Termination of Tehelka Consultancy

Letter dated 22 November 2013 to the editors concerned:

This is of little consequence at the moment and I do not wish to pass any judgment. Let me just say that the handling of an extremely sensitive situation has been highly disappointing. What could have been a transparent, and legal, issue between an editor and a reporter has caused the institution grave damage.

As a journalist, credibility and fairness have always been my priority. In the present circumstances, I find it impossible to continue writing for Tehelka and hereby terminate my consultancy with the organisation.

It has been a fruitful association with Tehelka since 2011 and, let me put it on record, I was never asked to toe any editorial line in my writing (certain stories were refused but that is an editorial prerogative).

I wish Tehelka journalists strength and hope the reporter concerned gets the best possible closure.

Best

Jay Mazoomdaar
Consulting Editor

No, Tehelka, that is no way to deal with a sexual crime

It is not easy but the complainant, and the institution, deserves better.

FirstPost, 21 November, 2013

First, a few disclosures. As an independent journalist, I write for Tehelka and my name features in the magazine as a consulting editor. But I am not privy to any more information on this issue than outsiders are. And I was not in Goa during the Think Fest. 

Tarun Tejpal has admitted to a “mistake” — a sexual offence for which he should be punished. For me, the “mistake” itself does not diminish Tejpal the journalist. Of course, it exposes Tejpal the person, but as a professional he was not preaching high standards of sexual morality. A corruption case, on the other hand, would certainly have demolished the kind of moral ground he occupied as a journalist. 

What damages the credibility of Tejpal the journalist is the arbitrary and non-transparent (and pompous) way in which he dealt with the crime he has already admitted to. And it is not merely about deciding one’s own punishment. 

Shoma Chaudhury is being criticized for terming the issue “an internal matter” of the organisation. Perhaps, it was the wrong choice of a word because, like it or not, “internal settlement” is routinely the preferred means of dealing with such issues for both the accused and the accuser. Not too long ago, one of the industry’s mightiest editors apparently settled a sexual harassment case by paying his colleague an “eight-digit compensation”. 

Frankly, I would not have been scandalized if this case was also “settled” to the satisfaction of the complainant. She wanted an internal probe as per norms. She has not got it yet. But Tejpal has already pleaded guilty. Unless there is a disagreement between the complainant and the accused on the crime and its extent, the purpose of an organizational probe has already been served (Tehelka does needs the statutory panel for the future and is admittedly in the process of setting one up). 

The problem, therefore, is in Tehelka’s claim that the complainant was “satisfied” with the steps taken — Tejpal’s unconditional apology and so-called leave of atonement for six months. I would have no problem with such a “settlement” as long as the complainant was satisfied with it. It turns out, she is not. 

Was there a settlement? Was Tehelka given to understand that the complainant was satisfied? Did Tehelka push her to accept the settlement? Did she change her mind afterwards? We do not know the answers. It would be easier for all if the complainant spoke out and cleared the air. But because she did not, it becomes more important for Tehelka to spell out how the issue was dealt with internally. By not doing so yet, it has already risked its high standards of transparency and probity. 

This afternoon, Chaudhury sought some time to “act correctly”. Apart from setting up an in-house cell, she must ensure that the complainant is, for want of a better word, “satisfied”. As for Tejpal, due process of law must follow to determine the gravity of the crime he has already admitted to. And then, the due punishment. 

This is an extraordinary development and I do not envy Chaudhury’s situation. But there is still time for Tehelka to deal with it the right way, the difficult way. It may take a lot of her but the young complainant, and the profession, deserves much better. I, for one, will have no issues engaging with Tejpal the journalist, if he faces the consequence of his “mistake”. If he does not, he will end up discrediting the professional integrity and the institution he built.

MIRROR

Economic policies. Corruption. Civil liberties. Public Discourse. There is nothing to distinguish the two national parties

Tehelka, 21 November, 2013

The Congress-led United Progressive Alliance’s Rs 100-crore Bharat Nirman campaign ran into trouble this September. One of its print advertisements featured the same women models in an almost identical frame that was used in the Antyodaya Yojana campaign launched by the BJP-led NDA back in 2000. The two parties apparently hired the same agency. But then, fittingly, the NDA’s Antyodaya scheme was the precursor to the UPA’s Food Security Act too.

Of course, the Left has been telling us for long that the Congress and the BJP are two sides of the same coin. Not particularly money-minded, that’s how communists keep equidistance from both. But even the comrades brand the “twin evils” differently. While the BJP has been predominantly “communal”, the Congress is mostly “dynastic”. Until the Indian National Trade Union Congress (INTUC) and the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) told us that their parent parties were equally neo-liberal at heart.

In February 2012, 11 central trade unions came together for the first time to call a nationwide strike, demanding minimum wages, permanent jobs for 50 million contract labourers and a full stop to sale of stake in profitable public companies. A year later, this February, the unions went in for a two-day national strike against the antilabour policies of the UPA. “Hours before the strike, the Cabinet subcommittee headed by AK Antony called a meeting just for the sake of it. P Chidambaram did not even attend (the meeting),” INTUC national vice-president R Chandrasekharan slammed his own government.

Rewind to 2001, the 37th Indian Labour Conference in New Delhi. An enraged Hasmukhbhai Dave, general secretary of the BMS, the trade union wing of the Sangh Parivar, lashed out at the BJP-led NDA coalition, saying, “The BJP opposed the very same economic policies when in the Opposition. Now the government led by the BJP is pushing forward these policies. Unemployment and closure of industries are staring us in the face.” BMS president Dattopant Thengdi went to the extent of calling the then finance minister Yashwant Sinha “a criminal”.

The two principal camps of Indian politics are united not only in their apparent anti-labour stand, there is little to choose between the two when it comes to competitive populism. For example, after the UPA waived farm loans worth Rs 52,000 crore in 2008, the BJP’s 2009 election manifesto promised that the party would “waive agricultural loans to make India’s farmer debt-free”.

