Why is the right winning?

The past couple of years have been difficult for the Left liberals, in many countries. The Right has been gaining ground at the expense of a declining Left. The latest shock comes of course from the world’s oldest democracy, the US. The urban Americans were so shocked by a Trump win, that they took out protest rallies in major cities. Incidents of arson and vandalism were reported from many cities.

A New York Times report from May 2016 catalogued the rise of Right Wing and Far Right parties gaining traction in Europe. In countries like Germany where Right Wing parties seldom found any following, in the post war era, saw the rise of Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), a Right Wing populist party. Since 2014, AfD has won seats in ten out of the sixteen states in Germany. In France, Marine Le Pen’s Front National made inroads by winning seats in municipal and regional elections. The Telegraph, after the win of Donald Trump, reported that there is a chance that Marine Le Pen can actually win the French Presidency in 2017. Hungary has of course seen a steady support to its Right Wing coalition which came to power in 2010 and retained its majority in 2014.

The resurgence of Right Wing in Europe is not limited to large prosperous countries like Germany, France and the UK (which opted out of EU earlier this year in a popular referendum). Smaller countries like Netherland have also witnessed rise of Far Right parties like Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom, better known by its Dutch acronym PVV. The party has representations in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. In Austria, which saw the horrors of Second World War, Freedom Party won 35% votes in the first round of 2016 Presidential elections. It is indeed surprising that the region, which suffered the most under the Fascist regimes of Hitler and Mussolini would vote and elect Right Wing or Far Right parties. The question is why is this happening? The answer may lie in plain sight.

For too long after the Second World War, European and American politics tilted towards Left liberal politics, irrespective of the affiliations of the party in power. It was the era of political correctness and living in guilt of the War. It was also the time when decolonisation reached its peak with African and Asian colonies gaining self-rule. The Russian Revolution had established its stronghold on Russia and Central Asia and was now exporting Socialism to other parts of the world. The concept of equality and an egalitarian society were gaining currency. Just when the countries were coming out of the miseries of the War the Socialist movement swept the world. The Unions brought the UK to its knees, Germany reeled under the terror of Red Army Faction. Eastern Europe was for all practical purpose a puppet of Russia.

Before one starts fearing the change, it is necessary that one realizes that the Right Wing and Far Right of twenty first century is not gunning for mass murder. The invocation of Fascism by a large section of media to draw parallels with the current resurgence of Right wing movements is pure exaggeration at the least and fearmongering at worst. The section of media, which involves in scaremongering does so based on emotions and not on facts. It should be noted that in post war Europe and a large part of Asia the constitution of many countries went through changes and created robust institutions. The only exceptions are Monarchies and despotic Communist regimes. Power is no longer concentrated in one person and the complex web of multilateral institutions, trade blocs and intergovernmental bodies like the UN have created dependencies and control mechanisms.

Yes, I will ban burka by leaning a little on the Right.
Image credit - NorthBridge Times

So why is the Right winning? There are many reasons this can be attributed to. The prime reason being falling standards of living as a result of economic decline. Low fertility rates and emergence of Asia as the new hub of economic growth pushed many European countries and the US into an era of extremely slow growth. Large scale immigration from war torn countries of the Middle East and North Africa has caused social tensions and fear of additional economic hardship for the locals. To top it all the so called “reputed” and “respected” media is treading the “liberal” voice where left leaning policies are the solution to everything and fear of immigrants is simply put, bigotry. What the liberals do not realise is that there is considerable discrepancy between the media and voters’ opinion.

For too long people have heard the manufactured opinion of the media and have learnt to tell truth from propaganda. They see their own standards of living falling and fear for their children’s future. The dislike for the liberal policies is more because the same liberals have failed them in the past. The welfare state created by the past governments has made people dependent on the state and created a bloated bureaucracy. With falling growth prospects and fewer people entering the workforce, the welfare state started shrinking. More people were left to fend for themselves and the safety cushion provided by the state started crumbling.

With technology, access to information and news is easier than it was in the last decade. Social media has pushed news and opinion into our workplace, cafes, restaurants and bedrooms. This has led to a sharp polarization in public opinion. People are divided on ideological lines. While the elite toes the liberal line of an egalitarian society where immigrants are welcomed with open arms. The commoners want freedom from their miseries and hence look up to the Right, which promises them jobs, security, social order and more recently a reduction in immigration. The truth is that the elite will always have a louder voice but common people will have a higher vote share. And this is perhaps why the Right is winning.

