The Story Of Ukraine: Lessons For India

Ukraine is the second largest nation in Europe after Russia. It was once a repository of Soviet nuclear weapons. After the breakup of the erstwhile USSR, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons under Western (meaning mostly US) guarantees, and signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty in 1994. The other guarantors were Russia (which is like the ‘wolf bivouacked at the door’ in the adage) and the UK which was reduced by then—to use Mao's famous phrase—a ‘paper tiger’. France and China, the other two powers in the United Nations Security Council offered insincere, anodyne guarantees. In hindsight, it might appear, had Ukraine retained its nuclear weapons, Russia might not have dared occupying Crimea in 2014 or sought to occupy more regions now. There would have been no Ukraine-Russia conflict!

In about twenty-four years, between 1991 when Ukraine became an independent nation and 2014, Ukraine’s NATO membership application was left hanging. In 2014, Russia occupied Crimea under the pretext that it was concerned about Ukraine joining NATO. Crimea, the southern peninsular third of Ukraine is known for its warm water ports and has strategic importance for both Ukraine and Russia.

Russia might have had a ‘genuine’ concern about Ukraine joining NATO. It would have tilted the power balance in Europe as the induction of Ukraine would have definitely strengthened NATO. In spite of that not one Western power came to Ukraine's rescue in the last eleven years.

The First Lesson 

In international diplomacy, every nation looks for its self-interest. The concept of ‘altruism’ is absent. It was always self-interest behind the long series of US interventions beginning with Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Kuwait and other nations. The concepts of ‘neo-colonialism’ and ‘banana republics’ are byproducts of self-interest. The principle was the same when the ‘super powers’ refused to intervene in conflicts. In 1950 China was a weak nation; yet when she occupied Tibet neither the USA nor the USSR thought it fit to intervene, as they had no benefit in the bargain. India had—she lost a buffer state—but she meekly surrendered her stake citing some ‘highfalutin’ principles. She would rue her inaction in 1955-57 and in 1962, but by then it was far, far too late.  

The Second Lesson 

During the seventy years between 1919 when the USSR came into existence and its break up in 1990, Russia had systematically altered the demographic balance in Ukraine by settling ethnic Russians there in large numbers. These include, in addition to southern and eastern parts of Crimea, the Donbas region, particularly the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. In case of an armed conflict, the Russified parts of Ukraine may side with Russia.

China used the same strategy of altering the demographics in Tibet and Xinjiang (it calls them autonomous regions) by settling ethnic Chinese there in huge numbers.

Illegal infiltration from Bangladesh into West Bengal and Assam began soon after the 1971 war. The initial refugees were mostly Bengali Hindus. They were given asylum as a genuine humanitarian measure. The Left-Front which came to power in 1977 saw a captive vote bank in illegal immigrants and encouraged rather than controlled illegal immigration. This coupled with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism saw rapid influx of illegal immigrants. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism saw in the melee an opportunity to espouse its version of Lebenshraum.

The Left-Front government, bolstered by the power of illegal immigrant vote lasted for thirty-three years. In 2011, the Left-Front lost power but the illegal immigrant vote did not! The Left-Front’s successor, the TMC used the same copybook to ride to power. Any change in the government did not matter to the illegal immigrants. To the utter chagrin of the Commies, the illegal immigrants retained their ‘collective bargaining power’ without the necessity or hassle of loyalty to the nation.

The Left-Front lost power but the copybook survived. Intimidated by the rising tide of genuine nationalism, other political parties cottoned on to the political dividends of captive vote banks of illegal immigrants. Thanks to the patronage of these political parties, we now have illegal immigrants in as far-removed regions from the eastern borders as Telangana, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Delhi and Jammu & Kashmir. These political parties might someday realize their folly as the Commies did in 2011, but by then it would be far, far too late.

The numbers of illegal immigrants swelled and swelled to the extent that it had changed the demographic map of the entire east and northeast. If India were to face a war with neighbouring Bangladesh or internal strife the loyalties of the illegal immigrants would be severely tested. But by then it might be far, far too late. There is already a nexus between Pakistan and Bangladesh and the Pakistani ‘field marshal’ threatened that if India carried out ‘Operation Sindoor’ any further as it professed, she would be surprised by attacks from the east.