Thanks to the shared beliefs and priorities of the two parties, the continuity of economic policies in the past 15 years has been rather seamless. Recent arguments on GDP growth — particularly the war of words between the current finance minister and his NDA predecessor Yashwant Sinha — have been stuck in detailing decimals. The BJP highlights the achievements of the final year of the NDA regime when growth peaked. The Congress emphasises the higher average that shows them in better light. For both, it’s been about selective splicing of data to claim the edge in a show of identical strengths (and weaknesses).

In the early 1990s, PV Narasimha Rao began the economic liberalisation with the then finance minister Manmohan Singh at the helm. Nationalism did not come in the way of the BJP’s rush for foreign investment under Atal Bihari Vajpayee whose legacy includes the Indo-US nuclear deal that Manmohan Singh later clinched, even with his government at stake. Long before Chidambaram joined the cause, Jaswant Singh was committed to usher in foreign direct investment in retail. In the past nine years, the UPA has mostly consolidated what the NDA built on the foundations of Rao’s early reforms.

Essentially, they are the same, says Rahul Bajaj, chairman of Bajaj Auto. “Neither may accept this for political reasons. The BJP has normally been right of centre. Since 1991, the Congress also came to be known as a right-of-centre party. However, this changed after the 2004 election. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi give the impression of being left of centre, perhaps believing that MGNREGA and the Food Security Act will help get votes even though these adversely affect the fiscal deficit. If the Congress wins again, there is a possibility of their continuing with left-of-centre policies,” he says.

While taking credit for unshackling the economy, the Congress also claims to pursue inclusive growth. In fact, the emphasis on agriculture has been evident during the nine years of UPA rule. The rural poor have always been the mainstay of the Congress vote bank. Yet, economic disparity has only become starker since liberalisation. Even the slew of legislations on rural employment guarantee, forest rights and food security may not be able to turn the tide.

The BJP has consistently gained from the support of the urban middle class. But the party also launched “social development initiatives” such as Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana, Antyodaya Anna Yojana, the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan and the Integrated Child Development Scheme to woo larger vote banks. It even set up a ministry for tribal affairs. Yet, skewed growth and a gaping rich-poor divide drowned the Shining India campaign in 2004. The party reinvested heavily in populism but the promise-packed 2009 poll manifesto did not cut much ice either.

In theory, the BJP peddles swadeshi, which the party translates as economic nationalism. The Congress’ answer to that is economic self-reliance or arthik swaraj. In practice, both short sell the country’s natural resources to big businesses and investors. If Narendra Modi flaunts his investor-friendly Gujarat model (which has not landed much FDI yet), Chidambaram has his Cabinet Committee on Investment to hand out summary clearance to mega projects. Irrespective of their slugfest on GDP, inflation and fiscal deficit, the broad trajectories and outcomes of their policies have been mostly similar.

So much so that BJP leader Shatrughan Sinha uttered the unthinkable last week in Washington. Pointing out that the Congress and the BJP have similar views on foreign policy, defence and economic reforms, and “no one is untouchable in Indian politics now”, Sinha told PTI that the two parties should give a serious thought to forming a strong coalition government based on a common minimum programme to “end the daily political blackmailing” by smaller and regional outfits.

While Sinha hastened to add that this was certainly not his party’s view, and that the first option would be to form a majority government of the BJP at the Centre, he hoped that leaders from both parties would give serious thought to the idea of a post-poll alliance in case of a hung Parliament even as they campaign against one another over the next six months. Curious as the proposal may sound, the two parties have a lot more in common than required for a minimum programme.

DIVESTMENT
It has been a case of permanent flip-flop for both the BJP and the Congress. Coal India is the latest example where the UPA government is keen to divest while the BJP unions are opposing it. But, ultimately, it always boils down to political convenience.

It was the BJP-led NDA that created the disinvestment ministry and put the reins in the hands of Arun Shourie. In the early 2000s, the Congress was strongly opposed to the idea of “selling the family silver”. Over the years, it would become an important tool for the UPA to raise money for the public sector.

The UPA’s disinvestment list now includes NTPC, Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Limited, SAIL, Hindustan Copper, Oil India, HAL, MMTC, NALCO, ONGC, EIL and IOC. Even state governments took the cue. The Congress in Punjab privatised Punjab Tractors.

PENSIONS BILL
In 2002, it was the NDA that adopted the National Pension Scheme as the mandatory pension system for all new recruits after January 2004. When it took charge in May 2004, the UPA chose to stay on course. Yashwant Sinha pledged BJP support to the Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority Bill, claiming it was the same as drafted by the erstwhile NDA government.

The BJP demanded a 26 percent cap on FDI and stated assured returns for subscribers. “This government has kept that pensions Bill hanging since 2004. We have suggested two amendments to this Bill, to which the government agreed,” said Sinha.

INSURANCE BILL
Cosmetic differences between the two parties are now paving way for consensus on the insurance Bill, which would allow foreign investors to own up to 49 percent in local insurance companies, up from 26 percent currently. The Bill will also allow State-owned general insurance companies to raise capital from the stock market and bring in fresh investments in health insurance as well. The BJP has come around to support the Bill with a few conditions, which are not too difficult for the Congress to incorporate, such as a bar on single investors acquiring 49 percent stake in companies.

FDI IN RETAIL
The contentious issue may be done and dusted, but all the politics around this between the BJP and the Congress rode on opposition of convenience. As widely reported, it was the NDA’s commerce minister, Murasoli Maran, who floated the idea of opening up the sector. It found able supporters in Kamal Nath, Chidambaram and Manmohan Singh, who battled within the UPA right from 2004 in the face of stiff opposition from Congress president Sonia Gandhi, who wanted to be assured of the benefits of the move. In 2013, the FDI floodgates were finally opened with riders to appease the concerns of Sonia Gandhi and the Opposition.

DECENTRALISATION
The rise of states has been a big success story that belies the need for Centre-driven measures. A study by Indicus Analytics suggests Congress states have done better in poverty alleviation, while the BJP is pumping more money into creating capital assets. “But overall, neither party makes a compelling case for itself,” it concludes.

