Leaders are feeling suffocated in Cong: Amit Shah asks party to self-introspect

From March through May, around 1 crore migrant workers fled India’s megacities, afraid to be unemployed, hungry and far from family during the world’s biggest anti-Covid-19 lockdown.

Now, as Asia’s third-largest economy slowly reopens, the effects of that massive relocation are rippling across the country. Urban industries don’t have enough workers to get back to capacity, and rural states worry that without the flow of remittances from the city, already poor families will be even worse off -- and a bigger strain on state coffers.

Meanwhile, migrant workers aren’t expected to return to the cities as long as the virus is spreading and work is uncertain. States are rolling out stimulus programs, but India’s economy is hurtling for its first contraction in more than 40 years, and without enough jobs, a volatile political climate gets more so.

“This will be a huge economic shock, especially for households of short-term, cyclical migrants, who tend to come from vulnerable, poor and low-caste and tribal backgrounds,” said Varun Aggarwal, a founder of India Migration Now, a research and advocacy group based in Mumbai.

In the first 15 days of India’s lockdown, domestic remittances dropped by 90%, according to Rishi Gupta, chief executive officer of Mumbai-based Fino Paytech Ltd., which operates the country’s biggest payments bank.

By the end of May, remittances were back to around 1750 rupees ($23), about half the pre-Covid average. Gupta’s not sure how soon it’ll fully recover. “Migrants are in no hurry to come back,” Gupta said. “They’re saying that they’re not thinking of going back at all.”

If workers stay in their home states long term, policymakers will have more than remittances to worry about. If consumption falls and the new surplus of labor drives wages down, Agarwal said, “there will also be a second-order shock to the local economy. Overall, not looking good.”

India announced a $277 billion stimulus package in May and followed it up with a $7 billion program aimed at creating jobs for 125 days for migrants in villages across 116 districts. Separately, local authorities are also looking for solutions.

Officials in Bihar have identified 2,500 acres of land that could be made available to investors, said Sushil Modi, deputy chief minister of Bihar, a state in east India. “We can use this crisis as an opportunity to speed up reforms,” he said.

The investors haven’t materialised yet, and in the meanwhile, state governments are relying on the national cash-for-work program that guarantees 100 days worth of wages per household.

Skilled workers don’t want to do manual labor offered through the program, and even if they did, says Amitabh Kundu of RIS, many think of it as beneath their station. “There will be an increase in social tensions,” he predicts. “Caste may again start playing a role. It’s absolute chaos.”

For skilled workers, initiatives vary:

* Uttar Pradesh, which received 3.2 million people, is compiling lists of skilled workers who need employment and trying to place them with local manufacturing and real estate industry associations. So far, the government says, it’s placed 300,000 people with construction and real estate firms.

* Bihar has placed returners in state-run infrastructure projects and hired others to stitch uniforms and make furniture for government-run schools, even as they waited in quarantine centres, said Pratyay Amrit, head of the state’s disaster management department.

* The eastern state of Odisha announced an urban wage employment program aimed at putting as many as 450,000 day labourers to work through September. Some 25,000 people have been employed, so far, under the scheme, G. Mathivathanan, principal secretary for housing and urban development said.

Attracting Investments

It’s not clear any of this will be enough to make a dent, says Ravi Srivastava, professor at New Delhi-based Institute of Human Development, adding that the states don’t have much of a track record on economic development.

“It was the failure of these states to improve governance and put development plans in place that led to the out-migration in the first place,” he said.

But officials and workers’ rights advocates see opportunity. Uttar Pradesh has established liaisons to encourage companies from the US, Japan and South Korea to establish manufacturing in the state. There and in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan, the government has made labour laws more friendly to employers, making it easier to hire and fire workers.

Modi, the minister from Bihar, said the migration may also give workers--historically a disenfranchised group--new power, particularly as urban centres struggle. “The way industries treated workers during the lockdown -- didn’t pay them, the living conditions were poor -- now these industries will realize the value of this force,” Modi said.

“In the days to come, labour will emerge as a force that can’t be ignored anymore,” he added. “That’s the new normal. We will work out how to ensure dignity, rights to our people who are going to work in other states.”

Bihar is due for elections by November, a vote that could be an early test of the mass migration’s political consequences. The state is currently governed by a coalition that includes Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party. Amitabh Kundu, a fellow at the Research and Information System for Developing Countries, a New Delhi-based government think-tank, said migrant workers are likely to be angry voters.

“Chief ministers are telling these migrants that they will not have to go back for work,” he said. “But their capacity to do something miraculous in the next four to five months is doubtful. If they can retain even one-fourth of the migrants, I would call it a success.”

New Delhi, Feb 26: Calling the recent violence in Delhi as 'planned conspiracy', Sonia Gandhi on Wednesday demanded Union Home Minister Amit Shah's resignation over the clashes that left 20 people dead in two days.

"CWC (Congress Working Committee) believes Home Minister and Centre is responsible. The Home Minister should tender his resignation with immediate effect," the Congress party's interim chief told reporters here.

