Modi govt's crackdown on civil society

[email protected] (Rohini Mohan | International New York Times)
January 13, 2017

Among their common traits, illiberal strongmen share a virulent mistrust of civil society. From Vladimir Putin's Russia to Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Turkey, illiberal governments regularly use imprisonment, threats and nationalist language to repress non-governmental organisations. In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi's government is going after their money.

crackdownThe Lawyers Collective, an advocacy group in New Delhi run by the prominent lawyers Indira Jaising and Anand Grover, has for three decades provided legal assistance to women, non-union workers, activists and other marginalised groups, often without charge. In December, the Modi government barred it from receiving foreign grants. The political reasons were obvious: The Collective had represented critics of Modi's sectarian record and environmental vision.

Under law, non-governmental groups that seek foreign donations have to register under the Foreign Contributions Regulation Act, which prohibits the use of overseas funds for “activities detrimental to the national interest.” Although accountability in the non-governmental sector is necessary to control malpractice, the foreign funding law is better known as a tool of political retribution than transparent auditing.

It's not just the Collective that has been punished. The Home Affairs Ministry recently revoked the licences of around 10,000 other NGOs. Even groups whose funding licences were renewed are worried about the future. “It is activism on thinning ice from now on,” an education activist told me.

The funding law is rooted in Cold War fears about foreign interference in domestic politics. In 1975, prime minister Indira Gandhi raised the spectre of the “foreign hand,” suspended civil liberties, arrested political opponents, and censored the press for an almost two-year dictatorial stretch known as the Emergency.

Gandhi, a socialist who leaned toward the Soviet Union, proposed the foreign funding law as a deterrent to political meddling. During a 1976 debate in the Indian Parliament on the law, the CIA was mentioned dozens of times as lawmakers expressed outrage over “American bossism” and the United States' role in the overthrow of Salvador Allende's government in Chile.

The new law prohibited political parties, the news media and organisations “of a political nature” from receiving foreign contributions. Social, religious and educational organisations with foreign donors were required to obtain a permit.

India has moved away from the paranoid 1970s to a liberalised economy and is embracing the United States and global financial institutions. But the foreign funding law remains a handy weapon whose vague vocabulary (“public interest” and “national interest”) gives the state immense discretionary powers against critics.

In 2010, the Congress government made the law more stringent: it now requires licences to be renewed every five years, and allows the state to suspend permits and freeze groups' accounts for 180 days during any investigation. The Congress government used the law to pressure civil society groups protesting corruption and a nuclear power plant.

Modi's government has been even more openly hostile to civil society groups. It repeatedly denounces human rights and environmental activism as “anti-national” — a phrase that carries connotations of treason. The patriotic rage is a mask for a more pedestrian motive: punishing pesky critics. In 2016, what is normally a routine licence renewal process was used to punish groups that have been critical of Modi or his policies.

The Lawyers Collective has been prominent among such groups. In 2015, Priya Pillai, a campaigner from Greenpeace India, was travelling to London to testify in the British Parliament about coal mining in central Indian forests by Essar Energy, a corporation registered in Britain. Federal officers pulled Pillai off her flight, arguing that her deposition would have hurt India's “national interest.” Pillai went to court; the Lawyers Collective represented her.

The Collective also represented Teesta Setalvad, who has been campaigning for justice for the victims of sectarian riots in Gujarat in 2002, when Modi was the chief minister of the state. Setalvad has sought to put Modi and other Hindu nationalist politicians on trial for allegedly overseeing or participating in violence. After Modi's elevation to national office, Setalvad was accused of stealing donations meant for riot victims. In July, her home in Mumbai was raided by federal agents, and a few months later, Setalvad's organisations lost their foreign funding licences.

Dalit atrocities

Since Modi rose to power, emboldened hardline Hindu activists have assaulted cow traders and people suspected of eating beef, claiming to defend Hindu beliefs. In July, vigilantes stripped and flogged four Dalit, or lower caste men in Gujarat for skinning a cow. Many Dalits earn their livelihood from skinning dead animals and selling their hides to leather traders.

The assault prompted protests by Dalits and damaged Modi's image among the group, about a sixth of the country's population. A Dalit rights organisation, Navsarjan Trust, played a leading role in the protests. On December 15, the federal government cancelled the foreign funding licence of the Trust.

Newspapers quoted unnamed officials claiming that intelligence agencies have described seven civil society groups, including the Trust, as “working against public interest” and painting the Modi government as anti-Dalit abroad.

Some of these groups are seeking redress in courts, which have largely been fair. But legal battles exact a cost: With bank accounts frozen for months during investigations, bills for rent, electricity and lawyers mount. People's Watch, a human rights group, was unable to pay salaries for 23 months. Many Greenpeace India employees took pay cuts in 2014. As court duels drag on, campaigns lag, research comes to a standstill and years of community mobilisation dissipate.

Yet, neither Modi's Bharatiya Janata Party nor the Congress has had any qualms about accepting campaign funding from foreign businesses. In May 2014, a New Delhi court held both the BJP and the Congress guilty of receiving donations from a London-listed company in violation of the foreign funding law.