By and large, chief ministers deliver better when they get to chart their own course. Professor Bibek Debroy of the Centre for Policy Research wonders if the recent effort at centralising policies helped the states. “Should I have centralised policies or should I leave it to the states? Under UPA-2, contrary to what would be ideal, there has been much more centralisation,” he points out.

IDENTITY CARD
While the UPA was busy giving shape to the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), the BJP in its 2009 poll manifesto promised to launch “an innovative programme to establish a countrywide system of multipurpose national identity cards so as to ensure national security, correct welfare delivery, accurate tax collection, financial inclusion and voter registration”. The party proposed to “make it incumbent on every Indian to have a National Identity Card” and set a three-year deadline —Nandan Nilekani may guffaw here — to complete the programme.

COAL
The CAG estimated that the UPA extended windfall gains of Rs 1.86 lakh crore to private entities by distributing 155 blocks without bidding between 2004 and 2009. In its defence, the Congress pointed out that the NDA gave a free hand to the screening committee, which allotted 32 coal blocks during its tenure without following any guidelines. The Standing Committee on Coal and Steel in its latest report underlined how the allocations between 1993 and 2004 were done without any advertisement or public information. In effect, all allocations since the liberalisation took place in complete disregard of standard procedures.

2G SPECTRUM
In 1999, the NDA changed the policy of telecom licence from “fixed licence fees” to “revenue sharing licence fees”. In 2003, it gave away licences at 2001 prices. The UPA followed the same policy by allotting licences in 2005, ’07 and ’08 (when additionally A Raja allegedly manipulated the first-come-first-served policy to favour cronies) at 2001 prices.

Neither the BJP nor the Congress opted for e-auctions. While the DMK says Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was in the loop at every stage of spectrum allocation, Vajpayee, in fact, held the telecom portfolio when the en masse migration from fixed to revenue sharing fee happened.

MINING
A slew of mining scams is testimony that neither the Congress nor the BJP can claim to be fair to the environment or to the affected communities. The MB Shah Commission report has exposed a Rs 35,000 crore illegal mining scam in Goa under Congress rule, in which politicians, bureaucrats and mining companies were indicted. The Reddy brothers made a killing through illegal mining in Bellary under the patronage of the BJP government. The BJP governments in Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh too are currently under the scanner for alleged mining scams worth several thousand crores.

HYDROPOWER
In 2001, the Central Electricity Authority had ranked the hydroelectric potential of key Indian rivers while estimating potential installed capacity of nearly 150,000 MW by 2026. In the Brahmaputra basin alone, it identified 168 potential large projects that could generate 63,300 MW. Within two years, Vajpayee proudly launched the 50,000 MW national hydroelectric initiative, identifying 42 projects with installed capacity of 27,293 MW in Arunachal Pradesh alone.

As if to fulfil Vajpayee’s dream, the UPA rushed to commission dozens of dams across the Himalayas in Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh. Already, projects worth 50,000 MW have been allocated across every Himalayan river basin and a number of those have been cleared without statutory impact assessment in the “national interest”.

RIVER LINKING
A year before unleashing his hydel ambition, Vajpayee announced plans to link major Indian rivers to “free India from the curse of floods and droughts”. The mega plan failed to take off not because environmentalists resisted such large-scale tinkering with the river systems but due to lack of funds. Nobody was surprised when the UPA revived the project last year with 31 links of 9,000-km long canals to connect 37 rivers at an estimated expenditure of $140 billion.

SETHUSAMUDRAM
Policy continuity assumes bizarre proportions when one considers the Sethusamudram project that aims to link Palk Bay and the Gulf of Mannar between India and Sri Lanka by dredging a shipping channel through the shallow sea and a chain of islands collectively called Ram Setu or Adam’s Bridge.

The BJP promised “speedy implementation” of the project in its 2004 election manifesto. Following widespread opposition from religious and environmental groups, the party changed its position in its 2009 poll manifesto, offering to look for an alternative alignment.

But the Congress was sold on the plan. Having already spent Rs 777 crore on the project, it overruled the recommendations of the Pachauri Committee and the Tamil Nadu government this September in an affidavit to the Supreme Court, insisting on using the alignment cutting across the Ram Setu.

GREEN CLEARANCE
The UPA took the cue from the NDA to dilute the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure to expedite clearance mechanisms and benefit investors.

Between 1982 and 2012, the Ministry of Environment and Forests received 384 applications seeking forest clearances for coal blocks. Of these, only 18 have been rejected. Between 1982 and 1999, the average delay in clearance was five years. During the NDA rule, it came down to three years. The UPA-1 further reduced it to 17 months. The UPA-2 takes 11 months to decide on a project.

In a letter dated 10 November 2005 to then environment minister A Raja, 140 organisations and individuals said that “the reengineering process and the subsequent draft notification (of the revised EIA) are guided almost entirely by recommendations of the Govindarajan Committee on Investment Reforms, constituted by the previous NDA government, and proposals made as part of the World Bank-funded Environmental Management Capacity Building Programme”.

During his tenure as prime minister, Vajpayee took four years to chair his first meeting of the Indian Board for Wildlife (now National Board for Wildlife) that was supposed to meet annually. The high-profile tiger crisis has made NBWL meetings more regular since 2005 under the UPA. But even during the tenures of Suresh Prabhu and Jairam Ramesh — arguably the best performing environment ministers under the NDA and UPA regime, respectively — the rate of rejection of projects seeking green clearances remained minuscule.