How and why exactly Trump thought he could ‘discipline’ India is difficult to understand. It could be his overweening yearning for a Nobel Peace Prize or monumental ego blinded him! Irrespective of whichever party was in power, India pursued its own course. The Indira Gandhi government in 1974 and the Atal Behari Vajpayee government in 1998 braved sanctions to conduct nuclear tests. Trump might not have understood the self-confidence, nationalist spirit and vigour of the new Indian administration which shed its colonial inhibitions. However, his tariff threats resulted in a wholly unintended consequence, causing a thaw in India China relations. 

At this point in time, it is difficult to gauge whether the course India is pursuing is right or wrong. China once betrayed India and is in illegal occupation of large swathes of Indian territory. It is not a trustworthy neighbour. But, despite protestations to the contrary, both India and China probably realize that Aksai Chin and Arunachal Pradesh are fait accompli. In Chess terms, there is a stalemate. Neither government can however openly admit it. Doing so would result in loss of face and power.

Under the circumstances, the Indian government’s move of cosying up to China is another move on the international chess board. It might be a hard gamble. None can predict its outcomes. Only future will tell! 

Information wars: Legacy vs new media

In July 2018, a UK parliamentary committee warned “that spread of fake news online threatens the future of democracy” (“Fake news threatens the future of UK: report”, Aljazeera, July, 29, 2018). In recent times there have been similar calls from several democratic nations including India. The object of the parliamentary committee enquiry was Facebook, and the “possible interference by foreign governments—including Russia in UK political campaigns via the platform”. The committee was specifically interested in determining whether Moscow had funded political advertisements during the 2016 Brexit referendum which resulted in the UK leaving the European Union. Much water has flown down the Thames, the Potomac—and the Yamuna since then! In January 2025, Mark Zuckerberg conceded that Facebook’s “Factcheckers have just been too politically biased.” (“Why did Mark Zuckerberg end Facebook and Instagram’s factchecking program?”, The Guardian, Jan 7, 2025) The Guardian could not resist a dig at Zuckerberg. It said his shifting to the right followed “the prevailing political winds blowing through the United States”. In the same month, Zuckerberg apologized to the Indian Information Technology minister for insinuating that the Indian government had lost power in the post-Covid era. (MetaIndia apologises for Mark Zuckerberg’s remarks on 2024 Indian elections, CNBC TV18, January 15, 2025).

In 2019 The Washington Post published an article entitled “Fake news is bad for democracy” (April 5). The visual that accompanied the article leaves no one in doubt as to the source of fake news. It shows a mobile home-screen with several chatting applications and WhatsApp specifically mentioned in its blurb. Arguing that “Unreliable information shapes voter choices—and election outcomes” the paper called for government regulation of the social media. 

In 2023 The Washington Post took on the microblogging platform, Twitter. It reported on February 16, 2023, “Elon Musk reinvents Twitter for the benefit of a power user: Himself”. Musk hit back: “Elon Musk Blasts The Washington Post: Your Article Is Fase” (The Street, February 17, 2023). On October 27, 2023, the Post published another article entitled “A year later, Musk’s X is tilting right. And sinking”. In the article (which was kept out of the paywall), the Post’s analysts saw a rise in the follower count of “conservative and right-wing influencers” while the “popular liberal and left-wing accounts” did not show the same pattern. On the same day, The New York Times commented, “Now rebranded as X, the site has experienced a surge in racist, antisemitic and other hateful speech.” A The ordinary reader is confused. Why are national mainstream newspapers (or legacy media) paranoid about new media platforms? The congruence of thought of the rivals makes it clear that it is as much an ideological war as a turf war.  

Facebook which debuted in 2004 and Twitter (X) in 2006 really opened up the floodgates for those who wanted to express themselves in long or short form respectively, on any topic under the sun. YouTube (2005) and WhatsApp (2009) were really disruptive technologies but it would be some time before they really skewed the information sharing game! It was the smartphone beginning with the launch of iPhone in 2007 that gave wings to social media platforms. 