Politics and violence, a curious case of the Red Brigade

Violence has always been a part of human behaviour. It manifests itself in different forms and degrees. Humans as hunter gatherers perpetrated violence by uprooting plants and killing animals to survive. Settlements led to periodic and sustained violence by clearing forests for agriculture, killing of pests to protect the produce and harvesting the crop to feed oneself. Over a period of time some forms of violence became acceptable. Survival is the biggest instinct and humans, like all other forms of life ensure that they survive as individuals and as a species. What was not acceptable was violence against a fellow human. It was branded as crime and attracted punishment, often punishable by another set of violent actions.

Humans have moved on from being mere hunter-gatherers and farmers. We have codified laws, which warn us against committing violence against fellow humans and animals. But violence still persists. Throughout history we have evidence of violence against fellow humans. The twentieth century saw some of the most heinous episodes of violence where millions perished. The concentration camps run by the Nazis across Europe, the death march of Armenians by Ottoman Turkey, the forced labour camps run by Stalin in Communist Russia, Mao’s Cultural Revolution and the great leap forward in Communist China, were all despicable acts of violence against fellow humans. The five episodes of mass violence claimed approximately 86 million people. Of this 77% or 67 million lost their lives in Communist Russia and China. The Red Brigade was a formidable force when it came to killing its own people.

The ideology of eliminating one’s opponent has not died down even after the death of Communism in both Russia and China. Both countries remain extremely authoritative and suppress rights of their own citizens. The Communist ideology has replicated its tendencies of eliminating its opponents where ever it went. India is no exception. The seven political murders this year in Kerala is a case in point.

The only two states where the Communists could ever win elections have seen one of the worst kinds of political killings. Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, then minister of Information and Cultural Affairs, in a response to an assembly question has stated that between 1977 and 1996, around 28,000 political murders took place in West Bengal. That is almost 3.8 murders a day. The political murders in West Bengal predate their accession of power in 1977. The Sainbari Killings of 1970 is one such incident where the Communists are believed to have fed rice drenched in blood of the victims to their mother. The political opponents of the Left who were killed belonged to the Congress and later on to the Trinamool Congress. The cycle has hardly stopped after a second round of resounding defeat of the Communists.

The state of affairs in Kerala is not much different. Only the number of murders are less. There are no reliable statistics available on the actual number of political killings in Kerala. However, an RTI response revealed that between 1997 and 2008, 56 people were killed in internecine violence. The numbers would have gone up since then. This year alone has seen seven political murders in Kerala, most of them from the Malabar region where the Communists have a strong support base.

It will be wrong to blame the Communists for the spate of political murder since many of the dead belonged to the Communist carders. The blame lies equally on the other side too. But then there is the question of, “why only states ruled/dominated by the Communist parties see such political killings”? The opponents of Communists, both the Congress and the BJP are in power in many states. We do not read about mass killings carried out by either the Congress or the BJP against each other in those states. It is always the states ruled or dominated by the Communist parties, from where such barbaric stories come from.

The red brigade in India is running a riot. Killing opponents instead of defeating them at the ballot. Their leaders have the courage to write opinion pieces and give television bytes to portray themselves as victims. As India becomes more educated, more aware and more informed, there is hope that the killing machines of Communist parties will be stopped, by Indians. 

When hatred becomes worship

Here, hold my liberal hand

So Donald Trump finally won. The prolonged campaign and bitter verbal duels between Clinton and Trump are behind us and the fact is sinking in slowly, for many people. But is Trump’s win really shocking? Yes, because we were made to believe that it is impossible. Because we were told for months together that Clinton is everything that America stands for, all the liberal ideas and egalitarian ideology that America represents. Trump on the other hand is a capitalist, has evaded taxes, is misogynist, homophobic, anti-immigrant, racist, etc. All this was told to us by the so called “respected” and “neutral” media. The CNNs and NYTs of the world rallied behind Clinton. Even our own media outlets were found sharing photo frames with Clinton. So yes, the people on the street actually believed that Trump is going to lose. So much so that Indians, many of whom who may not even have a passport, are angry at his win. They are outraged and shudder in disbelief.

