The island nation of Sri Lanka is currently facing the heavy consequences of its government’s financial mismanagement and ill-timed decisions. A tremendous drop of 70 per cent in foreign exchange reserves has pushed the country to the verge of defeat. The coronavirus pandemic further dealt a massive blow to Sri Lanka’s already crumbling economy. With $7 billion to be paid in foreign debt obligations this year and just about $2 billion left in foreign exchange reserves, Sri Lanka faces the unenviable dilemma of choosing between paying for crucial imports and repaying its foreign investors.

The ones that are suffering the most during this economic calamity are the families belonging to the low-income sector of society. The inflation rate in Sri Lanka has skyrocketed to 17.5 per cent, the highest in Asia. Food and medicine costs are surging like never before. The ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine has only added to the misery of the common man by driving up the prices of oil. Four elderly men have lost their lives waiting in queues to buy fuel in the sweltering heat. Soldiers have been posted at hundreds of gas stations to prevent violence, stockpiling, and inefficient distribution. People have been forced to take up a second job, but the income from these is still not enough to sufficiently support their families and themselves. Paper and ink shortages mean students cannot give their exams. Hospitals are reporting shortages of necessary medical equipment. People are choosing to self-medicate instead of going to a doctor to get treated, which can only lead to higher morbidity rates. Electricity is also a rare commodity now, with daily ten to thirteen-hour power cuts becoming the norm. The drastic decrease in their quality of life has inevitably led to thousands protesting against the government and demanding change.

Sri Lankans waiting in a queue to refill their cooking gas cylinders in Colombo. [Credits: AP Photo/Eranga Jayawardena]

Sri Lanka’s public debt is currently estimated to be 119 per cent of its GDP. This means that the country owes more than it can produce through goods and services. The largest portion of its foreign debt comes from international sovereign bonds, which make up 36.4 per cent of the total debt. These are followed by loans from the Asian Development Bank, Japan, and China. India has offered a $1 billion line of credit to assist Sri Lanka in procuring essentials such as food, fuel, and medicine. In addition to this, India has also extended a $400 million currency swap and $500 million for 40,000 tonnes of diesel to help with severe fuel shortages. India has also deferred the payment of $515.2 million by two months to the Asian Clearing Union.

This is the worst economic crisis the country has faced, since gaining independence in 1948. Sri Lanka is deep in debt with no single way to overcome it.

Who’s responsible?

The Sri Lankan government began financing its investments through foreign borrowings and in 2007, issued its first international sovereign bond for $500 million. A sovereign bond is a debt security issued by a government that can be denominated in both foreign and domestic currency. The buyer would be paid a given amount of interest for a stipulated number of years along with repayment of the face value on the maturity of the bond. The three-decade-long civil war with the Tamil militancy ended in 2009, following which the government focused on reconstruction and real estate. The nation was desperate to pay off foreign debt but didn’t work much towards diversifying its exports, an important source of forex. In 2019, the Rajapaksa government cut value-added tax from 15 per cent to 8 per cent which caused revenue losses of more than 2 per cent of its GDP. The same year saw the devastating Easter Sunday bombings that also took a toll on the tourism industry.

Police fired tear gas and water cannon at hundreds of university students who were trying to break through barricades near the town of Kandy. [Credits: Ishara S. Kodikara/AFP]

In 2020, the coronavirus pandemic caused Sri Lanka’s unstable economy to take a turn for the worse. The vital tourism sector dried up. Lockdowns disrupted the informal sector, which accounts for about 60 per cent of the country’s total workforce. Tax cuts from the previous year weakened the government’s ability to deal with the public health crisis. Further, in 2021, the government announced a ban on the import and use of chemical fertilisers and pesticides in an attempt to promote organic farming, as well as to conserve quickly depleting forex, which only led to shortages in crop yield and inflation in food prices. Remittances from foreign workers, the nation’s biggest source of dollars, also dropped by 22.7 per cent in 2021. That September, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa declared a state of economic emergency in the country to take control of the supply of basic food items and fix prices to control inflation. Due to the relentless protests of the citizens, the government has dissolved as all governmental authorities resigned except for Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa and President Gotabaya Rajapaksa. Even after the imposition of a social media shutdown, people still circumvented using VPNs and got to the streets to march against the administration. The next major challenge that Sri Lanka needs to tackle is the repayment of a $1 billion bond maturing in July 2022. 

Sri Lankan soldiers walk past a bus burned by demonstrators at the top of the road of President Rajapaksa’s residence in Colombo, Sri Lanka [Credits: Dinuka Liyanawatte/Reuters]

In the last decade, China has financially supported Sri Lanka by lending over $5 billion to help with projects like building roads, ports, and an airport. According to critics, however, these funds were utilised for unnecessary ventures with low returns. President Gotabaya Rajapaksa has now asked China to restructure its debt repayments, in addition to asking for concessions on imports from China, to help Sri Lanka tide over its financial crisis. President Rajapaksa also offered to allow Chinese tourists to return to Sri Lanka, a major move in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. Sri Lanka is a significant member of China’s Belt and Road initiative, which is a long-term project focused on building infrastructure that links China with the rest of the world. This project has been called a “debt trap” for smaller nations with unstable economies. 

How It Affects India

The port of Colombo is a major trans-shipment hub on which India is heavily dependent for global trade. While exports to Sri Lanka only amount to 1.3% of India’s exports, 60% of India’s cargo trans-shipments are handled by this port. Any disruptions at Colombo port leave India vulnerable to increased costs and congestion issues. 

India is among the biggest drivers of Foreign Direct Investment in Sri Lanka. Investing in a wide range of sectors such as petroleum retail, hotels, real estate, manufacturing, telecommunication and banking services. Many Indian companies have a significant presence in Sri Lanka. Located at the centre of the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka is a country of major military and geopolitical importance. In the last decade, Chinese influence in Sri Lanka has grown multifold, making China its largest import partner and one of its largest investors in public infrastructure projects. The Chinese presence in Sri Lanka is a cause of concern for India. However, Sri Lanka’s debt crisis has created an opening for India to counter Chinese influence. In the last few months, India has provided monetary support as well as relief in the form of food and medicine.

So far, sixteen Sri Lankan Tamils have arrived at Indian shores seeking refuge. They fled due to severe food shortages. India has not granted refugee status to any Sri Lankan since 2012, after the civil war. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, M K Stalin, conferred with Prime Minister Narendra Modi requesting him to allow the Tamil Nadu government to provide humanitarian aid to the Tamils living in the northern and eastern parts of Sri Lanka.

Overcoming The Economic Crisis

Sri Lanka is currently facing a shortage of foreign exchange to pay for its imports. The government is now borrowing from other governments and carrying out currency swaps to overcome the forex deficit. However, these measures are not enough. The country has approached the IMF for help, to wade over this crisis. The IMF has recommended some policy changes to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected including but not limited to, reforming the revenue generation and collection system, increasing taxes to improve Sri Lanka’s low tax-to-GDP ratio and ensuring a greater contribution from higher-income earners of the country, and leaving fuel and exchange rates to the market rates.