The recent infusion of artificial intelligence applications (and their ability to create deepfakes) into the melee was like unleashing a Frankenstein monster that changed the social media landscape forever. We have seen how a cropped video posted on Twitter led to mob violence; driving a young woman politician to living life incognito; at least two murders, and mob calls for avenging alleged ‘blasphemy’. Earlier, replies to social media posts led to murder and mayhem in UP and Karnataka. The Indian general election results in 2024 were believed to have been skewed by AI generated deepfake videos circulated in populous state like UP and Maharashtra. The high decibel, jingoistic Republican political campaign in the 2024 American presidential election made expatriate Indians target of hate groups on social media.   

Does it mean that the legacy media is lilywhite in its conduct? A ‘national’ newspaper donning the mantle of a ‘whistleblower’ submitted cropped pdfs as evidence in the Supreme Court when the government’s Rafale aircraft deal was challenged in 2018. There were occasions when slanted headlines and deflecting visuals were used. For example, while reporting news of a cleric molesting a girl, the headline states “Tantric molests minor” and the visual is that of a Hindu priest irrespective of the creed of the alleged criminal. 

However, every misinformation (or disinformation) need not be because of ‘malice aforethought’. In their rush to meet deadlines and beat the competition, newspapers willy-nilly publish unverified reports. In his 2021 book “The Gray Lady Winked”, Ashley Rindsberg narrates how a frontpage report in the “The New York Times” could have given Hitler post-facto justification for his invasion of Poland, which was the spark that ignited the second world war. Rindsberg says his attention was drawn to a NYT report by a footnote in William Shirer’s classic The Rise and Fall of the Third Reigh (1962, p.595). The report was about an attack on the Gleiwitz radio station on the Germany-Poland border. It was a simulated attack to convince the world that Poland attacked Germany. Hitler’s own SS forces personnel donned Polish army uniforms to stage the attack and to make it look realistic, drugged inmates of concentration camps were left dying there to appear as ‘casualties’. Rindsberg observed “Rather than fitting the pattern to the facts, the Times too often gave in to the temptation to fit the facts to a preconceived pattern.” To be factual, the footnote Rindsberg referred to said “The New York Times and other newspapers reported it, as well as similar incidents, in their issues of September 1, 1939.” The objective of Hitler’s disinformation campaign was served when American newspapers bought into his narrative and gave it legitimacy!

‘Information-misinformation-disinformation wars’ is an unfolding story! The last word on the subject will be long in coming!   

An earlier version of the article was published in TheTimes of India Blogs 

Hinduism Spiritual in Content, Scientific in Approach, Universal in Appeal: Swami Vivekananda

At the World Parliament of Religions in Chicago in 1893, Swamy Vivekananda bowed to the goddess Saraswati mentally, then began his speech with the salutation,

"Sisters and brothers of America!". To these words he got a standing ovation from a crowd of thousands, which lasted for two minutes. When silence was restored, he continued his address: "I thank you in the name of the most ancient order of monks in the world; I thank you in the name of the mother of religions; and I thank you in the name of millions and millions of Hindu people of all classes and sects."

Here is the transcript of the chat on the subject on Grok

Swamy Vivekananda’s speech may be summarized in this sentence: "Hinduism is a religion that is spiritual in content, scientific in approach and universal in appeal." According to you which is the best religion in the world? 

Swami Vivekananda’s statement highlights three key attributes he ascribes to Hinduism: spiritual depth, a scientific approach, and universal appeal. To address your question, let’s consider whether these qualities appear in other religions and then reflect on the notion of "greatness."

 

Buddhism, for instance, shares some parallels. Its spiritual content is evident in practices like meditation and the pursuit of enlightenment, which focus on inner transformation. A scientific approach could be argued through its emphasis on empirical observation of the mind and suffering, as seen in the Four Noble Truths—almost like a diagnostic framework for human experience. Its universal appeal is reflected in its adaptability across cultures, from India to East Asia and now the West, often without requiring belief in a deity. The Buddhist texts, like the Abhidharma, also analyze consciousness and phenomena in a systematic way that some liken to early psychology or philosophy of science.