REFORMS
A number of poll promises from the BJP’s 2004 manifesto could have been easily lifted from the Congress’ and underline the common slant:

• Work on projects with a combined capacity of 12,000 MW (including 8,000 MW in the private sector) will start before the end of 2004

• Policy will be reoriented, within three months, to encourage private investment in the mines sector

• Single-window clearance for harnessing of mineral resources such as iron ore, limestone, bauxite and precious metals

• New coal mining projects will be started in 2004 to enhance existing capacity by 50 million tonnes

• Necessary legislation will be introduced for encouraging private initiatives in the coal sector

• Special Economic Zones (SEZs) will be promoted as vehicles for overall growth. An SEZ Promotion Council, with wide industry participation, will be created in the commerce ministry as an apex body

SUBSIDY
The NDA had its own 1,000-crore Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana — flaunted as the biggest food-for-work programme since Independence — and promised to expand coverage of the Antyodaya Anna Yojana from 2 crore to 5 crore of the poorest in five years. It is unlikely that the party will roll back the UPA’s mgnrega or food security initiatives.

Says Debroy: “Do I see a BJP government rolling back these subsidies? No. Will a BJP government start fresh subsidy? They won’t. Do I see a Congress government in a UPA-2 kind of format next term come up with fresh subsidies? The answer is yes.” However, he hastens to add that such policies have a lot to do with who is driving the agenda. “If the finance ministry or the Planning Commission is leading the reform and is backed by the PMO, the decision will be to resist subsidy,” he says. “However, if an NAC (National Advisory Council) takes the lead, they will not see it the same way.”

The BJP’s stated position is that the party believes people have the right to food. In 2004, the NDA promised to provide 35 kg of rice or wheat every month to bpl families at Rs 2 per kg through food coupons redeemable at both PDS and private outlets. The BJP-run states have already extended the food security net. A good example is Chhattisgarh, which enacted its own food law in 2012 and has been providing 35 kg of foodgrains per month to 42 lakh poor families at Rs 1.20 per kg. Chief Minister Raman Singh claimed that the state government provided more foodgrains to the poor than the Centre’s programme has.

There are two broad prescriptions for reducing poverty. One professes that sustained economic growth is possible only if public spending is directed towards bettering health and education. The other claims that progrowth policies and market-oriented reforms will anyway bring down poverty levels. On paper, the NAC-burdened Congress appears to be closer to the first model while a Gujarat-powered BJP seems to champion the second.

The apparent ideological divide was represented this year by two renowned economists, Amartya Sen and Jagdish Bhagwati, and their latest publications. In Why Growth Matters, Bhagwati and co-author Arvind Panagariya projected unbridled growth as the panacea for all of India’s ills. Following soon after, An Uncertain Gloryby Sen and co-author Jean Drèze stressed on State welfare and redistribution of wealth. While they seemed to be arguing on a chicken-and-egg situation — social indicators will not improve without a growth agenda and growth will not be sustainable unless inclusive — their intellectual face-off was soon dumbed down to a BJP vs Congress slugfest.

But on the ground, political and ideological compulsions blur the lines in both camps. The net result is strikingly identical — a combination of desperate sellout and reckless populism. “Painting the BJP as a pro-business party is difficult. Even Modi’s bedrock is the RSS, which is anti-globalisation. We don’t know how they will square the circle,” says economist and commentator Shailesh Chitnis. “On the social aspect, the Congress has pushed through a lot of Bills, like MGNREGA and now food security, but that’s solely because of Sonia Gandhi’s push. While the Congress may have a pro-poor face, I don’t see them being able to sustain it.”

Given the similarity of policies, it is tempting for many to believe that curbing corruption alone will make a difference. It can certainly tighten the delivery system. But it would be naïve to believe that transparency can influence the policies of short selling of national assets — from minerals to water — in so-called national interest. It would be equally naïve to assume that corruption is the preserve of any particular party. If one party appears any less corrupt than the other, it is only because the degree of corruption is usually commensurate with the scope for it.

Sumant Sinha of Renew Power says what’s needed is a system that builds strong administration and good governance. “We have a system where the government hasn’t taken enough timely decisions. Coal allocation was botched up, road building is at a halt, power sector reforms are missing. This needs only administration and governance. But can we separate this from politics?” he asks.

“Unfortunately, we are allowing politics to affect economics too much,” says Adi Godrej, former president of the CII. “I think we should have a strong free enterprise system as they work the best value. A lot of people feel inclusive growth is about slow growth but that’s not true. High growth will create more opportunities. We should have reform. It should lead to growth and progress. We need continuity.”

But CPM leader Sitaram Yechury is wary of the continuity that the unity of the Congress and the BJP on economic policies provides. At a recent political convention in New Delhi, he accused the two parties of making “silent overtures to each other” in Parliament. “The country requires an alternative policy framework. There is very little to choose between the BJP and the Congress. And unless you have an alternative set of policies, we cannot provide relief to the people,” he said, clearly batting for a Third Front.

Unfortunately, most potential constituents of a Third Front either do not have a national economic vision or share the ideas of the Congress or the BJP. The Left Front has little clout to steer the economic policy of a coalition at the Centre and anyway it has been exposed in the killing fields of Nandigram and Singur in West Bengal. Besides, even during the brief Third Front experiment in the mid-1990s, the finance portfolio was with one Chidambaram, the then chief of the breakaway Tamil Maanila Congress.

“The presence of the NAC does make some difference to the Congress. I’m not sure if a BJP government would have agreed to enact the RTI or the Forest Rights Act,” says Ashish Kothari, veteran environmentalist and rights activist. “Since the Swadeshi Jagran Manch was sidelined and the Gujarat growth model has become dominant, the BJP appears more pro-business. But after liberalisation, there has been no significant difference between the economic or natural resource management policies of the two parties. It’s been an onslaught on the poor and the weak.”

Depending on where one stands in the socioeconomic hierarchy and ideological spectrum, this one-and-a-half-decade- long continuity in economic policies and practices can be either reassuring or alarming. In either scenario, it is certainly no yardstick to determine which way one should vote in the next General Election. “If a voter wants to make a decision based on the economy, there is very little choice,” agrees Sumant Sinha.

That is bad news for the customary rhetoric that the voter, tired of the secular- communal debate, simply wants a government that will deliver economic prosperity. Worse, at a time when the country faces the massive challenge of poverty alleviation compounded by the trickle-down treatment, it seems India does not have a viable political alternative for the economic policies that have failed her weakest for too long.

