Freedom First

Freedom First

Summary

This is issue No. 574 of Freedom First (April 2015), the Bombay-based classical-liberal monthly founded by Minoo Masani and published by the Indian Committee for Cultural Freedom, edited by S. V. Raju. The cover story protests the Land Acquisition Bill under the headline “Heads You Win, Tails I Lose,” and the issue is dominated by commentary on Narendra Modi’s first full-year budget and governance record: two dueling analyses of Budget 2015-16 (Ajit Karnik skeptical of follow-through, Sunil Bhandare more approving of fiscal devolution to states), a sustained attack on the Land Acquisition Bill and the 17th Constitutional Amendment’s legacy (S. V. Raju and N. S. Venkataraman), and editorial notes praising the 14th Finance Commission’s transfer of tax revenue to states. Other recurring threads include civil-liberties debates around the banned BBC documentary “India’s Daughter”/“Daughter of India” (treated three times, by Ashok Karnik’s Point-Counterpoint feature, Nitin G. Raut, and reader letters), foreign policy after Obama’s January 2015 visit (B. Ramesh Babu) and Pakistan’s institutional fragility (Suresh C. Sharma, twice), rising religious politics in Maharashtra ahead of elections (Sharu Rangnekar), and a continuing serialized paper on rural indebtedness (R. M. Mohan Rao). The issue closes with two book reviews (a Rau family memoir of Indian editors and governors; K. Natwar Singh’s autobiography) and short Educating Adults pieces on teacher shortages and sanitation as a human right.

Contributors span the magazine’s regular masthead of retired diplomats, economists, and military officers (B. Ramesh Babu, Ajit Karnik, Sunil Bhandare, Suresh C. Sharma, B. N. Mehrish, P. M. Kamath) alongside the Advisory Board (Ashok Karnik, Firoze Hirjikaka, Nitin G. Raut, Sharad Bailur). Its editorial through-line is a defense of property rights, skepticism of the regulatory and welfare state, support for federal devolution, and opposition to both Congress-era and BJP-era overreach, with the front-of-book quotations page reprinting founder Minoo Masani and C. Rajagopalachari on political flexibility as a liberal virtue.

Essays

Our “Inconsistencies”

The masthead quotations page “Our ‘Inconsistencies’” opens the issue with two short excerpts defending flexibility over dogma in public life: one by C. Rajagopalachari (from his 1963 Swarajya piece “My Inconsistencies”), the other by Minoo Masani (from his 1968 book Democracy and Development, published by the Indian Liberal Group), in which Masani invokes Gandhi’s dictum that “consistency is the virtue of an ass” to argue that a Liberal should be willing to change tactics while keeping clean, truthful means constant.

• Rajagopalachari argues rigid consistency over decades would be dogmatism and a reductio ad absurdum.
• Masani argues Liberals should be realistic and shift tactics as circumstances change, unlike doctrinaire Socialists or Conservatives.
• Masani cites Gandhi’s own frequent apparent self-contradiction, defended by Gandhi as necessary given changing situations.
• Masani identifies a constant ‘thread’ running through Gandhi’s inconsistency: clean, truthful, peaceful means, and the principle that ends do not justify means.

Between Ourselves

The editor’s “Between Ourselves” column welcomes a Times of India report that MPs were unusually productive in the recent budget session (Lok Sabha 121%, Rajya Sabha 109%) and credits Y. V. Reddy’s Finance Commission work for advancing federalism. It calls for stricter parliamentary discipline going forward, including a non-partisan Speaker, and closes by noting that Nehru, despite being credited with nurturing parliamentary democracy, rarely practiced bipartisanship except when cornered, recalling that he contemptuously rejected Swatantra Party support offers.