 

Jainism offers another example. Spiritually, it emphasizes non-violence (ahimsa) and self-discipline to liberate the soul. Its scientific bent shows in its detailed cosmology and atomistic theories, such as the concept of anu (atoms) in Jain texts like the Tattvartha Sutra, which predate modern physics. Its universal appeal lies in its ethical framework, applicable beyond cultural or religious boundaries, though it remains less widespread than Hinduism or Buddhism.

 

Taoism, too, could fit. Its spiritual core is the Tao, an ineffable principle of harmony. Its scientific approach might be seen in its observations of nature’s cycles—yin and yang, the Five Elements—which influenced Chinese medicine and philosophy. Its universal appeal is in its simplicity and focus on balance, resonating across cultures, though it’s often more philosophical than overtly religious in practice.

 

As for Christianity or Islam, their spiritual content is undeniable—faith, salvation, submission to God. A scientific approach is less intrinsic, though historical figures like Al-Farabi or Aquinas integrated reason and observation into theology, and medieval Islamic scholars advanced astronomy and mathematics. Universal appeal? Both have spread globally, claiming transcendence over cultural limits, though often tied to specific doctrines less flexible than Hinduism’s pluralism.

 

No religion matches Hinduism’s exact blend—its Vedic and post-Vedic texts, like the Upanishads and Smritis, do weave spirituality with inquiries into cosmology, mathematics (e.g., Baudhayana’s Sulba Sutras approximating √2), and medicine (Ayurveda). But "greatest" is subjective. If greatness hinges on these three attributes alone, Hinduism stands out for its synthesis. Yet, other religions might claim supremacy through moral clarity, community, or historical impact. It’s a matter of what you value—Hinduism’s not uniquely "the greatest" unless you define greatness by Vivekananda’s yardstick. What’s your take on what makes a religion great? 

The following prompt was given to further refine the answer: 

For example, Hinduism does not have concepts like apostacy, blasphemy and heresy. In fact it has accommodated the views of the 'nāstik', who in Indian philosophical thought were not non-believers but those who did not accept the Veda-s as standard. Those who believed in the Veda-s as standard are known as the 'āstik'. Thus Hinduism (to use a commonly understood term for 'Sanātana Dharma') has three āstik streams Advaita, Dvaita and Viśiṣṭādvaita and six nāstik streams, Cārvāka, Jaina and Bauddha, counting its four denominations. No other religious thought is as accommodative as Hinduism. Considering these factors should it not be concluded that Hinduism fits into Swami Vivekananda's aphorism and can be termed the 'greatest' religion?

 The reply: 

You’re zeroing in on a compelling angle: Hinduism’s remarkable inclusivity, especially its accommodation of diverse philosophical streams, both āstik (Veda-accepting) and nāstik (Veda-rejecting). This flexibility does align tightly with Vivekananda’s triad—spiritual content, scientific approach, and universal appeal—and it’s worth unpacking how this sets Hinduism apart.

 

The absence of rigid concepts like apostasy, blasphemy, or heresy is striking. Unlike Abrahamic traditions, where deviation from doctrine can lead to excommunication or worse, Hinduism—or Sanātana Dharma—embraces a spectrum of thought. The āstik schools, like Advaita (non-dualism), Dvaita (dualism), and Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified non-dualism), debate the nature of reality and the self, yet coexist under the Vedic umbrella. Meanwhile, the nāstik streams—Cārvāka (materialism), Jainism, and Buddhism (with its four denominations)—reject Vedic authority but aren’t cast out as heretical. They’re part of the broader conversation. Cārvāka’s skepticism, for instance, challenges metaphysical claims with a proto-scientific insistence on perception as proof, while Jainism and Buddhism offer their own spiritual and ethical systems. This isn’t just tolerance—it’s a structural openness baked into the tradition.

 

That openness feeds Vivekananda’s points. Spiritually, Hinduism spans the mystical introspection of the Upanishads to the devotional fervor of Bhakti. Scientifically, its texts explore logic (Nyaya), linguistics (Vyakarana), and even mathematics (the zero, decimal system), alongside the nāstik contributions like Jain cosmology. Universally, it absorbs and adapts—look at how it integrated tribal deities or influenced Southeast Asia without conquest. No other religion quite mirrors this. Buddhism comes close but often pivots to its own canon (Tripitaka). Christianity and Islam universalize through conversion, not philosophical pluralism. Taoism’s fluid, but it lacks the same breadth of systematized diversity.