Modi's government found a way of legally transforming its donors from foreign companies to Indian ones. It amended the law to change the definition of a foreign business, retroactively making a wider range of companies permissible campaign donors. While the civil society groups working with the poorest Indians are being choked, India's political parties found many more avenues to receive more money.

Civil society groups do try hard to raise funds within the country, but philanthropists remain tight-fisted when it comes to issues like land or labour rights, health care access, quality of education, or resource exploitation by corporations.

“Our rich guys will feed poor kids but won't question governments,” a fund-raising manager in New Delhi explained. By yanking foreign funding licences, the Indian government is doing just what it accuses civil society organisations of: working against public interest.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
July 11,2020

Citing the current dismal aviation scenario, Air India is terminating the services of trainee cabin crew and cabin crew by withdrawing the offer of employment of those who were under training.

As per sources, the new crew and trainee pilots might reduce contracts from five years to one year. Sources said Air India is terminating 1,200 crew and employees who are more than 55-yr-old including 190 trainee pilots.

In a letter reviewed by IANS, Air India has informed an applicant who had been selected as cabin crew in August 2019 subject to successful completion of training.

"On behalf of Air India we would like to thank you for the interest shown by you in joining our organization. However, in view of the current aviation scenario, it would not be possible for Air India to impart any further training to you for engaging your services," the company said.

"In view of the above reasons, which are beyond the control of the company, it has been decided to discontinue your training arrangements and dispense with the offer of engagement with immediate effect. The bank guarantee furnished by you at the time of joining is returned herewith," Air India told the cabin crew.

"Once again on behalf of Air India we thank you for your cooperation and trust that you will appreciate the circumstances under which we are constrained to discontinue the training arrangements," the carrier said.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
Agencies
March 25,2020

In an unprecedented crisis despite Prime Minister Narendra Modi assuring the continuation of essential services like food and groceries, online marketplaces like Flipkart and Amazon along with delivery platforms like Bigbasket, Grofers and FreshToHomes hit a major blockade on Wednesday as local authorities shut warehouses and sent delivery boys back, even harassed them.

Millions of people across cities were left helpless at homes as essential items like fruits and vegetables, dairy and milk, meat and fish etc did not reach their doors despite placing orders well in advance. Later, the orders went dry.

While Grofers' warehouse in Faridabad was closed by the local law enforcement agencies, Bigbasket complained that the police stopped its delivery partners and "some of them were even beaten up by for no fault of theirs".

"We are not operational due to restrictions imposed by local authorities on movement of goods in spite of clear guidelines provided by central authorities to enable essential services. We are working with the authorities to be back soon,' Bigbasket tweeted.

In a statement to IANS, Bigbasket said that it will help to have better coordination between the Centre and state, and between the state and local police to "ensure that our delivery vans and bikes don't get stopped by the police. Bigbasket and bb daily are not taking new orders".

Furious people stormed the social media platforms, writing their plight to NITI Aayog CEO Amitabh Kant on Twitter.

"Sir, all e-commerce are down. Believe me I tried everything (Grofers, Bigbasket, Flipkart, Amazon, Big Bazaar), no delivery till 31st March or Server Down or No Service. Need to think how we can enable them through digital India," tweeted one user.

Kant tweeted back to Bigbasket: "They should give me specifics - State & location. I will act on it by getting in touch with concerned authorities & sorting it out. Govt guidelines exempt them. We will ensure that citizens are not impacted".

Kant also responded to Grofers: "Cold storages & Warehouses as well as delivery of all essentials goods including food, pharma thru E-Commerce are exempted under MHA order. I have spoken to CS & DGP, Haryana . They have taken immediate action to ensure that supply chains efficiently function for the citizens".

The subscription-based hyperlocal delivery startup FreshToHome sent messages to its customers, saying that despite the government declaring food delivery as essential, "we are facing hardships in continuing our operations".

"Please bear with us as we are working hard to unblock local authority hurdles," said the FreshToHome team.

Reports later surfaced that the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) has initiated talks with the state Chief Secretaries asking them not to restrict movement of people engaged in home delivery of essential items, mentioned in the list of exempted items circulated by the Home Ministry.

Meanwhile, Flipkart said it has temporarily suspended its operations and services - including grocery items. The marketplace has decided to halt all orders from March 25 for all three supply chains -- groceries, non-large goods and large items.

"Flipkart has temporarily suspended orders as we assess the possibilities of operating in the lockdown. We are prioritising the safety of our delivery executives and seeking the support of the local governments and police authorities to meet the needs of our customers as they stay home during this lockdown," Rajneesh Kumar, Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, Flipkart, said in a statement.

E-commerce giant Amazon said the company has to "temporarily stop taking orders and disable shipments for lower-priority products.

"For all pending customer orders on lower-priority products, we are reaching out to customers and giving them a choice to cancel their orders, and receive a refund for prepaid items," said the company.

Witnessing a surge in demand, supermarket chain Biz Bazaar entered the fray, with launching doorstep delivery services in major cities like Delhi, Mumbai, Bengaluru and Gurugram.