BOXED: SHARED LEGACIES

The similarities between the Congress and the BJP run deeper than their economic policies

First, the obvious. For all its nationalistic protestation, the BJP’s pro-US foreign policy set the stage for the Congress to clinch the big deals. With Pakistan, the UPA has been following what are essentially different variants of the AB Vajpayee line. Even Narendra Modi toned down his anti-Pakistan rhetoric overnight after being anointed the PM candidate.

The telecom and coal scams are the shared legacies of the NDA and the UPA. If the Congress had to show one corrupt CM (Ashok Chavan) the door, the BJP was forced to sack two (BS Yeddyurappa and Ramesh Pokhriyal). If the Commonwealth Games scam tainted the UPA, the Kargil coffin scam spooked the NDA victory laps. While targeting the ‘soft’ Congress for dithering on Afzal Guru and Ajmal Kasab, the BJP carries the burden of the Kandahar swap when its foreign minister escorted three terrorists.

Curiously, the liberal versus hardliner debate cannot hide the fact that both parties are equally contemptuous of civil liberties and freedom of expression. Indira Gandhi did not take criticism lightly. Nearly a decade after Gulzar’sAandhi was not allowed a full release in 1975, she got the entire consignment of a particular issue of The Economist confiscated because Kevin Kallaugher, the magazine’s iconic cartoonist, had portrayed her as a menacing, four-armed goddess in a snake necklace, trampling over Sri Lanka and holding a bag of money and dagger in two hands while squeezing a turbaned fellow and an aam aadmi with the other two.

The Sangh Parivar is ideologically beholden to cultural purity. So, affectionate young couples are never safe in public, particularly on Valentine’s Day. If the BJP forced MF Husain to permanent exile, the Congress refused to shelter a ‘homeless’ Taslima Nasreen. If James Laine was bullied for his treatise on Shivaji, Salman Rushdie’s The Satatnic Verses was handed out the first ban by the Congress in 1988. The Ashok Gehlot government scripted a sequel by refusing to host Rushdie at the Jaipur Lit Fest last year. More recently, the BJP wanted Amartya Sen to return his Bharat Ratna for criticising Modi. The Congress returned the compliment when Lata Mangeshkar, another Bharat Ratna awardee, praised Modi.

Both the Congress and the BJP have been frequently accused of staging encounters and fabricating charges against inconvenient activists, particularly in the tribal heartland. Neither has found it fit to review the scope of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act even after a SC panel highlighted its misuse. Yes, if it is any consolation, the parties are divided over scrapping Article 370. But then, breaking status quo requires numbers unlikely to accumulate in this coalition era.

Bharat Ratna for Sachin before Dhyan Chand? It’s not cricket

Tendulkar’s contemporaries Viswanathan Anand and Leander Paes can certainly wait. But India owed it to her first modern sporting genius and superstar.

FirstPost, 17 November, 2013

Sachin Tendulkar is no doubt a Bharat Ratna, every 65 inch of his stature. The government’s timing was perfect in officially acknowledging on his D-Day what the nation long felt about the cricketer. But is he the only diamond in India’s small but dazzling collection of champions? 

Many would argue that Tendulkar’s sterling sporting achievements are more than matched by one Viswanathan Anand. More would agree that even his superhuman exploits donning the tricolour on the helmet do not quite add up to the many miracles worked on the Davis Cup turf by one Leander Paes. But they are contemporaries who do not mind waiting for their turn. 

Not the memory of Major Dhyan Chand though. The hockey wizard retired in 1948. He died before Tendulkar even picked up his bat at 11. It is impossible to compare generations or different sports. All of 5 feet 7 inches, Dhyan Chand won India three Olympic golds. But statistics count for nothing when one considers his influence on the game that he picked up only after joining the Army at 16. Had the wizard played cricket, his aura would have been no less than Sir Don’s. 

Indeed, in 1935, Bradman watched Dhyan Chand in action in Adelaide. “He scores goals like runs in cricket,” was his enchanted reaction. The next year, the German press went into a tizzy watching the wizard at Berlin. “The Olympic complex now has a magic show too,” screamed a headline. Legend has it that a charmed Hitler offered the major the post of colonel in his army. Residents of Vienna built a statue of him with four hands holding four hockey sticks, underlining the wizardry. 

Now doesn’t it seem odd that India officially acknowledged Tendulkar, every bit a Bharat Ratna, before honouring the country’s first modern sporting genius and superstar? The sliding fortunes of hockey may have a lot to do with it. Long back in 1956, Dhyan Chand was honoured with the Padma Bhushan. The government released a postage stamp on his first death anniversary in 1980. Of course, sportspersons were not eligible for Bharat Ratna till the rules were amended in November 2011. 

That very December, 82 MPs, a number of UPA ministers among them, together wrote to the Prime Minister’s Office, recommending Bharat Ratna for Dhyan Chand. The same month, the PMO also received 64 nominations, including one from Maharashtra chief minister Prithviraj Chavan, backing Tendulkar for the highest honour. 

Since 2012, the union sports ministry has twice recommended Dhyan Chand for Bharat Ratna. As recently as this August, the ministry reiterated that he was the logical choice. “We had to name just one sportsperson for the Bharat Ratna. With all due respect to Tendulkar, Dhyan Chand is a legend in Indian sports. And it was logical to recommend Dhyan Chand for the Bharat Ratna since we have named every other trophy after him,” Pradip Deb, secretary sports, was quoted as saying. 

The UPA government dithered for two years since amending the rules before picking Tendulkar as a ”popular choice” on the day of his retirement. Few grudge him the honour. But his selection even as the first among the illustrious contemporary equals only underlines the unmistakable clout of cricket. 

Anand has won the world championship five times (and the Chess Oscar six times) in a sport many times more competitive than cricket. Three years senior to Tendulkar, he became India’s first grandmaster even before the boy wonder made his international debut. The only player to have won the world championships in all formats – tournament, match, knockout and rapid – he is acknowledged as the most versatile world champion in the history of the game. 

