What are the reasons behind farmers’ protests? Using narratives collected from various parts of India, the underlying processes of socio-economic transformations, which have created a dual-identity crisis among farmers, are explained to argue that anxieties have manifested in large-scale protests, producing a new politics around rural–agrarian questions.

The full paper was published in the Economic and Political Weekly in Vol 53, No 26-27. 30 June 2018. Follow the link to read the article

Voters in the Sirsa constituency of Haryana seem to have a different agenda for the polls in comparison to the voters in the nearby districts of Rajasthan. Sirsa will be going to polls on May 12. It is amongst the bordering districts of Rajasthan, Punjab and Haryana.

To read the full article, that was published on thewire on 11 May 2019 click here

सीसीएस जैसे क़ानूनों का उद्देश्य उच्च शिक्षा के उद्देश्यों को ही ध्वस्त कर देना है. उच्च शिक्षा में विकास तब तक संभव नहीं है जब तक विचारों के आदान-प्रदान की आज़ादी नहीं हो. अगर इन संस्थाओं की ये भूमिका ही समाप्त हो जाए तो उच्च शिक्षा की आवश्यकता ही क्या रहेगी? शिक्षक और शोधार्थी सरकारी कर्मचारी की तरह व्यवहार नहीं कर सकते.

पूरा लेख जो की वायर हिंदी में 4 नवंबर 2018  को छपा था को  पढ़ने के लिए यहाँ क्लिक करें 

‘Farmers’ protests’ have once again become a national issue. This time, it is not the suicide of farmers but of assertion and anger expressed on the roads in the cities and challenging the state machinery. If we listen to the videos or read the media reports, various people taking part in these agitations expressed price rise and farm loans as their major concerns and demands. But does that explain the full picture?

Read my full commentary on thewire.com on the issue by clicking here

 

In the past six months, three farmers have committed suicide in various parts of Rajasthan especially in the northern region (including districts of Ganganagar and Hanumangarh). In the month of June, a farmer in the Ganganagar district of Rajasthan had committed suicide leaving behind a video message on social media accusing the state government of its failure in implementing the loan waiver. It appears that after Marathwada and Vidarbha regions of Maharashtra, these parts of Rajasthan are also in the process of becoming new suicide hotspots. Continue reading →

It has been two weeks of JNU students’ protests against a proposed fee hike in JNU. The Federation of Central Universities Teachers’ Association also protested jointly with teachers’, students and Karmcharis of the central universities against the New Education Policy on 14^th November 2019. In the ongoing media propaganda probably one would see two events differently. JNU protests would be seen as a specific campus-related story whereas the FEDCUTA protest is about the large-scale policy changes.

In reality, both the protests need to be seen together in order to understand the ramifications of the proposed marketization of the education system in general and the higher education system in particular. It should also be seen as an effort by universities in Delhi to refuse to be used as sites of experiments for various policy changes in the field of education.

The proposed large-scale structural changes in the New Education Policy would fundamentally alter the nature of education as well as the education system of the country. Universities in Delhi including Delhi University, JNU, and Jamia Milia Islamia are at the epicenter of this project of educational restructuring. Ranging from introducing new admission process, newer academic programs and above all administrative restructuring are few such examples. The objectives of these political projects are not only to destroy the very idea of these universities (especially DU and JNU) but also to set them as a model for other universities to replicate the similar structural changes in all the central universities across India. I don’t want to repeat about JNU has a lot has already been written on this. But I would like to highlight some features of the structural shift that is in making.

Though the project of restructuring education began during the UPA II regime, under the new regime the whole pyramid of public-funded university education systems in India is facing an existential threat. When the larger focus of concerned citizens about JNU is on the academic misgovernance and administrative turmoil in the university, a major restructuring of the Indian university system is underway as a major political project. Besides, by spreading the hate propaganda against JNU through the electronic as well as print media the opportunity is being seized by the present regime to delegitimize any criticism of academic policy or educational policy emanating from the capital city.

JNU was amongst the first universities to implement some of the new policies in the realm of the higher education system after independence. These policies were outcomes of learning from the international higher education system and also the emerging educational requirements in the Indian socio-economic conditions. It was these policy experiments and deliberations that helped to build the academic reputation of JNU not only in the Indian higher education system but also in global academia.