• Times of India reported record parliamentary productivity in the recent budget session under Parliamentary Affairs Minister M. Venkaiah Naidu.
• The editorial credits Y. V. Reddy with advancing the concept of federalism via the Finance Commission process.
• It proposes an impartial, judge-like Speaker (a ‘Vikramaditya’) to enforce discipline and bar members from disrupting proceedings.
• It calls for cultivated bipartisanship, contrasting this aspiration with Nehru’s historical unwillingness to accept Swatantra Party cooperation.

From Our Readers

The letters page carries five items: Dr. Ali Khwaja praises the magazine’s March cover on Jamsetji Tata and recommends R. M. Lala’s book Creation of Wealth; N. S. Venkataraman defends the Modi government’s decision not to renew Amartya Sen’s Nalanda chancellorship, calling Sen’s public criticism self-interested; an unsigned letter builds on Julio Ribeiro’s Indian Express column to warn of ‘creeping saffronization’ and communal targeting under the Modi government, contrasting it with the Vajpayee era; Firoze Hirjikaka condemns a Nagaland mob lynching of an accused rapist as hypocrisy given the same politicians’ outrage over the BBC’s Nirbhaya documentary; and a short item cites a Bangalore study on Indian youth’s casual attitude to democracy. The page closes with an obituary for environmentalist and freedom fighter Kisan Mehta (1924-2015), founder of the Save Bombay Committee and Prakruti.

• Ali Khwaja praises the March cover subject Jamsetji Tata and cites R. M. Lala’s biography Creation of Wealth as personally formative.
• N. S. Venkataraman argues the government was entitled to deny Amartya Sen a second Nalanda term and criticizes Sen’s public remarks against Modi as self-interested.
• An unsigned letter responding to Julio Ribeiro warns of growing Hindu-nationalist ‘saffronization’ under Modi, distinguishing it from the Vajpayee-era BJP.
• Firoze Hirjikaka contrasts outrage over the BBC’s Nirbhaya documentary with silence over a Nagaland mob’s lynching of an accused rapist.
• The issue carries an obituary of Kisan Mehta, a freedom-fighter-turned-environmentalist who founded the Save Bombay Committee (1973) and Prakruti (1988) and pioneered slum electrification in Dharavi.

Hypocrites All!

By S. V. Raju

S. V. Raju’s “Hypocrites All!” traces opposition to the Land Acquisition Bill back to Nehru’s 1959 Nagpur Resolution favoring joint cooperative farming and the resulting 17th Constitutional Amendment (1964), which he says gave states uncontrolled power over land under an overbroad definition of ‘estate.’ He argues this began a 15-year tug-of-war between the Supreme Court and government over the Constitution’s ‘basic structure,’ and accuses the Congress of hypocritically opposing the current Bill in the Rajya Sabha despite having originated the assault on farmers’ property rights.

• Traces the erosion of farmers’ land rights to Nehru’s 1959 Nagpur Resolution on joint cooperative farming and the 17th Amendment (1964) to Article 31A.
• Rajaji (C. Rajagopalachari) is quoted denouncing the 17th Amendment as reviving the ‘exploded doctrine’ that all Indian land belongs to government.
• N. G. Ranga and Minoo Masani are cited as contemporaneous Swatantra Party critics of the government’s land policy.
• The 17th Amendment’s broad definition of ‘estate’ could reclassify even a single acre as subject to acquisition.
• Raju accuses Congress-led opposition to the current Land Acquisition Bill of hypocrisy, arguing all 14 parties prioritize political survival over farmers’ interests.

The Land Acquisition Bill Not Convincing

By N. S. Venkataraman

N. S. Venkataraman argues the Land Acquisition Bill is unconvincing because it takes agricultural land in a country where over 75% of the population depends on farming, without the government first conducting a land audit of unutilized industrial, institutional, and sick-unit land. He contends that industrial promoters routinely over-acquire land speculatively, that investment in agriculture could be as productive as industrial investment, and that industrial growth should complement rather than substitute for agricultural growth.