Paes is a few weeks younger to Tendulkar. He made his debut for India a year after Tendulkar and has an overall record of 86-31 in Davis cup. He took India to the World Group during 1991-1998 and beat Switzerland and France on way to the semifinals in 1993. Routinely magical exploits in the doubles game apart, Paes defeated the likes of Henri Leconte (1993), Goran Ivanišević (1995), Wayne Ferreira (1994), Jiří Novák (1997) and Jan Siemerink (1995) playing solo for India. 

In 1996, Paes needed a wild card to enter the Atlanta Olympics and went on to win a Bronze for the country. His dream run was halted by none other than Andre Agassi who described the inspired Indian as a “flying jumping bean, a bundle of hyperkinetic energy, with the tour’s quickest hands”. Now in his forties, Paes is also the oldest ever grandslam winner. 

Both Anand (1985) and Paes (1990) won the Arjuna award before Tendulkar (1994). Anand was the first recipient of the Rajiv Gandhi Khel Ratna Award in 1991–92, India’s highest sporting honour. Even Peas became a Khel Ratna (1996-96) before Tendulkar (1997-98). While Paes remains a Padmashree (2001), Anand became India’s first sportsperson in 2007 to be awarded the Padma Vibhushan ahead of Tendulkar. Tennis fans may feel a little impatient but chess aficionados should not mind if the cricketer takes the lead this time. 

But what about the wizard? The hockey fraternity is understandably bitter. But the Major probably would have none of it. The first sentence of his autobiography reads: “You are doubtless aware that I am a common man.” The wizard scored 61 goals in his last international series and India won all 22 matches in East Africa in 1947-48. Then he called it a day. 

But of course, this is not cricket.

Killer tracks: Reducing speed is no lifesaver for elephants

Railways can’t sacrifice efficiency by making trains crawl through forests. Monitoring of wildlife movement can’t be foolproof along long stretches of railway tracks. But symbolism is cheaper than investment.

FirstPost, 15 November, 2013

The killer railway tracks of north Bengal claimed another seven elephants on Wednesday. That takes the death toll to at least 48 since 2004. This year alone, the Chhapramari-Gorumara route has killed 18 jumbos. With at least another nine elephants severely injured in Wednesday’s collision, the count is likely to go up further. 

According to reports, a large herd of at least 40 elephants was crossing the Jaldhaka Bridge in Hilajora forest at around 6 in the evening when the Assam- bound Jaipur-Kamakhya Kavi Guru Express came charging in at 80 km per hour. The driver claimed to have applied the brakes but it was too late. The impact of the collision threw several elephants, calves included, off the track and damaged the bridge. It was a gory sight. 

Elephant deaths on railway tracks have been making frequent headlines in recent years. Outraged conservationists demanded immediate steps when the Coromandel Express ran over six jumbos near Berhampur in Odisha on 30 December 2012. Another two accidents in January – one on the same killer tracks in north Bengal — made the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways discuss elephant safety. 

Every time there is an accident, the railways and forest authorities play the standard blame game. The former blames the forest staff for not alerting them about elephant movement. The latter accuse the locomotive driver of breaking the 50 kmph speed limit. After the January accident in north Bengal, for example, the Railways defended the driver who sped the train at 100 kmph in the dark because it was still half an hour to 7 pm when speed restrictions come into force. Only then did the forest department realize that the 7 pm-5 am low-speed window did not cover the extended dark hours during winter and change it to a sunset-sunrise schedule. 

On paper, however, this speed limit applies to only 17.4 km of the total length of the 163 km stretch between Alipurduar and Siliguri. In practice, the go-slow distance is calculated by adding a series of short stretches – about 1-3 km – which do not even cover the braking distance. In effect, trains must run at a lower speed along the entire distance to be able to follow the speed limit along the designated stretches. So it did not make much of a difference when the forest department increased the 17.4 km go-slow distance to 79.60 km earlier this year. 

Efficiency of a railway network depends mostly on its speed. Of the 88 identified elephant corridors in India, 40 have national highways running through them, 21 have railway tracks and 18 have both. Elsewhere, roads and railways cut through hundreds of kilometres of wildlife habitat. Does it make any economic sense to impose speed restrictions on such length of the network? Accidents anyway happen even at low speeds due to a number of factors, including human error. 

Speed restrictions are feasible only when imposed along a short stretch, such as the 11 km killer track near Berhampore in Odisha or the 8 km stretch that cuts through Jharkhand’s Palamu or the 4 km death trap in the Palghat Gap that connects Kerala’s Palakkad and Tamil Nadu’s Coimbatore on both sides of the Western Ghats. It is not an option on steep gradients, such as Assam’s Karbi Anglong, where trains must accelerate to climb the slope. 

Wherever possible, the real solution is to realign road and railway tracks that run through critical forest areas. Why restrict speed along the 80km Alipurduar-Siliguri stretch when there is a less vulnerable alignment available through Falakata? Of course, some alignments do not have an alternative. A few years ago, the Supreme Court sought the view of the Wildlife Institute of India (WII) on the viability of building two elephant overpasses on a national highway cutting through Rajaji national park. Asked if elephants would indeed use the overpasses, the WII chief threw in the towel: “Ask the elephants!” 

The SC rejected overpasses and instead, a Rs 100 crore project is underway to build a 0.9 km elevated stretch of highway between Motichur and Doiwala. There is a similar demand for elevated stretches in north Bengal but left to the railways and highway authorities, the default solution is a low-cost overpass or underpass no wider than a service duct. 

It is unlikely that elephants will ever use overpasses, given the vibration from traffic flowing below. Narrow, tunnel-like passages are no option either. Kenya showed the way with a 6-metre underpass linking Mount Kenya National Park and Nagre Ndare Forest Reserve which elephant herds have taken to since 2011. In India, two underpasses on a 35-km stretch of NH 152 linking Pathsala in Assam to Nganglam in Bhutan — that cuts through the buffer zone of Manas national park — are an example. 