Sri Lanka’s inflation rate has increased to 17.5 per cent. [Credits: CNN]

The IMF has also proposed the need for a banking act giving the Central Bank of Sri Lanka more regulatory powers to aid the process of resolving the country’s debt. Sri Lanka also desperately needs to diversify its exports as it is heavily dependent on tea leaves. The removal of import restrictions can help encourage investments, bringing in the necessity for exports. There is a need for reforms to improve conditions and ensure financial security for the labour force in farming and non-farming sectors to ensure the people living at the edge are uplifted first. 

Once revered as the radiant Pearl of the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka’s crippling economy has rendered it a husk of its former self. The congregations within the government can only do so much to restore financial stability. The country desperately needs international helping hands to resolve the crisis, and revive the tourism industry in the process. The several strategies in place could eventually create a strong momentum—one which can hopefully pave the way to rekindle the glory of Sri Lanka.

Featured Image Credits: CNN

Most of the world loves its freedom of speech. Everyone has their opinions on a topic, regardless of how much they know about it, and that is their right. Celebrities, too, are no exception to this. Most of them actively voice their opinions on topical concerns on a public platform. From Hollywood starlets to athletes, In recent years, many have jumped into the deep waters of political activism in whatever way they can—not always in subtle underlying tones of politicking. It is evident, vociferous, and bold. While they are as human as the rest of us, the value of their opinion is magnified because of the platform they enjoy. This makes all of us ponder over the question which has posed itself time and again, whether celebrity viewpoint on a political parley do more harm than good to the cause they are upholding.

For decades, celebrities having opinionated political discourse has been a tricky terrain to walk on, both for the household name expressing them and the zealots it reaches. They always run the risk of alienating an entire fraction of their fanbase and the repercussion it befalls, whether that’s in terms of ticket sales, negative press, or dissolved endorsement deals. This is why many in the business, in their own words, ‘Like to stay out of it.’ 

Sports’ paragons have long been a faction of this multitude, with most of them staying as far away from politics as their publicists would like them to be. One bears no qualms that sports have this beautiful way of bringing people together. Be it, children, on a playground or entire nations, sports often creates unparalleled unity between people. As a consequence, a sportsperson is very likely to amass a vast fanbase. They often hold a massive, larger than life influence over their followers. When they use this influence for good, the outcome is truly magical. Hence the reason why in recent years, there has been a paradigm shift in the way sports and politics interact with each other. As the political, demographic and scenarios have changed, many came to the podium to declare their resentment towards injustice and bigotry if and when they see it.

The fight against Racism

“I’ll be damned if I’m gonna win all these championships and have all this success and not use it to make a change.”  

                              –Lewis hamilton

The brutal death of George Floyd shook numerous people to their core—none more so than Formula One driver and reigning champion Lewis Hamilton. The seven-time World Champion took it upon himself to lead the fight against racism in his sport. A sport which, peculiarly, has always predominantly had white male athletes. In fact, Hamilton is the only black Formula One driver in history.

Hamilton strongly believes that he has been given the opportunity of representing his people in the sport for a reason and is determined to unlock the mystery of the lack of black representation in Formula One. Last year, he founded the Hamilton Commission, an organization that aims to improve the representation of people of colour in UK motorsport. Though the Championship winner has forever been an activist for anti-racism, in 2020, the killing of George Floyd, in particular, spurred him on to take up a more prominent role in the fight against racist injustices. 

Lewis Hamilton leads a pre-race demonstration against racism. [Photo credits: Getty Images]

Through his persistence and incredibly outspoken stance, Lewis Hamilton has also demanded the FIA, Formula One’s governing body, to do more in tackling inequality within the sport. The Briton led F1 into the fight for diversity and holding pre-race anti-racism gestures. Hamilton claimed he had an extra desire for success due to his fight against racism. 

“I had this extra drive in me this year to get to the end of those races. It was a different drive than what I’ve had in me in the past … to get to the end of those races first so that I could utilize that platform [for Black Lives Matter] and shine the light as bright as possible.”

LeBron Vs Zlatan

Politics is a breeding ground for controversy. Oftentimes, sports stars, while wanting to induce change and resolve underlying oppressions with good intentions, are met with the trident of altercations. Evident to this fact was the recent dust-up between the two sporting giants, clashing on each other’s indulgence over non-sporting issues. The tussle between the two started when Swedish footballer Zlatan Ibrahimovic spoke out against LeBron James for getting himself involved in political affairs outside the basketball court. The AC Milan striker felt that athletes of a certain status shouldn’t get involved in politics because it is not their niche. “I don’t do politics. If I were a political politician, I would do politics. That is the first mistake people do when they become famous and reach a certain status. Stay out of it. Just do what you do best because it doesn’t look good”, was Zlatan’s justification. 

This obviously did not go down well with LeBron, whose past advocacy over the Black Lives Matter and other racial injustices underpin movements showed his polar opposite solicitude on the topic. He quickly clapped back during a press briefing stating that he would never stick to just sports. He reiterated that he knew how powerful and influential his voice was and would forever speak up against social injustice. 

Continuing to reprimand the criticism, LeBron called out Ibrahimovic, citing his hypocrisy by referring to Zlatan’s interview with Canal+, where he talked about being a victim of undercover racism in his own native country and not getting the due credit from the Swedish media and public due to his non-traditional Swedish name. It’s not the first time people have taken issues with James’ longtime activism. Back in 2018, in the wake of midterm elections, Fox News commentator Laura Ingraham told him and fellow  NBA star Kevin Durant to just “shut up and dribble.”

LeBron-Zlatan conflict of opinions over political indulgence. [Photo credits: Getty Images]

This isn’t the first time a black athlete has been openly vocal about their disdain for certain issues. NBA players in the past have revolted silently against racial inequality and injustice pertaining to the circumstances in the U.S by “taking a knee” during the national anthem. Many, of course, took this as a gesture of disrespect and incivility towards the country, stirring a cauldron of backlash and finger-pointing.

The NBA forward, however, has come under hellfire not only for his political backings but also for not being fervent about the treatment of Uighur Muslims in China in the wake of his sponsorship ties to the country. The NBA is trying to enter the Chinese market, a country where more than a million Uighur Muslims have been over the last few years for an apparent re-education.

Many point out the blatant assailable hypocrisy of the situation since Lebron hasn’t used his ‘powerful platform’ and voice about the case, which he otherwise so passionately defends. The player’s business connections to China evidently play a significant role in this locale, and in the broad view, in his exploits of shrinking his responsibility of speaking out against the nation’s brutality towards a minority group. By selectively speaking out, the four-times NBA championship winner assuages his intentions and reflects the overall sentiment of convenient ersatz activism, going as far as to call Houston rockets general manager Daryl Morey “either misinformed or not really educated on the situation” when he championed his convictions about the former British colony.

Even with all these debacles, it’s imperative to note down the amount of push that movements and narratives such as Black Lives Matter got just because people like LeBron James and Kareem Abdul Jabbar were hugely vocal about them. If it wasn’t for public figures dating long back to Mohammad Ali to present-day activist like Colin Kaepernick, putting their well-built careers on the line for calling out social injustice infringed in the system for the wake of the betterment of the future generations, the envelope of change would’ve been long lost in this backlash. It’s relatively easy to call out a celebrity with public outreach for not being tight-lipped about issues and a lot harder to remember that celebrities, even with their shiny mantle of fame, are people. People have opinions, and simply discrediting those opinions would be unfair.