• Over 75% of India’s population depends on agriculture, and roughly 2% of agricultural land has already been lost to industrial and housing projects.
• The government has softened some provisions (limiting industrial-corridor acquisition to 1 km of road/rail, adding a job-for-family compensation clause) but has not exhausted alternatives.
• The author calls for a land audit of unutilized industrial, sick-unit, and institutional land before acquiring farmland.
• Promoters often acquire more land than needed, anticipating future appreciation, without government scrutiny.
• Concludes that sacrificing agriculture for industrial growth is ‘bad in principle,’ contrary to the sentiments of large sections of the population.

Point Counter Point

By Ashok Karnik

Ashok Karnik’s recurring “Point Counter Point” feature presents opposing arguments on four current issues: the ban on the BBC’s ‘Daughter of India’ documentary about the Nirbhaya rape case; the Coast Guard DIG’s public claim to have ordered a Pakistani boat’s sinking off Porbandar; the leak of sensitive Petroleum Ministry documents to corporate houses; and proposed penalties for undeclared foreign bank accounts (black money). Each topic is argued from both a ‘Point’ and ‘Counter Point’ perspective without an authorial resolution.

• On the BBC documentary: one side calls the ban misguided suppression of a socially useful exposé; the other calls the film sensationalist voyeurism achieving nothing new.
• On the Porbandar boat incident: one side sees a legitimate anti-terror action turned into political controversy; the other calls the DIG’s public boasting reckless and damaging to Coast Guard credibility.
• On the Petroleum Ministry leaks: both sides agree the country’s information-security culture is outdated and inadequate outside a few sensitive ministries.
• On black money: one side wants stronger jail terms as a deterrent; the other cautions that legal details remain unclear and that confiscation of stashed wealth, not jail terms alone, would be the real deterrent.

Remembering Pandit Nehru’s ‘Tryst with Destiny’

By H. R. Bapu Satyanarayana

H. R. Bapu Satyanarayana argues that events surrounding Independence expose a Congress ‘mind-set’ of hypocrisy that persists today. He cites photographer Homai Vyarawalla’s memoir describing the Congress as treating India like its own jagir at the June 1946 AICC meeting; recounts Nehru’s ‘Tryst with Destiny’ speech and Gandhi’s post-Independence disillusionment with rampant Congress corruption reported to him by ordinary citizens; and then pivots to contemporary parallels — the Porbandar ‘terror boat’ controversy and an espionage ring in Shastri Bhavan feeding classified documents to corporate houses — arguing Congress’s opportunistic outrage over these episodes shows the same DNA of hypocrisy. A continuation on page 31 discusses the land acquisition debate and RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s controversial remarks about Mother Teresa.

• Homai Vyarawalla’s memoir describes the Congress as being ‘in a hurry to gain power’ and treating India as its own jagir as early as June 1946.
• Gandhi was reportedly heartbroken within months of Independence over widespread reports of Congress corruption, which Nehru did not act on according to secretary Kalyanam.
• The article links a New Year’s Eve 2014 ‘terror boat’ incident off Porbandar and a Shastri Bhavan document-leak espionage ring to a broader argument about entrenched institutional corruption.
• The 14th Finance Commission’s devolution of 42% of the divisible tax pool to states is praised as advancing federalism.
• The continuation criticizes RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat’s remarks about Mother Teresa’s motives as uncalled-for and speculates it reflects RSS unease with Modi’s independence from Hindutva orthodoxy.

”Daughter of India” – The BBC Documentary

By Nitin G. Raut

Nitin G. Raut argues the government’s ban on the BBC’s ‘Daughter of India’ documentary about the 2012 Delhi gang rape was a mistake driven by populist reaction rather than any genuine threat to public order. He argues the film’s social purpose — exposing the perpetrator Mukesh Singh’s chilling, unrepentant mindset — is legitimate and important, that bans are futile in the internet era, and that India should instead focus on the Justice Verma Committee’s recommendations for a broadened legal definition of rape and a proposed ‘Bill of Rights’ for women.