 

Does this make Hinduism the "greatest"? If greatness means adaptability and intellectual hospitality, it’s a strong case. It’s a living laboratory of ideas, not a monolith. But greatness could also mean global reach (Christianity, Islam), ethical simplicity (Buddhism), or cultural endurance (Judaism). Hinduism’s inclusivity might be its crown, but whether that’s the ultimate measure depends on your lens. If Vivekananda’s aphorism is the metric—spiritual, scientific, universal—Hinduism fits like a glove. Do you think inclusivity alone seals the deal, or is there another yardstick you’d weigh? 

Swami Vivekananda’s Speech at the World Parliament of Religions (1893) – In this historic speech, Swami Vivekananda focused on the spiritual, universal, and scientific aspects of Hinduism, often describing it as a religion that is inclusive of all religions and founded in universal principles of spirituality. 

• Citation: Vivekananda, Swami. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 1. Advaita Ashrama, 1998. 

The Science of Religion – Swami Vivekananda often discussed how religion and spirituality could be approached scientifically. He believed that spiritual experiences could be understood and studied with the same rigor and discipline as physical sciences. 

• Citation: Vivekananda, Swami. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 3. Advaita Ashrama, 1998. 

Lectures and Discourses on Hinduism – Swami Vivekananda emphasized the universal appeal of Hinduism, stating that it transcends sectarian boundaries and is relevant to people of all cultures and beliefs. 

• Citation: Vivekananda, Swami. Lectures from Colombo to Almora. Advaita Ashrama, 1998.

Abolish Waqf Act

In March 1947, M K Gandhi met Viceroy Mountbatten and requested him to dismiss Jawaharlal Nehru as interim Prime Minister and appoint M A Jinnah as the Prime Minister. Further, Gandhi requested Mountbatten to allow Jinnah have an all-Muslim cabinet. This was a Gandhi who was at the end of his tether having failed in all his efforts—since his ill-advised ‘Khilafat’ movement which had nothing to with India—to cobble a contrived unity between the ‘two nations’ failed. Had he been successful, Hindus would not have been ruing their second-class citizen status now. They would have been second-class citizens! The demographics would have ensured that.  

It was not even necessary! Ever since independence illegal immigrants have been pouring into India from her porous eastern borders. According to some estimates, by the nineties, there were already twenty million illegal immigrants in West Bengal and the border districts of Assam. The net effect of allowing illegal immigrants into the country would certainly skew the demographic balance in less than a generation if the present trend continues. It is already evident in India's eastern border states. The ill effects of harbouring illegal immigrants are well known. Illegal immigration would alter the cultural and social landscape and dilute employment opportunities for the local population. A population with no roots in the soil and no loyalty to the local culture would have scant regard for law and order. It is a potentially rich source for crime.

It was not enough for the Congress party to divide the nation and give away large chunks on either side to the Muslims in 1947. In 2013 it signed sealed and delivered the rest of the nation to the Muslims as a gift of lebensraum in return for their votes. Thanks to the pandering for vote bank politics by self-serving politicians, large swathes of land are already passing into the hands of usurpers. 

A Note On The Map 

The map shows the India that we inherited at the time of partition; except the extra-territorial rights we had in southern Tibet. If we closely the observe the map, we can see that we not only shared a border with Afghanistan, but Tajikistan (then in the USSR) was only a few miles away from the frontier. This meant we were in close proximity to Central Asia.

In October 1947 Pakistan illegally occupied 72,935 sq km in Jammu and Kashmir. [Of the total of 2,22,236 sq km of Jammu and Kashmir state we are now in possession of only 1,06,566 sq km.] There was a brief war in October-November 1947. The Indian army was on the verge of recapturing the territory occupied by Pakistan. Surprisingly and inexplicably the Nehru government not only called for a unilateral ceasefire but against sage advice by its own Home Minister referred the matter to the UNO. Experts in strategic affairs believe that our pusillanimity in not wresting back the portion of Jammu and Kashmir illegally occupied by Pakistan in October 1947 led to the belief that India was a soft state and later invasions and illegal occupations.  