Thanks to Anwaruddin Choudhury, then deputy commissioner of Buxa district, the original road running through the core of the national park was realigned and elephants safely got to the other side through two 30 feet high and 100 feet wide passageways. Alternatively, say experts, roads could go underground (as recommended for the highway intersecting Kaziranga) or elephants could be funneled though fencing to designated level-crossing zones where herds will not struggle to climb the tracks. 

But then, lack of solutions was never the problem. Investment is and has always been. Railway tracks and highways are only venturing further every day, into wildlife habitats, into the red corridor which comprises vast tracts of elephant forests in central India. By 2020, the dream is to run trains at 250-350 kmph. It will take some resolve to recognize and ensure that this way forward also includes a way out for wildlife. Our policymakers cannot choose between the interests of the country’s economy and its wildlife. And if they do, get used to the sight of blood on the tracks.

Here's Calling All Birdbrains

Most birds can tell recordings from real, but males warm up to female voice

Tehelka, 6 Nov, 2013

Recently, I stumbled upon a very interesting paper that offered insight into, of all things, how birds react to overenthusiastic birdwatchers trying to attract their attention by playing back recorded bird calls. Published last month, the study by Berton Harris and David Haskell in Ecuador came up with the expected and the surprising.

Though dubious, playback remains a widespread practice. While the amateur uses it to boost his or her “life count” of birds, many professionals employ the trick to test hypotheses about the evolution of behaviour etc. Closely watching, nay listening to, their subjects, Harris and Haskell found that the plain-tailed wren (Thryothorus euophrys) “sang more duets” in reply to playback, while the Rufous Antpitta (Grallaria rufula) “made more vocalisations of all types, except for trills”.

The duo went on to conclude that increased vocalisations (bird noises) could be interpreted as a negative effect of playback if birds expend energy in response, become stressed and divert time from other activities. Worse still, they warned, scientists might compromise research if they did not carefully select research sites to ensure their subjects’ behaviour was not already altered by birdwatchers’ playback.

As expected, this set many conservationists and bird lovers aflutter. Some demonised “competitive birdwatchers for causing stress and affecting natural birdlife”. They were not entirely off the mark. Like most vocations, birdwatching too has become a rather elaborate affair, trappings included. Thoughtfully enough, even smartphones now offer a birding app that allows one to identify different bird calls through playback. Given most birders belong to the smarter variety of their species, chances are many a bird is hearing mechanised calls to mating or competition.

I am not a great bird (or animal, for that matter) enthusiast and prefer any exploration in moderation. But birdwatchers (who watch less and photograph more these days) are guilty of far graver crimes than playing back bird calls. Some even go to the extent of destroying nests after clicking lest others get a chance too. And anyway, playback cannot ruin a bird’s life. During the study, Harris and Haskell found that birds are smarter than we think.

In repeated playback experiments, notes the paper, responses from wrens were strong at first, but hardly detectable by day 12. One group built a nest, apparently unperturbed, near a playback site. This means even the smaller bird species can figure out the playback fraud pretty soon. And confusion over a week or two cannot really throw the bird off kilter. Also, in popular birding areas where birds are likely to be accustomed to playback, birders may altogether stop bothering about it. Unless, they get lucky simulating a female to draw the males of the species.

I don’t know how birds will react to that; here’s a pointer to mammals. A few years ago, Rajasthan’s forest officials were struggling to bring back two ‘straying’ tigers of Ranthambhore. After repeated tracking attempts failed, they decided to “call” the animals in.

The female had settled down in a degraded forest patch by a state highway outside the national park. Sharpshooters and tranquiliser guns in place, the hopeful staff played the male roar on loudspeaker. Soon enough, the tigress appeared at the edge of the forest but did not approach the staff’s vehicles immediately. After observing the collective ruckus of several jeeps and chattering foresters for half an hour, she went back into the forest. The roar was played over and over again, but the tigress had heard enough.

Clearly, she could make out the faux roar and was too disgusted to respond a second time. Not so her male counterpart. Every time, he emerged to check out the female voice even if the feline itself was not in evidence. It is unlikely that he was any less intelligent than the tigress. Perhaps, testosterone was getting in the way. He came off as desperate but the foresters were empathetic.

A male couldn’t take a chance with a female, they said. I agreed.

Call Him Principled Or Desperate, Nitish Has Taken It Beyond Just Rahul Vs Modi

His control and goodwill sliding, the Bihar CM is giving it back to Narendra Modi like nobody else

Tehelka, 2 Nov, 2013

All is not well with Nitish Kumar. He is facing a serious rebellion within his party ranks. Even JD(U) president Sharad Yadav has apparently scoffed at his soft Congress policy. Corruption and misgovernance has taken the sheen off the Bihar turnaround story. One would have thought the serial blasts at Narendra Modi’s Hunkar rally at Patna’s Gandhi Maidan would pin the Bihar chief minister on the back foot.

Sure enough, Nitish defended his government (“there was no intelligence input from the Centre”), warned about deterioration of the polity (“the incident is a blot on Bihar’s political tradition”) and refused to get drawn into countering Modi’s rhetoric (“won’t say anything today, but that does not mean I have nothing to say”). The next day, the BJP accused his administration of “deliberate security lapses”. Then, addressing party workers at a strategy meet in Rajgir, he tore into Modi.

This is not just about secularism anymore. Nitish called Modi ignorant, bitter and a liar in a hurry. Yes, Taxila is not Nalanda and is in Pakistan. The retreat of Alexander’s army had nothing to do with Bihar. No, the two CMs never shared a table at any prime ministerial function. Having set the facts straight, Nitish compared “story-teller” Modi to Asaram Bapu, and then to Goebbels. But such nuggets of Nitish-Modi back and forth are now legends in the social media.