• Argues the ban on the BBC documentary suppresses a socially important message rather than protecting India’s image, since the crime was already public knowledge.
• Convicted rapist Mukesh Singh’s remark that ‘a girl is far more responsible for rape than a boy’ is presented as evidence of a pervasive, dangerous mindset worth exposing.
• Bans are called counterproductive and ‘extremely ludicrous’ given that the film remains accessible online to everyone except Indians in India.
• The Justice Verma Committee (23 December 2012) recommendations are cited: broadening rape’s legal definition beyond penetration, rejecting marital consent as an irrevocable defense, and proposing a Nirbhaya-style ‘Bill of Rights’ for women modeled on South Africa and New Zealand.
• Closes by suggesting India focus on the substance of the abuse problem rather than reflexively banning coverage of a German professor’s remarks about Indian male interns.

Rahul Takes a Break

By Firoze Hirjikaka

Firoze Hirjikaka’s satirical column speculates on Rahul Gandhi’s unexplained political sabbatical, arguing it is a wise, if belated, move given how attacking Modi has repeatedly backfired for Congress. He surveys rumors that Rahul wants internal party democracy against Old Guard resistance and that Sonia Gandhi is torn between the two camps, then offers unsolicited advice: Congress should drop anti-Modi rhetoric, rebuild grassroots trust the way AAP did in Delhi, and let Rahul decide whether he has the fortitude for the long road of dynastic succession.

• Rahul Gandhi’s whereabouts during his political break are unknown, fueling speculation about a spiritual retreat or fatigue with politics.
• Congress’s attacks on Modi (e.g. over the Coast Guard DIG’s ‘biryani’ remark, or the PM’s Rs. 10 lakh suit) have repeatedly backfired and made the party look petty.
• Rumors suggest Rahul wants party elections and internal reform, resisted by an entrenched ‘Old Guard,’ with Sonia Gandhi caught between loyalty to them and empowering her son.
• The author advises Congress to stop attacking Modi, rebuild grassroots trust as the AAP did in Delhi, and stay out of the public eye until closer to the next election.
• Warns that one-party dominance under Modi, however well-intentioned, is unhealthy for democracy, drawing a cautious parallel to the Emergency era.

Budget 2015-16: An Evaluation

By Ajit Karnik

Ajit Karnik evaluates Budget 2015-16 against the FM’s ambitious 2022 vision (housing, electrification, roads, schools for all) and finds the vision unobjectionable but underfunded. He shows the NDA government inherited ‘lucky breaks’ — a GDP methodology revision that flattered growth figures and a sharp fall in oil prices — and argues that budgeted capital-expenditure increases for roads, railways, and housing fall well short of what the FM’s rhetoric implies, with much of the promised infrastructure spending dependent on uncertain internal/external budgetary resources. He also finds MGNREGA funding maintained despite past NDA criticism of the scheme, and closes skeptical that this budget matched the ‘Big-Bang’ 1991 reforms it was expected to emulate.

• The FM’s 2022 vision (6 crore houses, 24x7 power, universal roads/schools/health) is unobjectionable in principle but lacks a credible funding plan.
• The NDA’s improved growth numbers partly reflect a favorable GDP-methodology revision (2013-14 revised from 5.1% to 6.9%) and falling global oil prices, not just policy.
• Of the budgeted Rs.70,000 crore additional infrastructure spend, only about 37% (Rs.26,179 crore) is accounted for by confirmed capital allocations to roads and railways; the rest depends on uncertain PSU resources.
• The government’s housing allocation (Rs.5,634.47 crore) is entirely on the revenue account, raising doubts about credible commitment to the ‘6 crore houses by 2022’ pledge.
• MGNREGA funding (~Rs.35,000 crore) was maintained near UPA-era levels despite earlier NDA criticism of the scheme as a ‘glorious failure.’
• Concludes that the budget’s actions have repeatedly fallen short of its rhetoric, questioning whether budgets have become ‘smoke and mirrors’ exercises.

The Budget 2015-16 – Why So Special!

