Mangaluru Chalo: Cops scuttle bike rally as BJP defies ban

Jan 13: For the first time in years, the government of India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi is playing defense. Protests have sprung up across the country against an amendment to India’s laws — which came into effect on Friday — that makes it easier for members of some religions to become citizens of India. The government claims this is simply an attempt to protect religious minorities in the Muslim-majority countries that border India; but protesters see it as the first step toward a formal repudiation of India’s constitutionally guaranteed secularism — and one that must be resisted.

Modi was re-elected prime minister last year with an enhanced majority; his hold over the country’s politics is absolute. The formal opposition is weak, discredited and disorganized. Yet, somehow, the anti-Citizenship Act protests have taken hold. No political party is behind them; they are generally arranged by student unions, neighborhood associations and the like.

Yet this aspect of their character is precisely what will worry Modi and his right-hand man, Home Minister Amit Shah. They know how to mock and delegitimize opposition parties with ruthless efficiency. Yet creating a narrative that paints large, flag-waving crowds as traitors is not quite that easy.

For that is how these protests look: large groups of young people, many carrying witty signs and the national flag. They meet and read the preamble to India’s Constitution, into which the promise of secularism was written in the 1970’s.

They carry photographs of the Constitution’s drafter, the Columbia University-trained economist and lawyer B. R. Ambedkar. These are not the mobs the government wanted. They hoped for angry Muslims rampaging through the streets of India’s cities, whom they could point to and say: “See? We must protect you from them.” But, in spite of sometimes brutal repression, the protests have largely been nonviolent.

One, in Shaheen Bagh in a Muslim-dominated sector of New Delhi, began simply as a set of local women in a square, armed with hot tea and blankets against the chill Delhi winter. It has now become the focal point of a very different sort of resistance than what the government expected. Nothing could cure the delusions of India’s Hindu middle class, trained to see India’s Muslims as dangerous threats, as effectively as a group of otherwise clearly apolitical women sipping sweet tea and sharing their fears and food with anyone who will listen.

Modi was re-elected less than a year ago; what could have changed in India since then? Not much, I suspect, in most places that voted for him and his party — particularly the vast rural hinterland of northern India. But urban India was also possibly never quite as content as electoral results suggested. India’s growth dipped below 5% in recent quarters; demand has crashed, and uncertainty about the future is widespread. Worse, the government’s response to the protests was clearly ill-judged. University campuses were attacked, in one case by the police and later by masked men almost certainly connected to the ruling party.

Protesters were harassed and detained with little cause. The courts seemed uninterested. And, slowly, anger began to grow on social media — not just on Twitter, but also on Instagram, previously the preserve of pretty bowls of salad. Instagram is the one social medium over which Modi’s party does not have a stranglehold; and it is where these protests, with their photogenic signs and flags, have found a natural home. As a result, people across urban India who would never previously have gone to a demonstration or a political rally have been slowly politicized.

India is, in fact, becoming more like a normal democracy. “Normal,” that is, for the 2020’s. Liberal democracies across the world are politically divided, often between more liberal urban centers and coasts, and angrier, “left-behind” hinterlands. Modi’s political secret was that he was that rare populist who could unite both the hopeful cities and the resentful countryside. Yet this once magic formula seems to have become ineffective. Five of India’s six largest cities are not ruled by Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in any case — the financial hub of Mumbai changed hands recently. The BJP has set its sights on winning state elections in Delhi in a few weeks. Which way the capital’s voters will go is uncertain. But that itself is revealing — last year, Modi swept all seven parliamentary seats in Delhi.

In the end, the Citizenship Amendment Act is now law, the BJP might manage to win Delhi, and the protests might die down as the days get unmanageably hot and state repression increases. But urban India has put Modi on notice. His days of being India’s unifier are over: From now on, like all the other populists, he will have to keep one eye on the streets of his country’s cities.

Bengaluru, Mar 11: The Insurance Regulatory Authority of India has asked insurers to settle all claims related to coronavirus expeditiously under existing health policies that provide for treatment of hospitalisation expenses.

It has also asked insurers to design products covering the cost of treatment of coronavirus that has fast spread across the world and also resulted in increasing number of infections in India. There has been over 3,000 deaths globally and 58 cases tested positive in India.

In order to provide need-based health insurance coverage, insurers are intro ducing products for various specific diseases, including vector borne diseases. "For the purpose of meeting health insurance requirements of various sections, insurers are advised to design products covering the costs of treatment for coronavirus," the IRDAI said in a circular.

The regulator said that under existing health insurance policies where hospitalisation is covered, not only the cases related to coronvirus disease (COVID-19) shall be expeditiously handled, but all the costs of admissible medic al expenses during the course of treatment, including the treatment during quarantine period, should be settled in accordance to the applicable terms and conditions of policy contract and the extant regulatory framework.

This would bring much needed relief to policy holders some of whom were facing difficulty in getting coverage for treatment takers to coronavirus. In the absence of clear information, a few hospitals were reportedly denying for forward such claims of policy holders to the insurers.

IRDAI has now said that all the claims reported under COVID-19 shall be thoro ughly reviewed by review committee before repudiating the claims. This would prevent blanket rejection of such claims.

But to get full claim for treatment of coronavirus, industry experts said, a person should be hospitalised at least for 24 hours. Most insurers do not c over outpatient treatment.

New Delhi, Feb 7: The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice to the Central government on a plea challenging the Constitutional validity of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) and effective implementation of the Assam Accord.

A bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde also sought Centre's response on the plea filed by Assam Social Justice Forum.

The petition sought appropriate directions for taking effective steps for the implementation of Assam Accord, 1985 in letter and spirit and for conservation and preservation of the of a distinct culture, heritage and traditions of the indigenous people of Assam.

The Assam Accord, 1985, had fixed March 24, 1971, as the cut-off date for deportation of all illegal immigrants irrespective of their religion.

The Bench also sought Centre's response on another fresh batch of pleas challenging CAA and tagged them along with other petitions pending in the matter.

One of the petitions, filed by the Association of Advocates from Maharashtra among others, sought to declare the Citizenship Amendment Act as discriminatory, arbitrary, and illegal and consequently set aside the impugned act as ultra-vires the Constitution of India.

On the other hand, over a hundred petitions have been filed in the apex court, for and against the amended citizenship law, which is facing opposition and protests across the country.

CAA grants citizenship to Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Parsis and Christians who fled religious persecution in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan and took refuge in India on or before December 31, 2014.