Modi is by far the most popular public speaker in contemporary Indian politics. Irrespective of the substance of his speech, his style works uproariously with the masses. In the run-up to the 2014 election, so far, the Congress has been woefully short on ammo. Public-speaking disasters like Manmohan Singh or Rahul Gandhidon’t really compare. In such a scenario, it is not unusual for a non-Congress leader to step up and lead the secular campaign against Modi.

But measure the irony of it, the non-Congress leader who has emerged as Modi’s most vocal opposition is the one who ran a successful government with his party’s support until a few months ago. In fact, amid the usual and often tired secular chatter, Nitish was the first to challenge Modi by severing ties with the BJP on the issue of his anointment as the party’s prime ministerial candidate. Suddenly, Modi cannot get away with targeting only the Gandhis and the prime minister.

Nitish did business with the BJP for nearly a decade, dealing with the very leaders who have been cheering the phenomenal rise of Modi. At the same time, he was aware of his razor-thin majority minus the BJP and the mercurial nature of a number of his party leaders. He knew the implication of losing the numerical comfort of having theBJP’s support that helped him tide over revolts in the past. Already, senior leaders such as Shivanand Tiwari and Narendra Singh are proving to be quite a handful. Did Nitish risk his government and political future for a principled stand?

Or was he desperate to avoid a political fix where a BJP under Modi would become too prosperous and domineering a partner? Did he sacrifice the upper caste Hindu votes that his marriage with the BJP had earned him only to accommodate Muslim votes he hopes to attract after the separation? Did he anticipate Lalu Yadav’s conviction? And a shift of the RJD’s Yadav vote towards the BJP, leaving Lalu too weak to be considered dependable by the minority? Was he being opportunistic?

Those close to Nitish swear that he would not nurse any national ambition before securing his grip on Bihar. But did accolades from the likes of Amartya Sen make him impatient of Modi’s questionable claims of good governance? Did he see himself as the consensus Third Front candidate, if it comes to such an eventuality, for the top post? Is that why he has been soft on the Congress whose support will be crucial for such a deal?

Principled, desperate or opportunistic, Nitish’s consistent and fiery opposition to Modi’s rhetoric has already pivoted him to the centre of national politics where the Nitish-Modi duel is now followed as keenly as the Rahul-Modi story. That in itself is no mean achievement. But is Nitish punching above his weight? To make any difference in the post-poll scenario, the JD(U) chief must have enough MPs from Bihar, where his popularity has been sliding steadily since the phenomenal high of 2009.

Nitish has already charmed the anti-Modi constituency in the national debate. Question is, will Bihar be impressed?

Between Temples and Tigers

Bandipur’s brave plan to shift out forest temples stops shy of the big ones

Tehelka, 1 Nov, 2013

Three years ago, Hemraj Gujjar was killed by a tiger in Ranthambhore. He climbed quite a distance from Gopalpur village to enter the tiger reserve in Rajasthan and visited a Hanuman temple before setting off further to cut grass. The big cat probably mistook his crouching frame for a prey animal. Last week, I visited that temple atop Indala plateau. The only village on this 100-odd sq km flat table top was shifted out of the reserve in 2008. An amazing feat, considering its 50 families, in complete defiance of the Forest Department, sheltered 10,000-12,000 cattle from nearby villages every monsoon — year after year — on the Indala top. As a result, the landscape was grazed clean and rarely attractedwildlife.

Post-2008, nature made a comeback and the vegetation cover lured herbivores, tigers and outsiders like Hemraj. Since that tragedy, tiger numbers have increased further in Indala with cubs showing up at regular intervals. The rapid ecological turnaround has been a remarkable example of what removal of biotic pressure can achieve.

Indala’s Hanuman temple — one of the 100-odd spots of religious significance insideRanthambhore — has also flourished since. The absence of resident devotees is compensated by a steady trickle from peripheral villages. Not too far away, the ruins of a dargah draw another set of followers. Since 2008, the temple building and its Hanuman idol have become significantly bigger.

Devotees routinely add to temple infrastructure to please their gods and ensure facilities for themselves. Even inside the tourism zones of Ranthambhore, several ‘religious spots’ are flourishing openly. Not surprising because lakhs of pilgrims trample all over the reserve during the annual Ganesh festival every year. The best the administration can do is to clean up after the pilgrims. There is just no stopping the march of the devout.

That is why the Karnataka Forest Department’s bold decision to shift four temples out of Bandipur reserve has surprised many. The two bigger temples inside the reserve will stay put though. The flow of pilgrims, the reserve management told the media, will be controlled by banning the entry of private vehicles. The Forest Department will ferry and monitor the temple crowd.

Similar regulatory attempts have yielded precious little in the past. Be it in Rajasthan’s Sariska or Karnataka’s BR Hills, pilgrims have defied most restrictions. Thousands of temples and dargahs attract millions of pilgrims to protected forests. On the auspicious days every week, the crowds swell to thousands. It is impossible to monitor so many people trespassing, camping, playing music, burning firewood, carrying gas cylinders, bathing and littering inside forests. The open house also attracts poachers.

But the Indian reality is still more complex. The elements, trees and animals are worshipped in all Oriental religions. Religion has been the reason why most Indian societies are tolerant towards the wild. Growing population and shrinking wilderness have changed that equilibrium in recent times when even traditional lopping and cattle-grazing tends to wipe out entire forests.

Laws don’t permit pilgrims unrestricted access to protected forests. But laws need social resonance to be effective. Both rape and child marriage are illegal. But people don’t feel the same way about the two. Unlike collecting firewood or hunting, which are issues of material rights and determined by the ruler, religious rights have almost always been a given. So when they enter the forests in thousands, the pilgrims do not reckon they are breaking any law.

There is obvious strength in numbers. So Bandipur exempts the Gopalaswamy and the Belladakuppe temples. Ranthambhore simply holds its breath every Ganesh mela. Given that every unexplained ‘holy spot’ by the wayside has a tendency to grow into a major shrine, the tiger’s best chance lies in timely action. Forest authorities need to act before every vermillion-smeared stone gets a roof and a fence. Monkeys are tiger meal but the monkey god has more pull than the big cat.