes and capital gains” accrued for this segment of people, he adds. However, “structural barriers continue to limit aggregate demand” for goods that the minimum wage wish to purchase and this is “squeezed by high prices due to supply side constraints”, he explains.
The government has responded with inadequate public policy response, he writes. Therefore, it needs to address structural cracks in the economy now “even though it may not be the leading proximate trigger”. Otherwise, India risks falling into a “middle income trap that has been the fate of many countries… inattentive to this problem”, he concludes.
Survey data and government claims need not always match
Himanshu | Associate professor, JNU
Mint
In his piece, Himanshu debates the credibility of National Statistical Office’s (NSO) surveys which contradict claims made by the government. Take the latest findings that “71.3% households have access to toilets, as against the Centre’s claim of more than 95%”, he writes. The Leaked Periodic Labour Force Survey report is just another example of the issue, he adds.
The NSO has had problems with refining its methodologies to get accurate statistics, he writes. Its integrity has also been brought into question, given “another” secretary of the government has argued that responses to survey questions “suggest a diminishing sense of nationalism”.
Himanshu explains that data gaps, though a sign of corruption and inefficiency, are meant to spur “research and the improvement of government programmes”. Governments have a “vested interest” in questioning “inconvenient data”, explains Himanshu. However, it is another issue if those “entrusted with upholding and defending the integrity of the institution also start discrediting it”, he writes.
To keep the process going, independent organisations should provide “reliable and comparable data to all the actors on a regular basis” so that they are incentivised towards achieving critical policy goals by 2025, he writes. If India fails on this front, “we fail on poverty reduction, human capital, GDP” and more, he adds.