Violent clashes erupted between pro and anti-CAA groups in parts of northeast Delhi on Monday, leading to widespread vandalism and arson for over two days.

While many blamed police for inaction to control the mobs, Union Home Minister Amit Shah met the top brass of Delhi Police, Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal, LG Anil Baijal and directed the officials to control the situation.

Gandhi blamed both the Central and the Delhi governments, saying the administration did not take adequate steps on time to curb violence in the national capital.

"Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal and Center is equally responsible for not activating the administration to reach out to the people to maintain peace and harmony," Sonia added.

The death toll in the violence rose to 20 on Wednesday, according to GTB hospital authorities.

Government sources told ANI that the National Security Advisor (NSA) Ajit Doval has been given the charge of bringing normalcy in the capital.

Sources also said that Doval will brief Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the Cabinet about the prevailing situation.

The NSA last night visited Jaffrabad, Seelampur and other parts of northeast Delhi where he held talks with leaders of different communities.

Without naming any leader, the Congress interim president also targeted the leaders of the Bharatiya Janata Party for making inflammatory statements saying that "there is a conspiracy behind the violence, country also saw this during Delhi elections. Many BJP leaders made inciting comments creating an atmosphere of fear and hatred."

Mar 3: Just hours after the ending of a week-long “reduction” in violence that was crucial for Donald Trump’s peace deal in Afghanistan, the Taliban struck again: On Monday, they killed three people and injured about a dozen at a football match in Khost province. This resumption of violence will not surprise anyone actually invested in peace for that troubled country. The point of the U.S.-Taliban deal was never peace. It was to try and cover up an ignominious exit for the U.S., driven by an election-bound president who feels no responsibility toward that country or to the broader region.

Seen from South Asia, every point we know about in the agreement is a concession by Trump to the Taliban. Most importantly, it completes a long-term effort by the U.S. to delegitimize the elected government in Kabul — and, by extension, Afghanistan’s constitution. Afghanistan’s president is already balking at releasing 5,000 Taliban prisoners before intra-Afghan talks can begin — a provision that his government did not approve.

One particularly cringe-worthy aspect: The agreement refers to the Taliban throughout  as “the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan that is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taliban.” This unwieldy nomenclature validates the Taliban’s claim to be a government equivalent to the one in Kabul, just not the one recognised at the moment by the U.S. When read together with the second part of the agreement, which binds the U.S. to not “intervene in [Afghanistan’s] domestic affairs,” the point is obvious: The Taliban is not interested in peace, but in ensuring that support for its rivals is forbidden, and its path to Kabul is cleared.

All that the U.S. has effectively gotten in return is the Taliban’s assurance that it will not allow the soil of Afghanistan to be used against the “U.S. and its allies.” True, the U.S. under Trump has shown a disturbing willingness to trust solemn assurances from autocrats; but its apparent belief in promises made by a murderous theocratic movement is even more ridiculous. Especially as the Taliban made much the same promise to an Assistant Secretary of State about Osama bin Laden while he was in the country plotting 9/11.

Nobody in the region is pleased with this agreement except for the Taliban and their backers in the Pakistani military. India has consistently held that the legitimate government in Kabul must be the basic anchor of any peace plan. Ordinary Afghans, unsurprisingly, long for peace — but they are, by all accounts, deeply skeptical about how this deal will get them there. The brave activists of the Afghan Women’s Network are worried that intra-Afghan talks will take place without adequate representation of the country’s women — who have, after all, the most to lose from a return to Taliban rule.

But the Pakistani military establishment is not hiding its glee. One retired general tweeted: “Big victory for Afghan Taliban as historic accord signed… Forced Americans to negotiate an accord from the position of parity. Setback for India.” Pakistan’s army, the Taliban’s biggest backer, longs to re-install a friendly Islamist regime in Kabul — and it has correctly estimated that, after being abandoned by Trump, the Afghan government will have sharply reduced bargaining power in any intra-Afghan peace talks. A deal with the Taliban that fails also to include its backers in the Pakistani military is meaningless.

India, meanwhile, will not see this deal as a positive for regional peace or its relationship with the U.S. It comes barely a week after Trump’s India visit, which made it painfully clear that shared strategic concerns are the only thing keeping the countries together. New Delhi remembers that India is not, on paper, a U.S. “ally.” In that respect, an intensification of terrorism targeting India, as happened the last time the U.S. withdrew from the region, would not even be a violation of Trump’s agreement. One possible outcome: Over time the government in New Delhi, which has resolutely sought to keep its ties with Kabul primarily political, may have to step up security cooperation. Nobody knows where that would lead.

The irresponsible concessions made by the U.S. in this agreement will likely disrupt South Asia for years to come, and endanger its own relationship with India going forward. But worst of all, this deal abandons those in Afghanistan who, under the shadow of war, tried to develop, for the first time, institutions that work for all Afghans. No amount of sanctimony about “ending America’s longest war” should obscure the danger and immorality of this sort of exit.