India and Cricket

Cricketers are the most popular people in India. They are idolised, worshipped, and looked up to. Naturally, many of them are approached to endorse multiple things. These may be as basic as skin care products and shampoos and as complicated as political candidates. Many cricketers, however, steer clear of those involvements that affect their careers. They signed up an athlete, not a politician. Many of them simply put curtailments on voicing their thoughts about issues. Cricket Players has been one faction that has successfully managed to not divulge into publicly expressing dissatisfaction over any issue over the past few decades.

Politics and cricket are two crossroads that never unite. Many cricket giants have strolled towards politics post-retirement, but few have taken any risks at the peak of their careers. However, of late, a few have started to a calculated stance, not always a definitive one, but a stance regardless. There seems to have been a shift in Indian cricketers as more and more have sought to foray their opinions into the political hemisphere. The Farmers’ protest, in particular, highlighted the change. Numerous cricketers took a political stance on the matter; some even clashed with each other over their opinions. 

Indian cricketing legends Sachin Tendulkar and Anil Kumble came out to say that the protests were an ‘Internal issue’ when multiple western celebrities decided to raise awareness about the protests on social media. Additionally, India cricket team captain, Virat Kohli, urged the country to remain ‘united’ in a time of crisis. To some, it was a clear attempt at defending the government and swaying public opinion about their stance. In response, Sunrisers Hyderabad seamer Sandeep Sharma questioned Tendulkar’s tweet claiming that the farmers deserved to be heard by the world. Manoj Tiwary, another Indian cricketer, declared the cricketers as puppets who were acting on government instructions. The issue with cricketers expressing their opinion here was that it was selective and trimmed to the extent where it felt more like a carefully curated PR statement. The route they took was delayed and came after a lot of criticism against the government. It seemed like a little too less and a little too late.

The tweet which the AAP put out, pleading Tendulkar to show his support for the farmers. [Photo credits: Getty and Twitter]

Tendulkar, revered as a god in India, was widely supported by the Indian public. In fact, one of India’s largest political parties, the Aam Aadmi Party took to Twitter to publicly request Tendulkar to tweet in favour of the farmers. They pushed back against the likes of Rihanna, claiming that western celebrities had no right to comment over the protests. Muddled political opinions covered Twitter in India—the numerous tweets confirmed the changing landscape of cricket and politics in India. It was clear that over the years, the two would become more and more intertwined, with more and more cricketers voicing their opinions on political matters. How much this will affect the Indian public, only time will tell. 

Politics and Samba Football

They say football is worshipped in Brazil, and that isn’t far from the truth. Brazilian culture, in its essence, involves a lot of football. The sport brings together masses of Brazilians—from the streets to massive stadiums, hordes of men and women indulge in the beautiful game. Ever since its introduction in 1894, the game has grown and become so strongly embedded in the Latin American country that it is now considered a religion.

Brazil has produced some of the greatest footballers to ever grace the game—these mortals have attained god-like statuses in their home country. As a result, they often have incredible sway over the general public. A significant number of former footballers have expressed their stances on Brazilian politics. While holding such a strong say over the future of the country, footballers must be careful in voicing their seminal opinions. Unfortunately, that has been far from the case. 

The 2018 Brazilian general election brought with it a myriad of controversies—once football became involved, the situation grew uglier. The entire controversy of Brazilian politics revolved around one man: Jair Bolsonaro. Proclaiming the current president to be a man who splits opinion would be an understatement. Bolsonaro, a retired military officer, has publicly said he would favour the use of torture, has been convicted in court for racial abuse, and has once told a member of parliament that she is ‘too ugly to even rape’. 

Shockingly, the president received immense support during the general elections, especially from some incredibly high-profile footballers. Of these, perhaps the most eminent were Barcelona and Brazil legends, Rivaldo and Ronaldinho. Both footballers used social media to express their support for Bolsonaro. Additionally, Tottenham Hotspur forward Lucas Moura took to Twitter to demonstrate his support for Bolsonaro. All three footballers are immensely popular in Brazil and, as a result, have many followers who would blindly trust their opinions.  

Bolsonaro shockingly received public support from Barcelona legend Ronaldinho. [Photo credits: Marcos Correa / Presidência da República]

However, of the three footballers, Moura, in particular, received waves of criticism on the internet. Olympique Lyonnais legend Juninho Pernambucano, another widely popular Brazilian footballer, came out in public to criticize the players who supported Bolsonaro’s campaign. The former free-kick master labelled Bolsonaro and those supporting him fascist. However, it was to no avail.

Bolsonaro ended up winning the election, and Brazil has been on a landslide ever since. The country is as polarised as ever, with the president and his sons at the centre of it. The whole family is under investigation for a range of crimes, from embezzlement to money laundering. These personal issues coupled with Bolsonaro’s atrocious handling of the pandemic, an economic collapse, and his policies on the Amazon rainforest makes it safe to say that the criticism he receives is merited. The fact that sportspersons have had a role to play in this domino effect makes us question them further. 

Conclusion

Even after analyzing both ends of the balance, the situation presents a dichotomy. Should celebrities remain neutral or voice their opinions on a public platform? It is impossible to find one definitive answer. It is necessary for the VIPs to probe closely into the affair they are vocal about. There’s an inherent sense of responsibility and culpability alike if you are gathering your thoughts on the rostrum while the world is keenly watching you. The influence they hold indeed comes at a cost, and those who chose to ensnare themselves in this quagmire should understand that stature and what it encompasses. Neither should this mean they remain or feel voiceless like a tamed lion when a patently indefensible and biased situation presents itself, without charging the social responsibility and try to bring a change in the social structure that they so heavily sway.

It’s important to mention the delicacy of the situation here. It’s especially irksome to everyone when popular faces treat these high-end issues as a cash grab or a mean of reserving their twenty minutes of fame, both harming not only the cause but the overall intent of the gesture itself. When those in power start to toady up to others in power out of fear or for a favour, In that moment of levity, we all lose.

Watching from the other side of the tunnel, we as a crowd need to stop idolizing and hyping up these engagements more than what they are, someone’s opinion. If your rulings towards an issue take into account how your favourite celebrity feels about it, then you equally share part of the blame. At the end of the day, Celebrities speak up about something which they might feel passionate about, but blindly giving yourself into that pit without questioning it or researching about it is equally perilous. While they have to educate themselves thoroughly, as the general public, we have to do it too. Educate ourselves and form an individual opinion. 

Featured Image Credits – CNN

Journalism is perhaps one of the noblest yet most underrated lines of work in every part of the world. Governments often use it as a means of altering public sentiment and providing people with the most convenient version of the truth. As a consequence, the stories published might have an ulterior motive behind them and might be driven by more than just the truth. As a result of this, in a few instances,  journalism and media have been used as tools to project the most desirable version of a story.

According to The Elements of Journalism by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, the purpose of Journalism is “not defined by technology, nor by journalists or the techniques they employ.” Instead, “the principles and purpose of journalism are defined by something more basic: the function news plays in the lives of people.” The function of a news piece on the lives of the people is consequential, and journalism offers a way to frame and mould that by employing a narrative. Rousing the masses through a sensationalist report or providing a soothing description of an undesirable story are both powerful ways of swaying the population.