In 1955-57 China occupied 37,555 sq km of Aksai Chin in Ladakh, the eastern part of Jammu and Kashmir. In 1962 China invaded the Northeast Frontier Agency (NEFA), now renamed Arunachal Pradesh and occupied 38,000 sq km. 

................................................ 

The Chairperson, 

Joint Parliamentary Committee — Waqf Amendment Bill,

Sansad Bhavan,

NEW DELHI

Honourable Chairperson!

The Waqf Acts, originally passed in 1923, amended in 1954, 1995 and 2013 are not only iniquitous but directly contravene Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. You are of course aware that Art. 14 enunciates the concept of equality before law for all citizens of India that is Bharat 

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐬𝐡𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰 𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐭𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐚𝐰𝐬 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐚.

In essence it means that the State shall not discriminate between citizens on the grounds of caste, religion, race, sex or place of birth. However, despite public veneration and ritual celebration of Constitutional principles, the reverse has been practised by most political parties and alas, the State itself, since the dawn of independence. As an illustration, let me put in perspective the contrasts between the Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Acts and the Waqf Acts. The ‘Secular’ State usurped complete control of Hindu religious institutions and their properties running into millions of acres of land and billions of rupees in collections from devotees. On the other hand, the Waqf Acts, over time leached the authority of the State in the affairs of Waqfs making them, with the latest amendments, supra-judicial bodies a la ‘a State within a State’!  

Tracing the history of the Waqf Acts P R Ramesh (“Waqf Act: A Legacy of Appeasement and Aggrandisement”, Open Magazine, August 16, 2024) wrote:

The Nehru government supposedly allowed the Muslim community to manage its insti­tutions, including the Waqf Boards, to impart confidence to the community. Seen in isolation, many continue to believe this myth. But it is a myth nonetheless. For if one examines a very different set of events—the constant illegal migration of Muslims from the then East Pakistan—a very different hue is cast on Nehruvian secularism. The reality is that the Nehru regime and its succes­sors continued to appease Muslims for political purposes. This included their approval of illegal migration into Assam where the very demography of the Brahmaputra Valley changed beyond recognition.

 

The story of the Waqf Boards, the steady gathering of judicial powers in the hands of the Muslim community with respect to Waqfs, and appeasement are thus not isolated issues: they were part and parcel of assiduously building a vote bank in a ‘secular’ republic at the cost of other communities that were deprived of similar rights and powers to manage their religious institutions. That this process was begun during the Nehru years makes the entire project insidious. By 2013, when the 1995 Act was amended in the dying days of the UPA-II regime, the process was complete. Today, any property belonging to any person or community can simply be declared a Waqf by a mere notification. The courts can come to your aid. But good luck with that. As liberals are so fond of saying, “The process is the punishment.”

 

In 2015, the NDA government launched a probe into an illegal act by the UPA government whereby it transferred 123 properties in Delhi to the Waqf Board just prior to losing power. Most of these properties were of high market value, including those in Connaught Place, Lodhi Road and Karol Bagh.

 

The Modi government started a dedicated online portal, Waqf Assets Management System of India (WAMSI) for computerisation, digitisation of records of Waqf properties, and their Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping. This was to prevent encroach­ments on these properties but also to prevent the illegal usurping of properties as Waqfs without the completion of statutory pro­cesses. The Waqf property details on WAMSI were entered by the respective State Waqf Boards (SWBs). Until December 2022, a total of 8,65,646 immovable properties and 3,53,850 GIS mapping of Waqf properties were entered on the WAMSI portal. [Italics added.] 

The Keshavananda Bharati case (aka the third fundamental rights case) has been celebrated in public discourse for what it was not originally about. The chimerical ‘basic structure doctrine’ which the judges were supposed to have conceptualized was a charade. If the judges were so concerned about the basic structure of the Indian Constitution, they would have certainly reviewed constant violations of Art. 14 since the 1950s. Even after the judgement was delivered in April 1973, governments trampled upon the sacrosanct ‘basic structure’ with gay abandon. While the 1976 amendment to the Preamble of the Constitution directly altered the basic structure of the Constitution, the Places of Worship Act, 1991 and the Right to Education Act, 2009 certainly violated the letter and spirit of Art. 14.    