However, within no time, Big Bazaar was flooded with calls, forcing the company to issue a statement, saying that "In light of the recent announcement, we are receiving an unprecedented number of requests for doorstep delivery. There could be a delay due to the restrictions on movements".

Already battling massive surge in demand, the online delivery platforms faced other issues too, including zero access to several high-rises across the country which have gone under complete lockdown with all entry and exit gates locked.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.
News Network
April 17,2020

Paris, Apr 17: Even as virologists zero in on the virus that causes COVID-19, a very basic question remains unanswered: do those who recover from the disease have immunity?

There is no clear answer to this question, experts say, even if many have assumed that contracting the potentially deadly disease confers immunity, at least for a while.

"Being immunised means that you have developed an immune response against a virus such that you can repulse it," explained Eric Vivier, a professor of immunology in the public hospital system in Marseilles.

"Our immune systems remember, which normally prevents you from being infected by the same virus later on."

For some viral diseases such a measles, overcoming the sickness confers immunity for life.

But for RNA-based viruses such as Sars-Cov-2 -- the scientific name for the bug that causes the COVID-19 disease -- it takes about three weeks to build up a sufficient quantity of antibodies, and even then they may provide protection for only a few months, Vivier told AFP.

At least that is the theory. In reality, the new coronavirus has thrown up one surprise after another, to the point where virologists and epidemiologists are sure of very little.

"We do not have the answers to that -- it's an unknown," Michael Ryan, executive director of the World Health Organization's Emergencies Programme said in a press conference this week when asked how long a recovered COVID-19 patient would have immunity.

"We would expect that to be a reasonable period of protection, but it is very difficult to say with a new virus -- we can only extrapolate from other coronaviruses, and even that data is quite limited."

For SARS, which killed about 800 people across the world in 2002 and 2003, recovered patients remained protected "for about three years, on average," Francois Balloux director of the Genetics Institute at University College London, said.

"One can certainly get reinfected, but after how much time? We'll only know retroactively."

A recent study from China that has not gone through peer review reported on rhesus monkeys that recovered from Sars-Cov-2 and did not get reinfected when exposed once again to the virus.

"But that doesn't really reveal anything," said Pasteur Institute researcher Frederic Tangy, noting that the experiment unfolded over only a month.

Indeed,several cases from South Korea -- one of the first countries hit by the new coronavirus -- found that patients who recovered from COVID-19 later tested positive for the virus.

But there are several ways to explain that outcome, scientists cautioned.

While it is not impossible that these individuals became infected a second time, there is little evidence this is what happened.

More likely, said Balloux, is that the virus never completely disappeared in the first place and remains -- dormant and asymptomatic -- as a "chronic infection", like herpes.

As tests for live virus and antibodies have not yet been perfected, it is also possible that these patients at some point tested "false negative" when in fact they had not rid themselves of the pathogen.

"That suggests that people remain infected for a long time -- several weeks," Balloux added. "That is not ideal."

Another pre-publication study that looked at 175 recovered patients in Shanghai showed different concentrations of protective antibodies 10 to 15 days after the onset of symptoms.

"But whether that antibody response actually means immunity is a separate question," commented Maria Van Kerhove, Technical Lead of the WHO Emergencies Programme.

"That's something we really need to better understand -- what does that antibody response look like in terms of immunity."

Indeed, a host of questions remain.

"We are at the stage of asking whether someone who has overcome COVID-19 is really that protected," said Jean-Francois Delfraissy, president of France's official science advisory board.

For Tangy, an even grimmer reality cannot be excluded.

"It is possible that the antibodies that someone develops against the virus could actually increase the risk of the disease becoming worse," he said, noting that the most serious symptoms come later, after the patient had formed antibodies.

For the moment, it is also unclear whose antibodies are more potent in beating back the disease: someone who nearly died, or someone with only light symptoms or even no symptoms at all. And does age make a difference?

Faced with all these uncertainties, some experts have doubts about the wisdom of persuing a "herd immunity" strategy such that the virus -- unable to find new victims -- peters out by itself when a majority of the population is immune.

"The only real solution for now is a vaccine," Archie Clements, a professor at Curtin University in Perth Australia, told AFP.

At the same time, laboratories are developing a slew of antibody tests to see what proportion of the population in different countries and regions have been contaminated.

Such an approach has been favoured in Britain and Finland, while in Germany some experts have floated the idea of an "immunity passport" that would allow people to go back to work.

"It's too premature at this point," said Saad Omer, a professor of infectious diseases at the Yale School of Medicine.

"We should be able to get clearer data very quickly -- in a couple of months -- when there will be reliable antibody tests with sensitivity and specificity."

One concern is "false positives" caused by the tests detecting antibodies unrelated to COVID-19.

The idea of immunity passports or certificates also raises ethical questions, researchers say.

"People who absolutely need to work -- to feed their families, for example -- could try to get infected," Balloux.

Comments

Add new comment

  • Coastaldigest.com reserves the right to delete or block any comments.
  • Coastaldigset.com is not responsible for its readers’ comments.
  • Comments that are abusive, incendiary or irrelevant are strictly prohibited.
  • Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name to avoid reject.