A classic example of the latter is the Pakistani media’s reportage of the Indo-Pak war of 1965 as a victory for Pakistan. India had the upper hand over Pakistan when the ceasefire was declared, and the standoff was seen as a strategic and political defeat for Pakistan. However, the Pakistani media rallied together to present a more appealing and acceptable tale to its masses, one which would motivate and encourage them at such perilous times.

News snippets from a Pakistani English daily, Dawn, during the 1965 war. (Image Credits: dawn.com)

Pakistan’s Defence Day, celebrated on 6th September, marks the day in 1965 when India’s military crossed its borders in response to Pakistan’s Operation Grand Slam. It commemorates the sacrifices of Pakistan’s military in successfully repealing an Indian attack despite being outnumbered and in possession of fewer armaments. Some Pakistani commentators have criticised this narrative for representing false history. Furthermore, on this day, according to Pakistani journalist Taha Siddiqui, “the media wing of the army also asks national media outlets to run promotional videos that pay tribute to the armed forces. Religious and extremist groups, known to have friendly ties to the military, also come out in the streets, holding rallies glorifying Pakistan’s army”. While the morality of this narrative is debatable, the fact that certain people have the power to alter the documentation of such monumental events is concerning. 

“War makes for great circulation” – William Randolph Hearst

History provides for another such example—during the Second World War, the United States Government used posters and fake news to influence its soldiers, citizens, and its enemies. Rationing of food supplies, motivating the populace, and revitalising the war effort by creating a spirit of nationalism—none of this could have been achieved without the influence of such endeavours on the part of the Government.

This U.S. poster emphasises the lethal consequences of “careless talk.” (Image Credits: news.nationalgeographic.com)

The United States founded the Office of War Information (OWI) under the then-President incumbent Franklin Roosevelt, six months after entering the Second World War, in 1942. Its purpose was to disseminate political propaganda and appease the unsettled American population. At the onset of the war, America’s population was very much in the dark regarding wartime information. Further, according to Gerhard Weinberg in his book A World at Arms, “the American public confessed a lack of understanding as to why the world was at war and held great resentment against other Allied Nations.”  Thus, the OWI served to not only educate the citizens of the war effort but also motivate and change the public image towards the war. The office spread its messages through print, radio, film and most-strikingly, posters.

Around the same period, Nazi Germany under the Third Reich introduced racist and anti-semitic laws known as The Nuremberg Laws. The laws forbade non-Aryans and political opponents of the Nazis from occupying positions in the civil service. Sexual relations and marriage between people classified as ‘Aryan’ and ‘non-Aryan’ (Jews, Gypsies, blacks), was prohibited as Rassenschande or ‘race defilement’.

Julius Streicher, one of Adolf Hitler’s earliest followers, was responsible for the publication of Der Stürmer, a propaganda leaflet. Nazi Propaganda artwork was often used as the cover artwork. During the Third Reich, Stürmer display cases were found all over Germany. It reported to the Germans that Jews kidnapped small children before Passover because “Jews need the blood of a Christian child, maybe, to mix in with their Matzah.”

Titled ‘Away With Him,’ this caricature published in the Der Stürmer showcases “the long arm of the Ministry of Education pulling a Jewish teacher from his classroom.” (Image Credits: jewishvirtuallibrary.org )

While consuming media that only appease those with a particular stance, may keep those people content, it does leave them suspended in a bubble of delusion. Barack Obama, the 44th President of the United States of America, in an interview with David Letterman, quoted an experiment about the impact of social media on a person’s opinions and how the technology of today is affecting the penetration of unbiased media. The cutting edge in the world of Artificial Intelligence and recommendation algorithms makes it possible for a person to access and consume media which is consistent with their prevalent browsing patterns. Thus, people are more prone to reading stories and reports which align with their existing biases and affiliations, and not only are they thus reinforced, but are magnified. Media literacy is a vital tool that everyone should possess—it helps shape a well-rounded, unbiased understanding of world events. It is imperative, now more than ever, that the masses are educated about the intricacies behind a story and what goes into the art of reporting.

The instances quoted above are a few of many such testaments to the importance of a narrative and the power of information. Time and time again have such tactics been employed to frame public perception and even alter a course of action. These efforts, though discreet during their time of execution, are now recognised as some of history’s most intriguing and effective subliminal propaganda drives ever orchestrated. Having left an indelible mark on modern history and impacted generations, theirs are the tales which deserve to be told.

Featured Image Credits: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration

The Citizenship Act 1955, elucidated the laws for a person to be determined an Indian citizen. According to the Act, Indian citizenship by naturalisation could be acquired by a foreigner who is a legal migrant and has resided in the country for a period of twelve years. The person in question had to be present in the country for the twelve whole months and eleven out of fourteen years preceding the date of application.

The Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) 2019 was first introduced in the Lok Sabha in July 2016. Due to pressure from the opposition, the bill was submitted to the Joint Parliamentary Committee in August 2016. In the event of the May 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the bill was left stagnant for a while. On 9^th December 2019, the CAB was brought before the Lok Sabha. Even though there was massive resistance from the opposition, the bill was passed in the lower house with 311 votes for and 80 votes against. Soon after, the CAB was passed by the Rajya Sabha with 125 votes in favour of and 105 votes against it on 11^th December. President Ram Nath Kovind ratified the bill on 12^th December, thus making it law.

In 1950, the Nehru-Liaquat Act was established between India and Pakistan. This act was signed to curb the communal violence that was taking place between the two nations at the time. The act laid down the conditions for the treatment of minorities, particularly Muslims in India and Hindus in Pakistan. But minorities in Pakistan were, and still are, treated abysmally. To bail religious minorities out from this situation, the CAA was brought into existence.  As estimated by the government, the act will immediately help about 31,000 people.

Image Credits: Scroll.in

The amended clause states that any person belonging to the Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, Jain, Parsi, or Christian community from Afghanistan, Bangladesh, or Pakistan who entered India on or before 31^st December 2014 shall not be treated as an illegal immigrant. The clause relaxes the residential period required for citizenship from eleven years to five years for the same communities. This act does not change any existing laws for applying for citizenship. Current Indian citizens will not be subject to the requirements of CAA in any way.

The nation erupted with protests immediately after the bill was passed. The criticism surrounding the CAA is that it makes no provision for Muslim minorities such as Ahmadiyyas in Pakistan, Hazaras in Afghanistan, and Rohingyas in Myanmar. Minorities from non-Muslim countries such as Tibetans from China, Tamil minorities from Sri Lanka, and minorities from Nepal and Bhutan are not included in this act.  The argument for exclusion of Muslims is that their home countries practise Islam as the state religion, and therefore, they are not persecuted for it. In these three countries, the population of these minority religious communities has dwindled drastically. This has primarily been due to economic concerns, discrimination, and Taliban rule. Some sectors of the Muslim population do qualify as minority groups, but they are not subject to the same level of brutality as the non-Muslim groups. Muslims can still apply for refugee status or asylum as individuals but not as a religious minority.