As the postmortem of Clinton’s defeat or Trump’s win unfolds in news studios in the next days, one of the facts that will stand out is the adverse impact of the extreme negative campaigns that the media together with Clinton ran against Trump. It was all about how bad trump is. It was never about what Clinton will do to bring back jobs and growth to America. Even if there were things that Clinton said about jobs and growth, they were drowned by the reports of what Trump said.

A prolonged negative campaign always backfires. No matter how undeserving the target is. We saw it in Lok Sabha elections in 2014 and we saw it this week in America. The lesson: common people on street are not bothered about how bad someone is. In desperate times the people worry more about jobs and economic security more than the self-actualization goals like social equality and immigration. The point was completely lost by the “liberal” media and the Champagne/Limousine socialists who feed them content.

The Indian media is increasingly looking like the out of touch American media. We are constantly fed with opinions in the name of news and debates. We are made see things from a thick coloured glass. The glass, which is dipped and let to soak in the “liberal” coulours by the m

edia. Be it anti-terrorist operations in Kashmir or shooting down of a suspected terror boat near our maritime borders or demonetizing of high value currency to tackle the black money problem. We are always fed with biased views. We are told why the government is wrong. Glorification of hardened terrorists, candle light vigils for condemned terrorists and shooting from the shoulders of daily wagers to counter the demonetizing drive is all passed as news and freedom of speech. Of course with a liberal sprinkling of cries of “stifling press freedom”.

The media has crossed the line between news and opinion. What they don’t realise is that in this age of social media and alternate platforms to access news, their biased opinions are falling flat. What they also fail to realise is that extreme forms of hate against a group or individual is always counterproductive. As Devdutt Pattanaik in his recent post wrote that hatred leads to reverse devotion. What it also leads to is awakening of the masses. People start thinking. This is where the game ends for the media.

Once a seed of thought is planted it quickly grows into a tree, which bears fruits of realisations. People see the double standards behind which the elite and Champagne socialists or private jet socialists (as the case of Clinton is) hide. The Indian media should realise that they are not catering to a country of snake charmers. We have left those days behind us. It is now time for them to wake up and redraw the line between news and opinion. Let people know what the media house stands for and which way it leans. 

Equality and religion

It was the year 1982 when Bollywood blockbuster Nikah was released. The movie touched upon the subject of interpretation of talaq or divorce in the Muslim community. Interestingly the movie was originally named, Talaq Talaq Talaq but was later renamed Nikah. The fear being a Muslim husband telling his wife about the plans to watch Talaq Talaq Talaq on the weekend and ending up divorcing her.

The movie was a reflection of the then prevailing social mood. The Shah Bano case was hotly debated in the press. Just two years ago in 1982, the Madhya Pradesh High Court had given Shah Bano an enhanced maintenance of ₹179.20 per month.

In 1985 a division bench of the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court of the enhanced alimony to Shah Bano. In 1986, the government of Rajiv Gandhi passed an act, the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 to dilute the Supreme Court judgement and effectively refuse alimony. Apparently to protect the Muslim vote bank. It is 2016 and things have not changed since.

Recently the Supreme Court, which is hearing petitions from four Muslim woman (including one Shayra Bano) demanding a ban on the practice of Triple Talaq and polygamy has demanded a response from the union government on the issue. As we see, between two Banos, separated by three decades the issue still persists. The plight of Salma Agah in Nikah is still relevant.

The union government in its affidavit has effectively opposed the practice of triple talaq and termed it as a hurdle to gender equality. In the affidavit the government has cited many cases from India and abroad and has even listed down the countries where such practices are banned. The All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB), which is an NGO and has no authority on Muslim personal law, too has filed an affidavit where they cite the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986 as sufficient to protect a divorced woman. The irony is that an act, which was meant to dilute the decision of Supreme Court is being cited to the same court as an excuse.