Few such initiatives were: a semester system in place of yearly academic session system, choice-based credit system instead of a system based upon the total number of courses, grading system in place of marks system and an entrance exam based system in place of marks based ‘merit’ system.

The Delhi University was a contrast case. Unlike JNU it was a much bigger university with a large number of affiliated colleges and a range of academic disciplines and courses. Besides, DU was a much older institution than what JNU was. While JNU started contributing to the academic life of the country much later, DU had already set standards of college education and management of a large-scale educational institution through its highly competitive undergraduate programs.

JNU could provide a more amicable environment for teaching as well as research due to its small size along with closed campus. Consequently, its academic structures had gained popularity across the Indian academic system. Though it has also invited criticism of this model from various corners, there was a national consensus about contributions made by JNU and how it transformed the lives of not only its students as well as teachers.

Any kind of structural change in the Indian university system wouldn’t have been possible without destroying these two universities. Consequently, political regimes have been using these two great institutions as experimental tools to implement their kind of policies in the realm of higher education.

DU was the first university to face such assault in 2010 when the then Vice-Chancellor Dinesh Singh forcefully implemented the FOUR Year Undergraduate Program, a choice based credit system (CBCS) and semester system in the University of Delhi. Both policies were implemented in the university in an authoritarian manner without consulting the teacher’s representative bodies. Despite massive opposition to these initiatives the DU Vice-Chancellor refused to listen to the teachers’ body and implemented his decisions by using bureaucratic authority and powers vested in his office by the university acts. The UPA II government offered full support to all these efforts of the Vice-Chancellor

Meanwhile, 12 new central universities were established in the year 2009 to expand the higher education system. However, contrary to the erstwhile system where every university was governed by its own act with specific objectives, fields of knowledge and inquiry, the new system was to be governed by a common Act for all the universities. The new act was an amalgamation of the DU and JNU system. Besides, the UGC also came up with a centrally devised common governance structure in which there was no space for teachers’ representative bodies or students representative bodies. The new system was a highly bureaucratized system minus local requirements or realities. The new university system in this sense was to be more of a bureaucratic technical system in place of a knowledge-seeking system with deliberations, consultations, and space for democratization.

With the BJP government coming to power in 2014 with the stage already set for structural change in the new education system, the new government decided to launch structural destruction in a full-fledged manner. Introduction of Higher Education Funding Agency, Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding with defined objectives to be achieved, the idea of institutions of eminence with financial autonomy, etc. were few such policy decisions. Above all, the idea of a Higher Education Regulating Authority was to convert the higher education system in a highly centralized mechanized, bureaucratic-technocratic system of education where the focus was to be on the distribution of degrees rather than promoting innovation and freedom of expression.

But the real challenge was- how to achieve this. This time the policymakers decided to shift their laboratory from DU to JNU and this time used JNU teachers and students as their experimental subjects. The current Vice-Chancellor also performed his role as a destructor with full honesty quite like his DU predecessor. JNU would have been the best role model to implement all new decisions without any resistance from other universities. The only major challenge to such efforts would have come from the Delhi University and JNU teachers and student movements who had resisted all such moves.

The new government also thought of a university leadership that would implement all of this without questioning the motive of the government. Though most of the Vice Chancellors in India act like this someone who could do it proactively was selected for this job. The present JNU Vice-Chancellor after taking office refused to take into account any suggestions or inputs coming from the teachers or students representative body.

Instead, efforts were made to create all kinds of divisions between the university fraternity by introducing newer admission rules, restructuring the teaching-learning process, sabotaging the recruitment process and above all implementing newer hostel rules. The arrest of JNUSU president and the political development after that were efforts to divert attention from some of the structural changes which were to be implemented under the cover of these national-level debates. JNU teacher representatives have been receiving show-cause notices and other letters for raising their voice even on the issues that concern the teaching and learning exercise in the university.

These practices are now setting standard operating procedures for other university administrators as well. All Central Universities have refused to recognize teachers’ representative bodies. Students have not been given due representation in the decision making the process of the universities. The JNU was amongst the first universities to apply for a 500 crore rupees loan from the higher education funding agency along with a plan of converting JNU property into a commercial property. In addition, JNU signed the Tripartite MOU with the MHRD and UGC in a highly secretive manner. JNU also applied for the Institution of Eminence tag but couldn’t manage it despite efforts by the current university administration.