Certain legal experts believe that if the NRC is implemented in conjunction with the CAA Muslims would be at risk of being disenfranchised. The National Register of Citizens (NRC) is a registry that contains a list of all the residents of India and relevant information pertaining to them. The NRC was mentioned in the 2019 BJP election manifesto. It stated, “There has been a huge change in the cultural and linguistic identity of some areas due to illegal immigration, resulting in an adverse impact on local people’s livelihood and employment. We will expeditiously complete the National Register of Citizens process in these areas on priority. In future, we will implement the NRC in a phased manner in other parts of the country.” At this time, there is no relation between the CAA and NRC. During the Lok Sabha CAA debate Home Minister, Amit Shah, expressed, “When we introduce the all-India NRC, we will bring it to this House and then we can hold a discussion on it. Don’t try to connect the citizenship bill with NRC. But you should keep this in mind that NRC is about to come.”  

Image Credits: The Indian Express

Under the event that NRC is implemented, it will not be applied on the basis of religion. Similar documents such as those required while applying for an Aadhar card or voters ID shall be asked for. A definite decision is yet to be taken on what qualifies as acceptable documents. The list will likely include voter cards, passports, Aadhaar, licenses, insurance papers, birth certificates, school leaving certificates, documents relating to land or home or other similar documents issued by the government. Citizens will not be required to submit any proof of ancestry pre-1971. This is applicable only for the Assam NRC according to the Assam Accords and the directive of the Supreme Court. NRC is currently enforced only in Assam. Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, asserted at a rally on 22nd December, “Ever since my government came to power in 2014… from then until now… there has been no discussion on NRC anywhere… we only had to implement it in Assam to follow Supreme Court directives.” This statement made by Narendra Modi is in blatant contradiction to what was said by Amit Shah and mentioned in the BJP manifesto 2019.

The response to the CAA in the north-east was jarring. The act would have a more significant effect in this region because of the Assam Accords and NRC. Thousands of people took to the streets to showcase their opposition. The violent demonstrations quickly led to rising death tolls and the imposition of Section 144 in Assam and Tripura. This dissent spread to West Bengal where protests went out of control. Foreign nations issued travel advisories against travelling to this region at this time. In Assam, 3.11 crore people have been included in NRC compared to the 3.29 crore who applied. Detention camps are being constructed for those considered to be illegal immigrants. There have already been reports of 28 deaths in these camps so far in the last three years.

Massive protests took place in the national capital, Delhi. Metro stations in several areas were shut down. Students of Jamia Millia Islamia held a peaceful march to the Parliament. But they were met with resistance from the police and were pelted with stones and charged with batons. Dozens of students were injured and sustained bullet wounds. On 15th December, the police entered the campus and allegedly viciously assaulted the students. In response to this brutality, protests erupted in over twenty colleges across the nation including IIT Bombay, BHU, Patna University, and Aliah University. Rallies and demonstrations were implemented throughout the country as a sign of solidarity.

Image Credits: Siasat

Section 144 was imposed in parts of Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan. There were also internet shut-downs in various parts of the country. In Mangalore, two civilians were killed in the protests that took place on 19th December. Police allegedly released tear gas in the hospital lobby, near the ICU. Due to such incidents, an internet ban was imposed in Mangalore and parts of Dakshina Karnataka.

Former Solicitor General of India, Harish Salve, remarked that the act does not violate Article 14, Article 15, or Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.  The law is meant for the inclusion of minorities, not for the exclusion of any community. Upon receiving criticism for the bill, Amit Shah said, “Religion-based citizenship has been happening in India since the partition of this country. When Hindu and Sikh refugees from Pakistan were given citizenship during Nehru’s time, it was based on religion.” 

The backlash that the CAA has faced is nearly unprecedented. As matters escalated rapidly, curfews were imposed, a death toll was established, and this unsavoury situation took a vicious turn. Protests continue to be held across the country—most notably—the sit-in at Shaheen Bagh currently in its 38th day as of 21st January 2020. With the government still unrelenting in its stand, there seems to be no end in sight to this sordid affair.

Featured Image Credits: The Week

Professors, students, homemakers and ex-servicemen, flocked to Country Inn on the 14th of April to attend a talk on national security. The event, which was hosted by Udupi Talks, brought in Rajeev Chandrasekhar, a Member of Parliament and an MIT alumnus, and Major Surendra Poonia, a retired special forces operative and an internationally accomplished athlete to serve as the event’s main speakers.

Raghupati Bhat, Udupi’s representative in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, handing over a bouquet to Major Surendra Poonia.

The ceremony started with the lighting of the lamp by the dignitaries in attendance. Rajeev Chandrasekhar was then introduced, and his achievements were read out for the benefit of the ones attending the talk. Chandrasekhar started his talk by asking the audience two things, one regarding how many of them wished for India to become a truly global economy, and the other was about how many of them felt proud to be an Indian. The questions were quite rhetoric in nature, and such questions and statements were made throughout the remainder of the event to capture the audience’s attention.

Moving on, the Member of Parliament described his contributions to the nation. As the son of an Air Force officer, he talked about how he has taken every initiative necessary to support the men in uniform, whether it be setting up a National War Memorial for the brave martyrs or formulating the One Rank, One Pension scheme for retired servicemen. He talked about how when he had approached the then-Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh about building a war memorial in the capital, the PM responded negatively by stating how it would spoil the landscape of the India Gate area. The MP continued making slight jabs at the expense of Congress party leader Rahul Gandhi throughout his speech and also referred to him as “a 49-year-old who calls himself young”. Focusing on the nepotism prevalent in Congress since its inception, he called for an end to dynasty-politics.

Contrasting this with the way Narendra Modi works, Chandrasekhar argued that our present Prime Minister works for the country, unlike Rahul Gandhi. Ridiculing the Congress manifesto, which calls for a review of the AFSPA and removal of the anti-sedition law, he stated that they were not going to indulge in any talks. He went on to draw attention to the party’s history of using ‘strategic-restraint’ countless times, calling it an act of sheer cowardice. The extensive introduction at times felt like a BJP campaign, and the MP concluded by emphasising that the rival party has never kept its promises in the past.

Major Poonia then took to the stage and accepted that Rajeev Chandrasekhar had already spoken about everything related to national security. The multi-sport athlete re-emphasised how the family politics of the Gandhi/Nehru family would come to an end. With his use of the phrase “hamari party jab waapis aayegi” (when our party comes back), the Major was confident that the Congress had no chance of winning this election. Further mockery of the Gandhi family ensued with Rahul’s antics being recalled. Jokingly, he exclaimed how the term “Bharat Mata” was taken literally and how he would be okay with “Bharat Abbu” too.

In the final segment of the event, audience questions were answered by the dignitaries. When asked why there was no singular identity card for Indians, Chandrasekhar was quick to mention how ex- Deputy Prime Minister LK Advani was the one who had laid the foundation for what is now known as the Aadhar Card. Some questions were left out due to time constraints, one of them being what they thought about the politicising of the military. Perhaps at an event that seemingly was doing just that, that question might not have been the easiest to answer.

The invigorating and interesting evening saw an ample amount of discussion regarding national security, but whether all sides of the matter were discussed is a different issue. Undoubtedly the speakers had enough experience in the field of national security and were more than qualified to speak about it, but the event at its core was a political one with an agenda. 