By Sunil S. Bhandare

Sunil S. Bhandare offers a more favorable reading of Budget 2015-16, focused on fiscal empowerment of states and infrastructure-led growth. He credits the 14th Finance Commission (chaired by Y. V. Reddy) with an unprecedented increase in states’ share of the divisible tax pool from 32% to 42% (total devolution reaching ~47% of tax receipts), while questioning whether states will spend the extra resources wisely given a mixed record of fiscal management. He also details the FM’s four-pronged infrastructure strategy (public investment in roads/rail, a National Investment and Infrastructure Fund, tax-free infrastructure bonds, and PPP risk-rebalancing), and closes by noting the budget’s success will depend entirely on implementation.

• The 14th Finance Commission raised states’ share of the divisible tax pool from 32% to 42%, the steepest such increase on record, bringing total Centre-to-state devolution to about 47% of tax receipts.
• The FM was ‘forced to soft-pedal’ fiscal consolidation, pushing the 3% fiscal-deficit target out from two years to three (3.9% in 2015-16, 3.5% in 2016-17, 3.0% in 2017-18).
• Revenue expenditure growth was cut from 8.5% to 3.2% while capital expenditure growth rose from 2.5% to 25.5%, a deliberate composition shift toward investment.
• Four infrastructure levers are highlighted: increased budgetary support for roads/rail, a National Investment and Infrastructure Fund (NIIF), tax-free infrastructure bonds, and PPP reform to rebalance risk toward the sovereign.
• Warns that states’ historically uneven fiscal management could undercut the benefits of greater devolved autonomy.

The Rural Perspective: Agriculture and Rural Indebtedness - VI

By R. M. Mohan Rao

In the sixth installment of his serialized paper on agricultural indebtedness, R. M. Mohan Rao argues that development programmes routinely disregard farmers’ own right to choose their path, citing Robert Chambers’s observation that ‘people are put last, not once but again and again.’ He reviews why participatory schemes like Participatory Irrigation Management often fail in practice (bureaucratic reluctance to hand over records, disconnect between agricultural research and farmers’ actual concerns), then lays out policy recommendations: a pro-active but facilitative State role on land, water, research, and market access; and credit-flow reforms including de-politicized cooperatives, expanded Kisan Credit Cards, lower agricultural interest rates, one-time NPA settlements, and a new comprehensive rural indebtedness survey modeled on the 1950s All India Rural Credit Survey.

• Participatory development has moral and practical appeal but is rarely sustained in India beyond initial euphoria, per the author.
• Participatory Irrigation Management through Water Users’ Associations has underperformed due to bureaucratic reluctance to hand over records and control.
• Agricultural research has become ‘laboratory-oriented,’ disconnected from farmer feedback despite zonal research stations being designed for that purpose.
• The Liberal conception of the State as promoter/facilitator (not detractor) should guide policy on land, water, marketing, and safety nets for farmers.
• Recommends de-politicizing cooperatives, expanding Kisan Credit Cards, lowering agricultural loan interest rates, allowing one-time NPA settlements, and commissioning a new comprehensive rural indebtedness survey.

Foreign Relations in the 21st Century: Obama Came and Concurred: Convergences Enhanced, New Vistas of Cooperation Opened

By B. Ramesh Babu

B. Ramesh Babu assesses President Obama’s second India visit (as Republic Day chief guest) as elevating US-India strategic convergence to an unprecedented level. He details the nuclear-liability ‘insurance pool’ breakthrough (still fraught with litigation risk, which he argues favors India tactically since Russian and French reactor costs are lower than American ones), the renewed Defence Framework Agreement to 2025 and the US-India Joint Strategic Vision for the Asia-Pacific and Indian Ocean region (read as implicitly targeting Chinese expansionism, provoking a sharp reaction from President Xi Jinping), and economic pledges including $1 billion via OPIC and $4 billion in trade/investment commitments. He closes urging India to now deliver its own ‘second generation’ economic reforms.

