US sticks to its guns, demands restoration of diplomatic security

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.

Kolkata, Jul 20: As many as 13 migrant workers who came to their native village in West Bengal's Bankura district were denied entry at the quarantine centre by the locals.

As a result, the workers had to set up a tent accommodation at a nearby Beraban forest area and lived together in a single tent there, without adequate food, drinking water and basic facilities.

The migrant labourers came from Rajasthan after four months of COVID-19 lockdown which was imposed nationwide on March 25 to contain the spread of coronavirus.

When they arrived at Jagadalla village in the Bankura district and tried to put up at a village school building for two weeks self-quarantine, angry villagers vehemently protested against their entry fearing Covid infections in their village.

Sources said that local police and panchayat members also failed to make the villagers understand the fact that if the labourers strictly stayed in self-quarantine there would be no chance of any further infection.

"The school is located quite within our neighbourhood. If they stay there and tested positive, they might spread Covid infections in the village. We cannot allow them to stay in the school building," said Aniket Goswami, a villager.

Lucknow, May 25: Migrant workers who wish to return to their places of work after the lockdown is lifted, may no longer find the going easy now.

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has said that his government will lay down stringent conditions for ensuring social security of workers from the state who are hired by other states.

"Other states will also need to seek permission from his government before engaging workers from UP," he said while addressing a webinar on Sunday.

The Chief Minister stated, "If any state wants manpower, the state government will have to guarantee social security and insurance of the workers. Without our permission they will not be able to take our people," he said.

He said all migrant workers who have returned to the state were being registered and their skills were being mapped by the administration. Any state or entity interested in hiring them will need to take care of their social, legal and monetary rights.

Speaking about the challenges his administration had faced during this crisis, the Chief Minister said, "When I talk of Uttar Pradesh, then it is natural to say that it is the state with the highest population. We have faced several challenges during the lockdown. At the beginning, migrant workers and labourers started coming to the state. We deployed 16,000 buses and within 24 hours, they were brought back to their home districts and arrangements were made to screen them."

Yogi Adityanath took a dig at the opposition leaders for the migrant crisis. "During the lockdown, if those who now raise slogans for the poor had honestly cared about workers, then migration could have been stopped. This did not happen. No facilities were given. At several places, electricity connections were cut, so people had to migrate." he said.

Legal experts, meanwhile said that requiring government permission for employing people could face a legal challenge as the Constitution guarantees the freedom of movement and residence and employment of workers.

"Article 19 (1)(D) guarantees freedom to move freely, and 19(1)(e) the freedom to settled in any part of the countryso the need for permission can be legally challenged," said a senior lawyer.