Youth Parliament, organised by Leaders of Tomorrow, was held on the 20th and 21st of October, in NLH and was an event attended by students who had a passion for politics and current affairs. The event ensured that participants racked their brains to figure out the best election campaigns and also tested their debating skills and knowledge of parliamentary procedure. The event had three committees—The Lok Sabha committee, the AIPPM committee held in association with Goonj, and the 2019 general election committee which consisted of UPA and NDA factions.

Every participant was assigned the role of a particular politician such as Arvind Kejriwal and Shashi Tharoor. Each committee had an Executive Board consisting of LoT members to run proceedings and judge the participant’s performances.

The theme of the Lok Sabha committee was the controversial AFSPA Act—a major point of discussion being the human rights violations that have often been associated with it. The Armed Forces Special Powers Act gives the armed forces the power to maintain public order in “disturbed areas” and was recently revoked in Meghalaya causing quite a controversy. “Neither those for nor those against the AFSPA act have won. Instead, both sides have come to a compromise and reduced the intensity of the act”, said Vishnu Nair, managing committee member of LoT, and rapporteur of the Lok Sabha Executive Board.

The topic of debate in the AIPPM committee was the notorious Babri Masjid-Ram Janmabhoomi dispute. Points of discussion included the legal and political aftermaths of the Masjid demolition. “The delegates in favour of the Ram Temple have done their research and have made far more compelling arguments, so it looks like the Ram temple will be built after all”, said Rahul Ravishankar Singh, Goonj President and Chair of the AIPPM Executive Board. “The committee has performed well, but some of the contestants didn’t show up, and that affected the quality of the debate”, he added.

In the 2019 General Elections committee, contestants created election strategies, launched extensive campaigns and paved the way for their respective parties to win the elections. The NDA faction spoke of issues ranging from tax reforms to welfare of tribal communities while the UPA faction spoke of matters such as education and women’s safety. “The committee has thought of many issues and has dealt with the obstacles presented to them maturely. “, exclaimed Sarbhanu Nath, NDA Executive Board member, as he praised his committee.

The Youth Parliament shed a lot of light on various geopolitical issues present in the country. It concluded with the judges announcing the final verdict on the issues. The Ram Temple supporters were adjudged winners while the general election committee came to an understanding of what the ideal election campaign would be.

Images credit: The Photography Club, Manipal

Sri PB Acharya, honourable Governor of Nagaland, visited Manipal on 4 January 2018. His visit entailed going to his former school, where he spoke to the students and the locals, and delivered a speech that enthralled everybody. He also visited Manipal Academy of Higher Education, where he declared a 5 lakh rupees grant for students from the North-East who were excelling in their respective fields of education.

Sir, you have a degree in law from Mumbai University. So can you tell us what exactly motivated you to pick law as your profession?

It’s strange actually. Whatever degrees I have- B.A. Honours, B.Com, Law, and Journalism- are just by chance. I had the time and somebody told me they had evening classes for law. I worked in the mills from 5 to 12 when I was doing my BA Honours. After that, someone told me that I could complete B.Com within two years instead of one. So I got myself enrolled in Podar College.

I felt that if I had gone for some smaller institute, I would have learned some skill. If not for my association with the ABVP, I would have been unemployed, as I had no skills whatsoever.

Sir, as a person who’s been through India’s education system at various levels and in various fields, is there anything you’d like to convey about education in India?

The country’s educated people have a greater responsibility to use their education for the betterment of society. Their mentality of “I’m empowered. I have a right to become rich and enjoy”, is unacceptable in a democracy. For years together, our Education Minister has been the weakest man in the government. Had education been given its due importance, education, and hence, employment would have automatically come up. India would have developed by leaps and bounds had that been the mindset.

Sir, you’ve been the Governor of Assam, Tripura, Arunachal Pradesh, and now Nagaland. There are so many problems these states are facing. Despite being a vital part of India, why are the seven sisters relatively in a state of neglect?

I am the Governor of Nagaland. I was given the additional charge of Assam for twenty months. Simultaneously, I’ve been the governor of Tripura and then Arunachal Pradesh. Apart from that, I’m the ambassador for Swachh Bharat, appointed by the central government for the whole of the North East.

Knowingly or unknowingly, the developed states have not taken care of the weaker states. If the whole country has to be strong, then every state, every pillar, has to be strong. If any pillar grows old, the entire building may collapse. You have eight medical colleges in Mangalore alone and not even one in Nagaland. The problem is that nobody wants to go there because they have meaningless fears about Nagaland. Even if there is a reason to be afraid, you have to understand that you cannot run away from a problem. You have to face it. Sitting at home will not solve any problems. The problem in the first place is that, in spite of wonderful universities in the North-East, these universities do not have any interaction with trade, commerce, and industries. Since there is no interaction, the unique products manufactured here don’t reach the rest of the country, and hence, hold no value.

Besides being of immense strategic importance, the North-East is one of the most culturally vibrant and diverse parts of India. But certain local elements seem to be demanding for a ‘Greater Nagalim’ state comprising parts of Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Myanmar, Manipur, and Nagaland. What measures do you think should be taken by the government to stabilize the region?

It is not a very major problem, to be honest. The desire for the welfare of the people is natural, whether it is in Nagaland or outside. If anything happens to an American, even in Timbuktu, the whole of America will stand up. The welfare of American people is the point there, not Timbuktu. In the same way, the welfare of the Nagas should be the concern, not amalgamating the area. We’re now slowly starting to hear about the Nagas of Nagaland. We take care of the Nagas even if they’re in Manipur or Myanmar. Dividing an area, a city or a town is not acceptable to anyone. So, if the welfare of the nagas is taken care of, the thought of Greater Nagalim will become obscure on its own.

The region you govern is known to be hostile, being surrounded by more foreign lands than India itself. Do you predict that peace will come about soon?

A hundred percent! We will have peace. We now have a great Prime Minister. In 17 years, he is the first Prime Minister to have visited Nagaland. Last year, as soon as a new President was appointed, he visited Nagaland. That shows their care and love. It is not drama or politics.

Sir, you were the National In-charge of the SC/ST Morcha and were actively engaged in the ‘My Home is India’ initiative. So, what was that experience like?

‘My Home is India’ has nothing to do with politics. As a student activist when I visited the North-East, I observed that they have hardly any contact with the mainland. They have a lot of love for film stars and movies can be a great medium for communication.

Similarly, the country should give them the love they deserve. This is why I invited 17 kids to my home. I personally made it a point to visit the border. I could have simply visited like a tourist, returned, and written a book, and considered myself an authority on the North-East, but I didn’t do that. I did not bring forward anything that divides us.

Our deficiency, and our greed for becoming rich has denied them their development. I cannot say that I will build a school for them out of nowhere, but Manipal University must, because it has the required resources. They have already made their brand prevalent there, but they must go into the interiors. I am proud that I am a product of our glorious country, but I will be very, very sorry if universities and corporates continue to have big hospitals and other monetary assets and strengthen the business tycoons. Today I announced a grant of 5 lakhs which was matched by the University. Out of these 10 lakhs, awards will be given in the name of North-Eastern achievers. Nobody knows who these brave heroes are, like Capt. Nongrum, and Capt. Kenguruse is. They made India the safe haven it is today. And we don’t know anything about them. They are equal to Rana Pratap. We should know about them and treat them well.