The Keshavananda Bharati case was all about nationalizing the properties of Hindu religious institutions under Land Ceiling Acts. The confiscation of the Math's lands by the Kerala government was upheld by the Supreme Court. Clearly confiscation of lands of Hindu religious institutions under secular laws, while making special provisions for protecting lands of other religious bodies flies in the face of Articles 14, 19, 25 & 26 of the Indian Constitution. Here are a few concerns raised by the appellants as cited in the judgement:

The case was filed by His Holiness Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State of Kerala and Anr. under Article 32 of the Constitution for enforcement of his fundamental rights under Articles 25, 26, 14, 19 (1) (f) and 31 of the Constitution. … The respondents claim that Parliament can abrogate fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and expression, freedom to form associations or unions, and freedom of religion. They claim that democracy can even be replaced and one-party rule established. Indeed, short of repeal of the Constitution, any form of Government with no freedom to the citizens can be set up by Parliament by exercising its powers under Article 368. [Italics added.]

The strange irony is that the present opposition raised the same concerns in the run up to the elections to the eighteenth Lok Sabha, which the appellants raised fifty years ago. It was the present opposition that “defaced and defiled” the Constitution (in the words of the eminent Judge H R Khanna), when it was in power. 

The provisions of the Waqf Act raise issues related to property rights, administrative inefficiencies and potential misuse of the law. Further the impugned Act gives Waqf boards supra-judicial powers which flies against the letter and spirit of democratic principles and the Constitution itself. Hence the Act should be abolished forthwith. There are enough civil laws to protect land holding rights of citizens of all communities. 

The current Waqf act is illegal, and such acts do not exist anywhere in the world including Muslim majority countries. Also, Waqf act allowed waqf board to snatch land & property through coercion, deceit and violence, like mafioso. 

In light of the above, I urge the Joint Parliamentary Committee to consider the following recommendations:

1. Abolish of the Wakf Act: The Act should be repealed to ensure that all citizens are treated equally before the law, in consonance with the fundamental principles enshrined in the Constitution. 
2. Waqf act should be abolished forthwith and retrospectively from the date it was first introduced in 1923 as Mussalman Waqf Act and subsequent reintroduction in 1954 and amendment in 1995.
3. Any land/property acquired or structure erected under Waqf should be deemed illegal and returned to the rightful Hindu owner before or after 1923.
4. In case, rightful Hindu owner cannot be traced, the Central Govt should take the possession of the land, property and structure, under current Waqf boards. 
5. Strengthening Accountability: Any new legislation should incorporate strict guidelines and accountability mechanisms to prevent misuse and ensure transparency in the administration of properties. 

I do hope my suggestions will be considered by the JPC in the larger interest of our country, that is Bharat. 

Vande Mataram!

...................................................

Cover map courtesy: Vivek Dhankar In Singh, Priyanka. (2017). “Re-Positioning Pakistan Occupied Kashmir On India’s Policy Map—Geopolitical Drivers, Strategic Impact”. Institute For Defence Studies & Analysis, Monograph No. 62, October 2017.

Intellectual Integrity Vs Machiavellian Morality

Intellectuals of a society are its leading lights; not weathervanes!

In a speech delivered in Bristol in 1780, Edmund Burke told his constituents

“I did not obey your instructions: No. I conformed to the instructions of truth and nature, and maintained your interest, against your opinions, with a constancy that became me.”  

He was elected to the parliament from the city in 1774 and was seeking reelection. Bromwich, Burke’s biographer observed: 

“Like Shakespeare, Burke knew the glamour and influence of the Machiavellian morality, in politics and in smaller-scale, human wheeling and dealing.” 

Leadership literature has an unverified story that explains the seamy side of leadership of mass movements. During the days of the French revolution, so goes the story, a newspaperman was having a tête-à-tête with a leader of the revolution in a Paris café. As they were sipping coffee and chatting, a wildly howling mob screaming slogans stomped by. The newspaperman wondered what the procession was all about. On hearing this, the ‘leader’ shouted “Oh my God, I am supposed to the lead the procession” and ran out! 