• The ‘insurance pool’ proposal aims to unblock the US-India Civil Nuclear Agreement by sharing liability costs; the author argues delay actually favors India since Russian nuclear power (Rs.3.50/kWh at Kudankulam) is cheaper than American or French alternatives (Rs.6-6.50/kWh).
• The renewed Defence Framework Agreement (to 2025) and the joint US-India strategic vision for the Asia-Pacific/Indian Ocean, referencing South China Sea freedom of navigation, are read as implicitly aimed at China.
• China’s President Xi Jinping reacted sharply, warning India against an anti-China ‘pivot Asia trap’ and inviting India to join China and Russia against ‘American hegemony.’
• Economic deliverables include a $1 billion OPIC assistance package (already drawn on by YES Bank) and $4 billion in trade/investment pledges, plus a push to resolve US Social Security Tax treatment of short-term Indian professionals.
• Raised defence-sector FDI to 49% and agreement on joint weapons development, plus a new hotline between the two countries’ national security advisers, are cited as further evidence of deepening strategic ties.
• Closes arguing India must now deliver ‘second generation’ economic reforms, particularly given the government’s weak numbers in the Rajya Sabha.

Pakistan’s Quest for Nationhood

By Suresh C. Sharma

Suresh C. Sharma argues, quoting Samuel Huntington, that Pakistan has failed to build the institutional foundations needed to forge a genuine nation out of its ethnically diverse, multi-lingual constituent units. He contrasts Pakistan’s reliance on fear of India, religious nationalism, and Punjabi dominance with India’s more successful accommodation of its own multi-ethnic federal structure (citing examples like Naga, Mizo, and multi-regional participation in national institutions), and concludes that Pakistan’s various nation-building strategies — Ayub/Musharraf’s Ataturk model, Zia’s Islamization, Bhutto’s populism — have each failed in turn.

• Jinnah’s original vision of a secular Pakistan with equal rights for all religions was ‘soon forgotten’ under successive rulers.
• Generals Ayub Khan and Musharraf modeled Pakistan on Kemal Ataturk’s Turkey, while Zia-ul-Haq pursued Islamization mixed with nationalism, fueling sectarian violence.
• Pakistan’s four constituent units lack a shared language, history, or ethnicity, and Punjab’s claimed superiority in resources and military representation has bred resentment (e.g. the disputed Kalabagh dam, unexploited Thar coal).
• India’s federal structure is contrasted favorably: a Chennai-born VC can lead Delhi University, insurgency-prone Naga and ex-Mizo units have integrated into national institutions.
• Concludes that fear of India cannot substitute for the shared institutional goals Pakistan has never built, quoting Shuja Nawaz on Pakistan’s failure to build federal institutional foundations.

Warriors After War

By Suresh C. Sharma

Suresh C. Sharma reviews Warriors After War (Bonney, Maini, and Malik, eds., Peter Lang, 2011), a collection of interviews with retired Indian and Pakistani generals. He characterizes Indian generals as professional and ‘from the drill’ versus Pakistani generals as ideological, unorthodox, and prone to daring but poor strategy, and quotes several interviewees at length, including Hamid Gul’s hardline distrust of India and belief in Pakistan Army’s Kashmir ‘liberation’ mission, contrasted with more conciliatory or self-critical views from Talat Masood and Brigadier Shaukat Qadir, who argues the military converted a genuine Kashmir independence movement into a ‘jihad’ to the country’s lasting detriment.