But is the current debate about gender equality or infringement of religious rights? Or about equality of the individual? Many people are making it a Muslim issue and some so called feminists are actually siding with regressive organisations like the AIMPLB because the government of the day is not to their liking. The article by Flavia Agnes in Economic & Political Weekly, a left leaning publication is a case in point. In her May 2016 article she blames Shayra Bano for not using the existing “remedies” available to her and. “why did Shayara Bano accept this torture for 15 years”? She asks. Much like the people who question the courage of women who report rape long after it has taken place. She also paints her lawyer as “little known” and seeker of “instant fame”. The self-proclaimed liberal and socialists like the Communist Party of India, Marxist (CPIM) go on to say that the Supreme Court’s recommendation of a uniform civil code will be a threat to national integration.

The point such people are missing is that it is not about the “majoritarian oppression” or “homogenization” as they like to call it. It is about providing equal rights to all the citizens. Be it Flavia Agnes or the CPIM or the AIMPLB, they are acting on personal and political agenda instead of working towards creating a society where an individual’s religion does not decide how they are treated.

In matters of personal laws like marriage, divorce, inheritance and child custody there are different laws for different religions. While a Muslim woman may be forced to share her husband with another woman only because as a Muslim the personal law allows polygamy. On the other hand a Hindu woman is legally protected from polygamy. A Muslim or a Christian family is not allowed to file their income taxes as a unit, while a Hindu Undivided Family can file its income tax as a unit. There is uncertainty about divorces ordered by the ecclesiastical courts, since they are not recognised by the law. Former attorney general, Soli Sorabjee, while appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in Supreme Court to recognise the ecclesiastical courts cites the Muslim personal law and the practice of triple talaq as an excuse.

The matter of abolishing personal laws in favour of a single civil code should be seen as not just gender equality but as the equality of the individual. We do not need laws based on religion. We need laws based on equality, laws that are in sync with the times we live in. Imagine a lunatic Hindu, petitioning the Supreme Court seeking reinstatement of Sati because it is a “religious practice”.

Saudi Vision 2030, also known as Utopia

Mohammed bin Salma, the thirty year old deputy crown prince of Saudi Arabia, has just announced his country’s transition to Utopia. He calls it, Saudi Vision 2030. The concept essentially envisages a day when the Saudis will learn living without oil, or rather the money earned from oil. To achieve this a sovereign wealth fund is on the anvil. When created it will have assets worth US$ 2 trillion (according to IMF estimates, India’s GDP for the year 2015-16 was US$ 2.4 trillion). Bin Salman, second in line to the throne, also hinted at social reforms in an ultra-conservative country. He touched upon sensitive matters like women’s rights. He wants the country to start living off oil, 2020 onward. This means reducing subsidies and introducing taxes. All This will happen in just about three and a three quarters of a year from now. 

Such news makes extremely good global PR. You can read the coverage by Bloomberg, The Wall Street Journal, Reuters, The Economist, etc. But the PR apart, is the Kingdom ready for the bold steps the prince proposes? Indian Affair thinks it is not. Here is why –

The foundation

The entire euphoria the prince is trying to generate is based on an assumption that 5% of Aramco (the state oil company and apparently the largest corporation in the world) will fund the Saudi Utopia. However the problem is that no one knows what the actual worth of Aramco really is. There are no records in public domain and given the oil prices plummeting to US$ 40 a barrel, the crude under Aramco’s control might be worth much less now. Another problem is the location of oil. Most of the oil in Saudi Arabia sits on its eastern coast. That is also the region with a restive Shia  population (who are systematically persecuted by the Sunni majority). The most serious of the problems is transparency. In his prerecorded telecast the prince did not give details of how the wealth fund will be created or how the citizens will be impacted by subsidy cuts. The economic situation of the country is not pretty. Various reports suggest a huge budget deficit in the range of 13% - 15% for the year 2015. The country is expected to run high budget deficit in the next four years. The foundation of the dream is indeed shaky.

The society

Saudi Arabia is the most populous of all the GCC countries. With a large population comes the responsibility of feeding it. The Saudi citizens get unimaginable subsidies like a tax free income (both personal and corporate), heavily subsidized food (the price of a three liter milk can, at SAR 10, has not changed since at least 2010), cheap petrol and no taxes like VAT, GST or sales/service tax. These subsidies however benefit even the resident expats. On top of these are subsidies for overseas education, a lavish unemployment allowance (estimated 30 – 40% youth unemployment), soft loans to purchase residential land, a free hand in importing cheap labour from Asia, protection from foreign competition by forced partnerships with local firms (HSBC is called SAAB in Saudi Arabia), etc.