The recent controversy about new hostel charges and an increase in the fee is not only about increasing charges but also about denying the real stakeholders any role in this process and also setting a model for the universities across India for users’ payment model. Under this new model, the user must pay for all the services and also for the maintenance as they would have paid in any private university.

Followed by JNU, now the University of Delhi is in process of replicating some of the policy decisions implemented by JNU including looking for Institution of Eminence status, applying for a HEFA loan, signing a tripartite MOU. Reworking on the hostel rules and fee structures would be the next step in the pipeline in all central universities.

It is against this long-term state plan that the JNU students and teachers’ are fighting against it. The FEDCUTA protest is also highlighting similar concerns. The implementation of all the new policy decisions which are being implemented in JNU now would gradually destroy the very nature of publicly funded, the subsidized education system of India. Besides, it would also destroy the quest for a just, equal society for which the foundation of a democratic, open and politically vibrant education system is a prerequisite.

In March 2018, the NDA government had launched the policy of defense industry corridors. The first defense corridor was launched in UP in August last year and the second corridor has been launched on 10 February 2019 in Tamil Nadu. The second corridor is going to come up in UP. According to the government, the basic objective of these corridors is to promote the domestic defense industry for self-reliance. Currently, India imports a majority of its arms and other defense equipment from Russia (around 68 %).

Though the government has declared self-reliance in defense and job creation as two major objectives of this policy, the real focus would also be on export promotion. In the new model of export-oriented economic growth, these corridors are expected to be a major driver of making India as a defense equipment-manufacturing hub.

Apart from the concerns raised related to the economic viability of defense corridors and the ability of Indian firms to produce world-class defense equipment and technology, the implications of this policy are likely to change India’s role in global affairs. It will have also serious implications on domestic politics as well. Apart from the economic concerns related to the possibilities and liabilities of such programs, the promotion of industrialization in the field of defense-related items would bring a major shift in some of the ethical paradigms of Indian democracy. It is also likely to bring in alterations in welfare-related priorities of the Indian state. Looking at the implementation of this policy three such major issues can be highlighted.

Domestic implications

First and foremost, the acquisition of agricultural land is a precondition for establishing such corridors (quite like Special Export Zones). For this purpose, major land acquisition is being carried out. A majority of SEZs for which major land was acquired continues to remain unutilized. Most of the projects didn’t take off due to various reasons. In such a situation another drive for land acquisition would adversely impact the livelihood of the farmers and other groups. These corridors will result in dispossession of a large number of farming families and migration to the other nearby cities. For the Bundelkhand Defense Corridor around 3000 acres of land is to be acquired in the districts of Aligarh, Kanpur, Agra, Jhansi, and Chitrakoot. Similarly, in Tamil Nadu land is to be acquired in the regions of Trichy, Chennai, Hosur, and Coimbatore.

The selection of areas for the production of defense products is also a major concern. In the case of UP, the Bundelkhand region has been selected for the defense corridor. This region has been historically known for its violent, feudal culture. The region had suffered from bandits for a very long time. It is almost an efforts of four decades by various groups (including Gandhian leaders like Vinoba Bhave and many other local leaders and civil society activists) played a crucial role in disarming some of these groups and bring them back in the mainstream social life. The region has become relatively stable only in the last two decades and still struggling hard to overcome its social and economic backwardness. Any such attempts to promote the arms industry in a region that is struggling with poverty and underdevelopment is more likely to revive the culture of bloodshed.

The government has declared the creation of jobs as one of the objectives of promoting the defense corridor. In the case of the Tamil Nadu Defense corridor, it has given the logic of having a large number of engineering colleges along with other technical support bases in the region. However, no such knowledge base exists in Bundelkhand. Besides, the region is also known for its highly unskilled labor. In such a scenario, the only job creation that can happen through defense corridors is in the construction industry and least likely to generate jobs in any meaningful way. A policy like the defense corridor would destroy the peace of a backward region like Bundelkhand by reviving a culture of violence and armament and is likely to push it back in history.