• The reviewer argues Pakistan’s military culture rewards tactics over strategy, unlike India’s more professional general staff.
• Interviewed Indian generals include Gagandeep Bakshi, Kamaleshwar Dawar, and V. P. Malik; Pakistani generals include Mirza Aslam Beg, Hamid Gul, Talat Masood, Syed Wajahat Hussain, and Shaukat Qadir.
• Hamid Gul is quoted as deeply distrustful of India, framing the Pakistan Army’s purpose as liberating Kashmir and claiming ‘Indians are afraid of Pakistan.’
• Syed Wajahat Hussain counters that Jinnah wanted a liberal, tolerant Pakistan and that the 1965 war was a Pakistani mistake, not an Indian betrayal.
• Brigadier Shaukat Qadir is highlighted as the most self-critical voice, blaming the military for converting a genuine Kashmir independence movement into a jihad, calling both the 1965 and 1971 wars ‘acts of stupidity.‘

Book Reviews

Sharad Bailur reviews A Journalist Reflects on Eminent Governors, Editors and Politicians, a posthumous commemorative collection of S. K. Rau’s journalism compiled by his sons. Bailur, who knew the Rau family personally, praises the book’s print-journalism-era rigor and Rau’s evenhanded but pointed profiles — gentle on Sarojini Naidu and Sir Homi Mody, more critical of K. M. Munshi’s politicization of Lucknow University, more admiring of V. V. Giri’s no-nonsense seriousness — and of UP politicians C. B. Gupta and Chaudhary Charan Singh, while noting his own closeness to the family creates a potential conflict of interest.

• The book distills journalist S. K. Rau’s decades of writing on Governors, Editors, and Politicians, compiled by his sons Raghunath and Keshav Rau.
• Rau is portrayed as gentle toward Sarojini Naidu (seen as expecting to be honored) and Sir Homi Mody (surprised by the Governor role), but more critical of K. M. Munshi, blamed for starting the politicization of Lucknow University.
• V. V. Giri is praised by Rau as a serious, humourless, controversy-free Governor with ‘no humour, no brilliance and no controversy’ as his motto.
• Among politicians, Chaudhary Charan Singh is highlighted for defecting to bring down C. B. Gupta’s government, birthing the ‘Ayaram Gayaram’ phenomenon of political defection, and for later becoming Prime Minister briefly.
• The reviewer discloses a personal conflict of interest, having grown up alongside the Rau family and remaining close to Keshav Rau.

Educating Adults: Three Emerging Religious Icons for Maharashtra Politics

By Sharu Rangnekar

P. M. Kamath reviews K. Natwar Singh’s autobiography One Life Is Not Enough, tracing Singh’s career from Nehru-era diplomat to Rajiv Gandhi- and Sonia Gandhi-era Congress politician. He highlights Singh’s account of a young Nehru testing his diplomatic instincts on China, his firsthand narrative of Rajiv Gandhi’s hasty 1987 decision to intervene militarily in Sri Lanka despite Singh’s advice to consult the Cabinet first, and Singh’s insider account of the 2005 US-India Civil Nuclear Deal negotiated under Manmohan Singh, which Singh frames as the logical culmination of the 2004 Next Steps in Strategic Partnership begun under Vajpayee, with China as the deal’s central strategic rationale.

• Natwar Singh, the first Rajasthani in the Indian Foreign Service, recalls impressing Nehru in 1953 with an audacious answer about whether China posed a danger to India.
• Singh liaised with Zhou Enlai during Nehru’s talks with China in the 1960s that preceded the 1962 border war.
• As Minister of State for External Affairs, Singh advised Rajiv Gandhi to consult the Cabinet before intervening militarily in Sri Lanka in July 1987, but Gandhi had already ordered troops dispatched to Colombo.
• The review credits Singh’s account of the 2005 Civil Nuclear Deal (with George W. Bush and Manmohan Singh) as the logical culmination of the 2004 Next Steps in Strategic Partnership signed by Vajpayee, driven substantially by shared concern about China.
• Singh, expelled from Congress, is noted by media speculation as a potential BJP recruit and adviser to Modi on nuclear doctrine.