I shalt take back the subsidies from thee
Photo courtesy - Bloomberg

Like all authoritarian regimes (the Communists, the theocracies and monarchies), Saudi Arabia too has bought legitimacy by bribing its citizens with freebies. Take these freebies away from them and the subjects will rise and challenge the authority. The recent hike in water and petrol prices met with strong Twitter protests (the only uncensored protest platform). Such was the outburst that the minister for water and electricity was sacked, for his “poor handling of price increase". One can only imagine how the citizens will react if the government introduces taxes, while at the same time asks the unemployed to forego the allowance and actually work.

The women in Saudi Arabia are a suppressed lot, mandatory covering up in the abayya, no driving, male consent for surgery and overseas travel, arbitrary divorce, no jobs and so on. While the prince has some bright ideas to emancipate women, slowly; certain sections of the society might not be ready for such reforms, that they might find “radical”.

Saudi Arabia was far more liberal in the 70s than it in the twenty first century. But things changed after the siege of Mecca in November 1979, the same year the Islamic Revolution in Iran overthrew the Pahlavi dynasty. Post the siege the monarchy was forced by the Wahhabis to impose an austere or rather a radicalized version of Islam on its people. Public beheadings are common and laws are not codified. Social changes proposed by the prince might face stiff resistance from the powerful Wahhabis and the citizens alike. Weaning off a population addicted to freebies and alienating the clergy can be an explosive mix in a conservative country like Saudi Arabia.

The Utopia

The target of 2020 to start living without oil money is not ambitious by foolhardy. The general population has long resented the lavish lifestyle of the royal family. The stories of the king and his entourage spending millions on shopping in Marbella have earned enough bad press. The people feel that the royal family is having a good time at the cost of its own citizens. Now when the prince finally promises them Utopia, he wants to make their lives more miserable by cutting down subsidies and imposing taxes. A double whammy.

There are far too many risks in implementing the plan 2030. The risk of the citizens turning against the monarchy, the expats not willing to come to the country because the social reforms are too slow for their comfort and cost of living too high post the economic reforms and finally the clergy denouncing the establishment of walking away from the religion.

The environment

The reforms apart, the monarchy will have to survive in the dynamic environment the world is functioning. It has to survive the drastic steps that are being taken around the world to minimize oil dependency. Commercial nuclear fusion energy is in sight in a few decades, countries are planning to ban oil run cars, bio fuels are tested for both cars and aircraft and solar is coming up in a big way. India plans to add 20,000 MW of grid connected solar power by 2020.

Given the global aversion of oil dependence and a reducing crude price, the US$ 2 trillion wealth fund looks a bit too far away. What looks scarily close is the Corniche in Jeddah, swarmed by the Saudis seeking elections to the presidential office. 

Kashmir and The Economist's gossip column

Welcome to Kashmir
Image courtesy - IBTimes

There is never a dull time to write about Kashmir. The place is always on the edge. Sometimes due to an infiltration bid from Pakistan or there are mass protests by the locals. While the Indian army does a good job at containing the infiltration attempts, nothing much has changed when it comes to locals protesting. Friday afternoons, after the prayer, are a preferred time for protests. Masked men would raise anti-India slogans and wave Pakistani flags. They would have an immediate audience of people returning from the prayers (Friday prayers are kind of mandatory in Islam and mosques witness a high attendance compared to other days). Till some time ago the protesters would wave Pakistani flags to show their support towards Kashmir’s accession to Pakistan, i.e. secession from India. Things have taken an alarming trend ever since the Islamic State came into being. The protesters now wave IS flags, probably showing support to the brutal terror outfit.

The story of Kashmir is complicated and there are no immediate answers to the problem, especially when Pakistan is illegally occupying almost a third of the territory. This blogpost is not an attempt to find solution to the Kashmir problem or to assign blame for the mess the place is in today. This is in response to a recent article that appeared in The Economist. Titled “Kashmir in stasis – Rough sleeping”, the article is an attempt to highlight the recent bout of violence that resulted in five people losing their lives.

The article, full of rhetoric and very little substance seems to be an attempt at “covering India” in each of its issues. The Economist wants to increase its subscription base in India and hence gives extra coverage to stories from the country. No harm in that. With dwindling subscriptions in mature markets in the West, India is the obvious market. China being a tough nut due to its extremely strict media censorship.