Apart from the concerns of land, livelihood and job creation, there are serious issues involved with regard to the defense production, functioning of these markets and regulating their access to the people. Though there are legal mechanisms in place, which prevent misuse of arms and defense products, with the rise of the indigenous defense industry there will be a fundamental change in the context of these legal mechanisms. This would no more be a simple question of allowing or disallowing people to procure or possess such items. The industry would also play a major role in pressurizing the government to open up the domestic market for such products along with allowing exports.

The upcoming defense industry would look for effective buyers for its products within the domestic market. The private sector’s objective is to make its products profitable by reducing costs and also creating effective buyers for its products. The domestic market is the easiest available option for this purpose. Apart from the Indian armed forces, a natural buyer of some of these products, there is already an emerging big market for such products in the metro cities. Any rise in the domestic defense production is likely to result in decline in the prices of these products (including small electrical items, heavy defense equipment, and arms and ammunition) making them accessible to the population that is otherwise yet not exposed to such products.

Apart from the pricing related dynamics, the defense producers are likely to create a market for their products by propagating and advertising a sense of insecurity. This will also promote private sector security agencies. A new nexus between the defense companies, electronic media and security agencies is likely to emerge in this case (as is the case in other countries especially in the US). This new nexus would also like to get access to various data sets being used by government agencies or even by the private agencies.

The military-industrial complex has been characterized as a major feature of polities with a strong defense industry. This was also a major economic and political factor in the former Soviet Union. Its rising defense expenditure had eventually led to its complete downfall. The US has been a proactive player in various global conflicts in order to provide a bailout package to its defense industry, especially during the times of domestic or global economic crisis. Any defense industry runs on oil. The US intervention and military actions in the West Asian region are motivated by its plans to get its defense industry going by controlling the oil resources of the region.

The US could afford this kind of disastrous policy due to its exploitative economic system based upon profit motives without having socio-economic challenges like India’s. In the contemporary era of neoliberalism, a political system like India such an industrial policy is quite likely to be misused not only for the purpose of promoting conflict situations but also for the promotion of a specific cultural agenda.

This would also result in the gradual diversion of funds from welfare schemes to defense-related requirements. India’s defense budget is already rising and it falls into the two five countries with higher GDP allocated for defense requirements. But it is more likely to go up in the near future, as defense industrial promotion would require India spending more on oil and other raw material for this purpose.

In other words, this production process is likely to create a trap of insecurity to which the only answer would be more and more securitization. This is also likely to pose challenges to the notion of privacy. Besides, there have already been various forms of group animosity and violence in various parts of India. Any possibility of such groups getting access to defense technology would pose a challenge to the very idea of Indian democracy.

Redefining India’s Role in Global Affairs

Apart from aiming for the domestic market, the defense sector industrialization is also aiming at the global market. The international market can be accessed by targeting new buyers from various governments or to various groups involved in intra-state or inter-state conflict situations. By promoting defense exports India would be compelled to be a direct or indirect party to the global conflict situations. Besides, as a defense goods supplier its economic interests, rather than its commitment to global peace, would determine India’s interests. This will be a clear deviation from India’s decade-old stated objectives of foreign policy including its commitment to promote global peace and policy of non-intervention.

With a strong defense sector industrial base the foreign policy of a state gets determined by a narrow conception of national interest defines strictly in military terms. It gets devoid of any ethical or long-term goals aimed at global peace and stability. In view of defense industry considerations major foreign policy goals are governed by the market-related considerations for defense requirements, the supply of equipment and above all creation of such consumers in the domestic as well as in the global market. National interest will be determined by who are the probable consumers for the defense product. The manner in which US foreign policy has been of creating such consumers and then protecting the interests of industries who fulfill the defense-related requirements, India is more likely to follow a similar path.

Instead of investing in building new infrastructure projects and initiating land acquisition, the Indian government should focus on more coordination and efficiency in the existing production capacity. Besides, there is a need to have legal and institutional mechanisms in place to ensure concerns of equity, public safety and above all checking any form of domination and monopoly capitalism. In a time when farmers across India have been protesting against land grabbing and demanding their share in the country’s growth, India needs a more balanced defense policy and not defense industry capitalism.