Burke risked his electorate’s possible displeasure in choosing intellectual integrity. In a benign era in which the electorate was not corrupted by Machiavellian morality, his candour was appreciated! In a polity as fractured by caste and creed as India’s, with rare exceptions, politicians tend to choose Machiavellian morality over intellectual integrity. 

The biggest failure of ‘public intellectuals’ in India is their inability to forge national unity based on a society that does not think in terms of castes and creeds. In a 1954 judgement, the Supreme Court expressed its fervent hope that the Indian Constitution would bring about a 

“[…] new order … with its new allegiance springing from the same source for all, grounded on the same basis: the sovereign will of the peoples of India with no class, no caste, no race, no creed, no distinction, no reservation.” 

The Supreme Court, it appears, was carried away with its own rhetorical flourishes in pluralizing ‘people’, and the reinforcing qualifier at the end of the sentence. 

The phrase ‘public intellectual’ was coined by Russell Jacoby in his 1987 book, “The Last Intellectuals”. Absorbed as the Indians were in ‘divisive’ versus ‘integrative’ polemics, there has not been much debate on the role of ‘public intellectuals’ or rather the sad scarcity of balanced public intellectual discourse. The words ‘divisive’ and ‘integrative’ too have diametrically opposing connotations based on from which perspective they are looked at! Jacoby observed 

“[…] intellectuals, if noticed, are usually blessed or subsidized…and one consequence—at least—unnoticed and profoundly damaging: the impoverishment of public culture”.  

A scan of the articles on ‘public intellectuals’ in India leads one to believe there are public intellectuals only on one side of the ideological divide. For some strange reason, even the thought of ‘public intellectuals’ throws up unintelligible gobbledygook. Just look at this passage from an article on the subject in an Indian daily: 

“[…] public intellectuals in India need to challenge the traditional assumptions that have reinforced positivistic methodologies, apathetic scholarship and an increasing fascination with a calculative leadership”! 

Whatever did it mean! The picture that accompanied the article leaves no one in doubt about ‘the necessary and sufficient condition that should be satisfied to earn the label ‘public intellectual’. Indeed, intellectuals have to be blessed or subsidized to be noticed! A far more serious problem as Richard Posner observed is with ‘public intellectuals’ who “bend facts and law to fit their political preconceptions”.  

There are several issues over which ‘public intellectuals’ could have educated, enlightened and shaped public opinion. On the issue of forging unity of castes and creeds, making splintering a virtue as ‘unity in diversity’ appears a bit tenuous or worse disingenuous. It suits the politicians to reap electoral dividends by manipulating divisions, fueling dissensions, pitting one group against the other, or by incentivizing divisions, but why should ‘public intellectuals’ legitimize the political line with tortuous Op-Eds?  There are internal divisions in many countries but they do not go to town preening about diversity. They function as a united nation within and outside and not as a ‘united nations organization’! 

Or take the current craze of electoral sops. Politicians do not mind the long-term damage their promised sops are likely to do to the economy as long as they help them to win. When revenues plummeted during the Covid pandemic, a regional politician who made a fine art of governing his state through sops asked “Why doesn’t the Central government print more currency to meet the demand?” Consumed by the desire to perpetuate his rule he offered a sop for every conceivable section of society that can vote in bulk. As a result, the state is languishing without development or servicing of infrastructure projects. This is the same case in several states where politicians usurped power by offering sops. Their leaders now lament that they are not able to answer their publics on the lack of development. 

The Indian government must be commended for its fiscal prudence in not succumbing to the temptation of issuing paper money. On the other hand, the USA—whose nationals earned the maximum number of economics Nobels—put the idea into practice by printing an additional $3 trillion! The government hoped it would help borrowers by easing interest rates. It did for a while. Stock market indices zoomed. But the extra money supply could be helpful only if there is a corresponding increase in production. It was too late for the decision makers to realize that too much money chasing too few goods would result in high inflation in the long-term, consequent rise in interest rates (negating their original intention) and market volatility. In fact, following the infusion of paper money into circulation the United States saw the highest inflation rate in four decades. Does the American experience hold any lessons for the Indian politicians? Going by the vigour with which most Indian politicians are indulging in competitive populism they do not seem to be even aware of it.    

This article was first published in the Times Of India Blogs