Back to the article. The article begins with, “MUSLIMS know the parable as the story of the People of the Cave: some men fall asleep and find, on waking, that centuries have passed and the world is transformed. The people of the Kashmir valley in the lush uplands of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir have their own version”.

Well, it’s not just the Muslims of the valley who know this parable, the Hindus of the valley, who were systematically murdered of forced to flee their homes in hundreds of thousands are equally aware of that.

“Ever since 1947, when they found themselves east of an active frontline between the two new states of India and Pakistan, valley folk have watched the world evolve”.

The Kashmiri people did not find themselves between two new states. The state of Kashmir acceded to India (just like the 550 princely states did after 1947), after Pakistan attacked the territory by infiltrating tribal people and army men without insignia.

“And still the valley’s 7m people, who speak their own unique language, are nearly all Muslim and generally disdain India and Pakistan alike, remain hapless pawns in a vicious game between those rivals”.

Kashmiris speak a unique language just like millions of other Indians speak theirs. There are 22 scheduled languages in India. The population of Kashmir is 96.4% (census 2011) Muslim, largely because the Hindus were kicked out of their homes or murdered by the Kashmiri people in 1990. As far as the “disdain” is concerned, The Economist should recall that 65% eligible Kashmiris turnedout to cast their votes in the 2014 state elections. Not sure where the statistics for “disdain” were dug out from.

“Some facts are clear. Anger at the Indian army’s heavy presence is explosive”.

Of course people will not like to live in a virtual army barrack all their lives. But then what exactly are these people doing to come out of this? Waving Pakistan flags or IS flags will definitely not help the army in reducing their presence. The recent events in Paris & Brussels are case in point where a handful of terrorists unleashed mayhem in an otherwise peaceful city.

“Security forces are quick to shoot, and keen to divert attention from their misconduct”.

This is what is known as a “motherhood statement”. Where are the facts? Where is the source? On the contrary here is a video evidence, which suggests that the security forces actually put their own lives in danger and get beatenup by the locals instead of randomly firing at protestors.

“Few in Kashmir doubt which version is closer to the truth. They have too often heard of sexual abuse by soldiers, and of police framing scapegoats”.

Again The Economist reports like a gossip column quoting hearsay instead of credible sources. People can read The Sun if they want gossip, why bother competing with it?

“Incidents like this often lead to escalating protests and shootings, and end in inquiries with no result”.

Another motherhood statement without any source.

“Some 40,000 people, by official count, have died in the valley since 1990, when a bloody insurgency covertly sponsored by Pakistan provoked a brutal Indian crackdown”.

After carefully establishing that the army in the valley is cruel and brutal and the peaceful, stuck-in-between Kashmiris are the victims, the article come up with a figure of 40,000 dead, subtly implying that these were people killed by the army. This is called “misleading” the readers. The 40,000 includes civilians killed by terrorists & terrorists killed by security forces. Also The Economist should give some editorial space to the fact that the “quick to shoot” security forces came to the valley only after the locals took to insurgency.

“In recent years Pakistan has throttled the flow of arms”.

This is the most ludicrous statement made by The Economist in the entire article. Well if Pakistan has “throttled” the flow of arms, then where exactly do the terrorists get the arms before they try to sneak in across the Line Of Control? There is no evidence of the terrorists having a 3D printer where they can print their assault rifles.

“Dependent on income from tourism, the wider public has scant appetite for jihadist heroics against India’s massive might”.

This is true but then the wider public has never really made these feelings public. There are more rallies and shutdowns in support of theterrorist separatists than against them.

“It’s been 26 years since militancy peaked, but there is more anger and alienation among the youth now than then,” says Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, a separatist leader”.

What else does one expects to hear from a “separatist leader”?

“We want to keep resistance peaceful, but it’s very hard when India bans every outlet for protest or debate, and in fact doesn’t even acknowledge that there is a problem.” 

Of course India will not recognize the problem, i.e. the problem of Kashmir seceding from India (azadi as they call it), because there is no legal basis for that.

The separatists want to move away from India only because they think Muslims cannot live with a Hindu majority India. They sincerely believe in the two nation theory proposed by Jinnah, which led to partition of India. What Mirwaiz doesn’t acknowledge is that the theory has been proved wrong, many times over, in the country Jinnah created. Pakistan has been a hotbed of ethnic and religious unrest ever since it was created.