Educating Adults: Shortage of Qualified Teachers

By Suresh C. Sharma

Sharu Rangnekar identifies three religious icons — Panduranga (the Warkari sect’s deity, tied to the popular dindi pilgrimage processions), Ganapati (whose Sarvajanik Ganeshotsav was originally politicized by Lokmanya Tilak as a vehicle for mass communication), and Sai Baba of Shirdi (whose ambiguous Hindu-Muslim identity gives him cross-communal charisma, now amplified after Satya Sai Baba’s 2011 death) — as likely to shape upcoming Maharashtra political campaigns, arguing Narendra Modi and his followers, already adept at invoking Gandhi, Patel, and Bose, are likely to use these figures to add color to future elections.

• Panduranga/Warkari dindi pilgrimages gained political salience after Maharashtra’s anti-superstition law debate forced politicians to negotiate with powerful Warkari godmen.
• Ganapati’s Sarvajanik Ganeshotsav was created by Lokmanya Tilak as a political-communication platform for Hindus lacking a regular communal gathering like Friday or Sunday prayers.
• Sai Baba of Shirdi’s ambiguous religious identity (worshipped by both Hindus and Muslims, of unclear origin) gives him unusual cross-communal charisma, now rising as Satya Sai Baba’s rival charisma has faded since his 2011 death.
• The article frames Modi as a media-savvy politician who has already ‘hijacked’ Congress-associated icons (Gandhi, Patel, Bose) and predicts he and his followers will similarly deploy these three religious icons in Maharashtra campaigns.

Educating Adults: The Right to Sanitation as a Human Right

By B. N. Mehrish

Suresh C. Sharma reports a 37% staff shortage at India’s IITs (4,308 lecturers against a sanctioned 6,944), attributing declining quality partly to reduced availability of foreign-trained PhDs and partly to student indiscipline and political interference discouraging qualified people from teaching. He extends the argument to primary education, citing that 86% of teachers failed a teacher eligibility test and that many Maharashtra schools have only officiating principals, and closes with wry, sourced complaints from a UK/US-trained academic about excessive teaching workload leaving no private life.

• IITs face a 37% staffing shortfall (4,308 posted against 6,944 sanctioned), with IIT Bhubaneswar reported to have only one qualified teacher.
• The government’s plan to open more IITs is criticized as premature given existing IITs are understaffed.
• Student indiscipline (citing a hostage-taking incident at Visva-Bharati University) and political interference are cited as reasons well-qualified people avoid teaching careers.
• 86% of teachers reportedly failed India’s Teacher Eligibility Test, and many Maharashtra schools rely on officiating (not confirmed) principals.
• Closes citing an Oxford/Cambridge-trained academic’s complaints (via The Economist) about excessive teaching workloads eroding quality.

Essay 20

B. N. Mehrish argues sanitation should be recognized as a human right linked to the right to water, tracing the concept’s international legal development from the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights through its explicit inclusion in the 1979 CEDAW convention, the UN’s 2008 International Year of Sanitation, and 2010 UN General Assembly and Human Rights Council resolutions affirming water and sanitation as derivative of the right to life and dignity. He notes only a few countries (Uruguay, Algeria, Colombia, South Africa) explicitly enshrine a sanitation right constitutionally, and closes questioning whether Modi’s Swachh Bharat initiative will succeed where prior efforts have not.

• Links water and sanitation as jointly essential for meeting basic immune-system and health needs, citing India and Sudan as countries with acute water shortages.
• The flush toilet and sewer trap are cited as among the most significant technological developments in human history for addressing sanitation.
• Traces sanitation’s legal recognition from the ICESCR’s ‘adequate standard of living’ language, through 1977’s CEDAW-related rural-women provisions, to a 2010 UN General Assembly resolution and Human Rights Council affirmation linking it to the right to life and dignity.
• Only a handful of countries (Uruguay, Algeria, Colombia, South Africa) explicitly recognize a constitutional right to sanitation.
• Closes questioning whether Modi’s efforts (implicitly Swachh Bharat) will succeed in changing India’s sanitation status quo, and whether ‘healthcare for all’ remains realistic.

---

Generated by the v1.5 extraction pipeline. Awaiting editorial review.