The week of 9th December 2017 saw the first and second round of polling in the 14th Gujarat Legislative Assembly election, with 182 members to be elected by the 43.3 million registered voters of the state. Gujarat is presently governed by the Bharatiya Janata Party, which holds the majority with 155 seats to the Indian National Congress’s 60. The state has always been a bastion for the BJP, and for good reason—they’ve governed the state for the last 22 years, 12 of them under the leadership of now Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Considered to be one of the more traditional states of the country, Gujarat has been a BJP stronghold, thanks to its prominent Hindu nationalism—as witnessed by the world in 2002 during one of India’s worst communal riots. Commanding a majority in the Opposition of the state, the Congress party has often been seen as a ‘party for Muslims’, owing to their lack of a sufficient voter base and BJP’s strong Hindu support.

However, this election, which was predicted to be a cakewalk for Modi and BJP, has taken a surprising turn, as late polling data suggested the populace was evenly split between the two biggest parties of the country.

Congress, even with its haphazard organisation and recent sub-par performances,  managed to depreciate BJP’s massive lead in the home of the much hyped Gujarat model of development, which served as the foundation of Modi’s victory in 2014. Surprisingly, this Gujarat model is one of the various factors that contributed to BJP’s loss in voter base in Modi’s home state.

While the development of industries under Modi’s 12-year tenure in Gujarat is evident and irrefutable, very little policy innovation took place. He excelled in inviting large companies to set themselves up in the state. The companies grew swiftly, adding large numbers to the state’s revenue and to their owners’ bank balances. The input of wealthy industries and investments ensured that Gujarat’s major cities saw the constant development of physical infrastructure. The vast road networks, efficient power supply, and accessible public transport have set a landmark for many cities across the country. The urban voter in cities such as Ahmedabad and Surat, though affected by demonetisation and GST, won’t have any qualms about the high standard of living created and maintained by the BJP.

Where BJP missed out

However, the rise in jobs and social welfare isn’t nearly as much. As employment stagnated, many caste groups and members of the working class realised that they were being left behind by the wealthy industrialists. It isn’t just the working class that has been unhappy. The people of Gujarat have always prided themselves on being a trade-driven society. For these businessmen, demonetisation and GST were major setbacks. With unpopular GST slabs and delayed revisions, the people’s grievances went largely unanswered.

In a heavily urbanised state like Gujarat, it is essential to move away from the cities and shift focus to the rural areas. Farmers have suffered due to insufficient water supply and minimum support rates. During the Modi era, 20 kilograms of cotton would be sold at Rs 1,200 and he would call out the UPA-ruled Centre for not increasing it to Rs 1,500. Today, the prices have plunged to Rs 850-900 for 20 kilograms, while the production costs have tripled. The drought in 2016 and cyclones in 2017 have added to the woes of the farmers, who form an integral part of the state’s economy.

What shifted the tide

The Patidars, one of the major communities among the rural farmers face class-differentiation within the community. There is a growing discontent among the rural Patidar youth, many of whom are surnamed Patel, due to shrinking economic opportunities. In 2015, this discontent turned into violent agitations led by the Patidar Anamat Andolan Samiti and their 24-year old charismatic leader, Hardik Patel. The PAAS have but one demand—granting OBC status for their community to ensure societal equality. The urban Patels, mainly traders and businessmen, still seem to be backing BJP, playing it close to the chest.

PAAS convener Hardik Patel with his supporters during an election rally in Surat. Photo: PTI

The Dalits have also faced various assaults by religious activists over the past two years in Gujarat, which ranks fifth in crimes against the Scheduled Caste in India. This led to the rise of political activists like Jignesh Mevani, who draw support from the Dalits and the Muslims.

BJP’s not-so-subtle response

These troubled communities and regional parties, and many others such as the Thakors and Kshatriyas, are now backed by the Congress and have come together under its umbrella. But unlike the 1980s, when the Kshatriya Harijan Adivasi Muslim factor made Congress invincible, a lot of other factors are in play now. The vote of almost every community is split, but the Congress is chasing it hard to bolster their strength against BJP’s campaign of Hindutva.

Owing to a shaky response, the end of the campaign saw BJP playing the communal card and polarising the electorate. The Prime Minister’s rallies over the last month have seen a stark contrast from his signature charismatic speeches during 2014. Modi and his party, now displaying a negative agenda, personally attacked the Gandhi family, questioning whether or not Rahul Gandhi was a Hindu. Modi even went so far as to say that Nehru was terrified of the BSP, a party that never held more than 14 seats during Nehru’s lifetime.

The consequences

Rahul Gandhi largely stuck to a fixed script, talking about the rising unemployment, the failure of small businesses, and the crisis of the farmers. It was the regional leaders who went toe to toe against the PM’s rallies, often garnering a greater turnout. The Congress’s idea of building a base with regional leaders against the juggernaut of BJP in Gujarat showed promise. Modi is Gujarat’s favourite son, and Congress understood that no individual leader would be able to trouble him and the BJP.

Congress has staged an extremely unlikely resurgence, especially since August, by banking on regional leaders like Hardik Patel, but Gujarat remains BJP’s fortress. The vote disparity is extremely high, with the urban voter not looking past BJP, and the Congress-backed communities too widespread across Gujarat to win seats. The exit polls unsurprisingly predict a fifth BJP term in Gujarat. But the fact that the BJP may lose seats against Amit Shah’s prediction of 150 will hurt them.

As seen on moneycontrol.com

There is rising discontentment among the people, and with leaders like Jignesh Mevani, Alpesh Thakor, and Hardik Patel being given a louder voice by the Congress, they aren’t afraid to criticise the Centre and Narendra Modi, helping reduce a major stigma overwhelming our country. The takeaway from these elections is simply that even though the Congress lacks the organizational machinery to take on the smooth working BJP, the idea of forming regional alliances against the fanaticism and following of Modi may be a way for them to get back into contention.

Avneesh Chandra | Staff Writer

“In an incident last month that went largely unnoticed, a man in Delhi lost his right leg to an amputation; an amputation that, if attended to sooner, could’ve been avoided. The man, being rushed to Mountbatten Memorial Hospital through Sunday traffic, was forced to extend his plight as his brother’s vehicle was pulled over on the highway by a policeman.

The policeman noted the vehicle’s registration number and license plate before determining that it was, in fact, not permitted to be in the faster-moving lane on the multi-carriageway. Not having paid the requisite fee in advance, the brother was asked to shift into the lane closest to the divider, where a slew of cars inched along the tar. Stuck in this line of the ill-prepared, the brothers were forced to waste an unnecessary half an hour as they watched other commuters zip by in the high-speed lane.”

Now, the above-stated account is wholly false, given that there is no such high-speed lane on any highway in Delhi (or anywhere else in India), and there’s especially no Mountbatten Memorial Hospital. What this account is, however, is an analogous picture of the world if net neutrality were to be struck down.