The Islamic state of Pakistan has a simmering insurgency in Balochistan, where the Pakistani army randomly picks up men, women and children and dumps their mutilated bodies along highways. Read here, here and here. The North Western region of Pakistan has long been a secure hideout for Al-Qaeda and Taliban. The Provinces of Punjab and Sindh witness regular terror attacks carried out by the Pakitani Taliban. Ahmadiand Shia Muslims are brutally massacred on the streets and their places of worship blown up. So much for the two nation theory.

To sum up, the story The Economist is trying to tell is one that of rhetoric and extremely poor research, even gossip masquerading as hearsay in some cases. We understand that you want to improve your subscription base in India (which has more English speaking people than the population of United Kingdom), but to merely fill the “India section” you should not resort to reducing yourself to a Tabloid.

Bengal on its way to become Kashmir

There are many ways to remain relevant in politics. One way is to make realistic promises before elections and working hard to fulfil them once the electorate handover their trust to you by electing you. But come on, that happens only in Bollywood. So the second way is to make exaggerated promises, offer bribes in form of television sets, laptops, smartphones and so on and win the election. However there is a third way, a time tested one at that. In here you identify the block of voters who can be manipulated, nurture them by offering irrelevant but perceived goodies like a stipend for their religious leaders, land grants for their schools and turning a blind eye to crime emanating from the places they live in. You become so dependent on them for your political relevance that there comes a time when, what seemed like patronising looks more like appeasement but it actually is giving up control.

When fire engulfs your turf.
Picture Courtesy - India Today

This is what has happened in West Bengal. The government of Ms Mamata Banerjee has lost control over a large territory in the state. West Bengal was never a peaceful state. With the first street battles of Naxal bari, culminating into a three decade long stagnation supervised by the Communist Party of India (Marxist), yes the same Marx, whose ideology killed millions in Soviet Russia and Maoist China, the state has always been a den of violence. But that discussion is for another day. To get a sense of the level of anarchy prevailing in the state, Indian Affair conducted a simple Google search for “West Bengal blast 2015”. The search yielded a NDTV link siting at least seven instances of blasts where people have been killed or injured. Read the reports here, here, here, here, here, here and here. To top this all was, the now forgotten, Burdwan blast where two women, members of an Islamist terror organisation, were killed. The house was owned by a Trinamool Congress leader, Hasan Chowdhury.

If these seven instances of blasts were not enough there were at least three instances of the police seizing arms cache, read the reports here, here and here. If bomb blasts and illegal arms turning up like soft serve ice cream every now and then is not losing control over territory then what else is? Perhaps it will take something more drastic for Ms Banarjee to see in, which drain her state is drowning. So here is more. As fresh as today, a report from India Today claims 80,000 bigha (32,000 acres) of farm land is being used for poppy cultivation in the district of Malda. The district administration is scared for their lives and do not venture into these pockets and obviously Ms Banerjee has no problems with this small poppy garden in her backyard.

Not many news shops covered Malda in early days of January when an estimated mob of 2.5 lakh people marched the streets, ran a riot, burnt down a police station, set police vehicles on fire and pelted stones at policemen fleeing the scene. Ms Banerjee was at least swift to take action this time. She ordered immediate refurbishment of the police station and ensured no traces of the arson and riot were left behind. She really is the Maa in “Maa Maati Manush”, saving her kids from harm’s way.

West Bengal shares an international border with Bangladesh, a very porous one at that. Forget flinging rice sacks across the fence, cattle and women are trafficked with ease, sometimes one can’t tell one from the other. Then there is the case of fake currency smuggling. Any sensible person heading a sensitive state like West Bengal will do their best to ensure law and order and reclaiming the lost territory. But Ms Banerjee has a different plan. Perhaps she wants to gift India another Kashmir. A border state with worsening law and order situation, large swathes of territory ceded to criminals, smugglers and terrorists. A bomb blast a month, madarsas doubling up as terrorist hideouts. And a flourishing mini Afghanistan in a poppy garden.

West Bengal is slipping away under the supervision of Ms Banerjee and she is not bothered. The bigger question, however is, who else can stop this?