Since the advent of the World Wide Web in the early nineties, people worldwide have enjoyed the unprecedented benefits of net neutrality: a vast, open network with free and unrestricted flow of information from one point to another, where every content creator and consumer is on a level playing field. The last two decades have seen words and ideas sprint from one corner of the globe to the other in the form of text, pictures, audio, and video. Songs in languages spoken in remote corners of the globe have been danced to by billions, and snippets of taboo protests have sparked shattering revolutions. The internet has been used to innovate, build, learn, educate, inform and inspire, all without the shackles of restrictions and regulations.

The Problem

All this came under threat nearly five years ago, early in 2012, when the US government tried and ultimately, due to the largest online protest in history, failed to pass the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA). These bills aimed to establish proverbial ‘high-speed lanes’ over the internet, allowing Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and corporations unchecked control over the content they provided, effectively aiming to set up a ‘premium’ online experience which would do away with the free and open web the international community currently enjoys. This same attack on the global network had sprung up again, and this time, it had hit a lot closer to home. Bharti Airtel’s sidelined attempts at setting up an extra fee for access to VoIP (Voice Over Internet Protocol), would have affected the accessibility of popular voice-call services like Skype. Our own national government recently put out an order to ISPs to ban thirty-two domains, with well-known websites like Vimeo and GitHub among them, for the reason that they were allegedly hosting jihadi propaganda. In a press release, the Government of India stated:

“It was stated that Anti National group are using social media for mentoring Indian youths to join the Jihadi activities.  (…) Many of these websites [SIC] do not require any authentication for pasting any material on them. Others upload articles, videos, or photos, or to download the contents which helps to hide the identities. These websites were being used frequently for pasting, communicating such content by just changing page name even blocking the earlier one.”

Though the bans on the four most prolific websites have been lifted, the problem remains. The simple fact that there is a potential for seditious claims to be made on a platform should not constitute the demolition of the platform. To put this in perspective, for those of us in Manipal, it would be the equivalent of tearing down the theatre stage at TC simply for the reason that a madman could climb up on either and spout his ridiculous doctrines. What is a more pressing issue than even that, however, is the reason Airtel had been forced to suspend its plans to violate net neutrality. In a statement, Airtel said:

“…we have decided not to implement our proposed launch of VoIP packs.

We have no doubt that as a result of the consultation process, a balanced outcome would emerge that would not only protect the interests of all stakeholders and viability of this important sector but would also encourage much–needed investments in spectrum and roll out of data networks to fulfill the objective of digital India.”

When India came close to losing Net Neutrality

In spite of the large public outcry and the protests of the consumers, Airtel had taken a step back only in order to consult with the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), and could still move forward with their plan, because in our country, there are no laws that protect net neutrality. Airtel’s consultation went further than seeking permission to dismantle the free web with just VoIP. It included plans for Instant Messaging, Applications, Cloud Services, Internet Television, Machine to Machine (M2M) communications, and Social Media.

On April 6th 2015, Bharti Airtel introduced Airtel Zero—an open marketing platform that was aimed at allowing users access to many mobile applications for free while the data charges were proposed to be paid by the application providers. Facebook’s Internet.org offered free access only to Facebook with a few partnering platforms, which basically meant Internet.org was a project to get people on Facebook than provide internet access. This very restriction of access, letting users use only Facebook and those 50 odd affiliates, is a villain to net neutrality in disguise. It means those companies who pay Reliance communications more will be made available to users who use Internet.org and those who choose not to will be inaccessible.

With initiatives like Internet.org by Facebook and Airtel Zero by Bharti Airtel coupled with strong opposition by the Indian people, the government along with the TRAI were put under immense pressure to act. Further driven by personal gains, on 27th May 2015, the TRAI published a consultation paper on over-the-top services (OTT) and net neutrality to gather public feedback running till the 24th of the following month. Furthermore, multiple politicians, actors and imminent personalities came forward publicly backing Net Neutrality. As public outcry grew, many companies associated with Internet.org backed out fearing backlash. The Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) launched a campaign countering the TRAI called “Sabka Internet, Sab ka Vikas”. It claimed that the COAI aims to connect unconnected citizens of India and demanded that VoIP calls be treated as cellular operators. Marking a definitive win for Indian Net Neutrality, the consultation paper released by the TRAI turned up with emails of over a million-people supporting it. On 8 February 2016, the TRAI finally banned telecom service providers from charging differential rates for data services finally bringing Net Neutrality to India.

How the United States of America violated Net Neutrality

However, the United States, once an inspiration for other countries to follow on the road to Neutrality of the Internet, has come under poor circumstances. The Federal Communications Commission (or popularly known as the FCC) has always been a vocal proponent of Net Neutrality. In 2007, when Comcast, the largest cable company in the States, was caught restricting BitTorrent uploads on their network, the FCC made its first Internet network management decision. It decided to uphold a complaint against Comcast stating that it had illegally denied access to the high-speed internet services to the users. The FCC confirmed that Comcast was using file-sharing software, because it throttled the bandwidth available to certain customers for video files to ensure that other customers had adequate bandwidth. The FCC ruled that Internet providers and all communications companies could not prevent customers from using their networks the way they saw fit. In December 2010, the FCC approved the FCC Open Internet Order barring providers from preventing access to competitors. It then voted on and passed a set of six “Net Neutrality Principles”.

In January 2017, Ajit Pai was appointed as the chairman of the FCC in the Trump administration. An adversary of government influence and regulation, Pai reportedly argued that when the government inserts itself into the Internet’s issues, it stifles innovation and growth. He had once said “Pre-emptive regulation is appropriate when there’s a major market failure—when the Internet is broken”. He went on to suggest that if certain internet content was available to users in ‘more efficient ways’, then he would support it. He also clarified that “we can’t predict in advance every single potential type of outcome—some might be good, some might be bad”. This highly resembled a lot of the arguments and reasoning’s put forth by companies like Internet.org before. In April 2017, Pai reportedly proposed a roll-back of Net Neutrality, with ISPs instead voluntarily committing to its principles. Over 1,000 start-ups and investors signed an open letter to Pai, opposing the proposal. As of May 24, 2017, the FCC’s website received a total of over 2.6 million comments from the public. Finally, on 4th December, due to overwhelming Republican support, the Bill repealing Net Neutrality was passed with a final tally of 3-2, and throwing the United States back into a fight for liberty on the Net.

This article was originally published by Avneesh Chandra for The MIT Post Magazine, first edition. It has been edited to include recent events.

Citations:

https://www.fightforthefuture.org/pipa/

http://tenyears-www.web.cern.ch/tenyears-www/Welcome.html

http://www.medianama.com/2014/12/223-airtel-withdraws-voip-charges-for-now-after-forcing-trais-hand-on-net-neutrality-consultation/

http://www.zdnet.com/article/india-lifts-block-on-vimeo-pastebin-internet-archive-others-still-banned/

http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/01/02/markets-emerging-idINL6N0UH0V820150102

Our central Government’s rise to power often reads like a story of the underdog. From the beginning, as it evolved out of an alternative nationalist organization – the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, their slow growth through the 1980s, and ultimately their landslide win in the 2014 polls.  While the ‘Modi wave’ may not be as strong as when it started, BJP success in trying to gain absolute control of both houses of the Parliament is unprecedented.

A majority in the Rajya Sabha- the upper house of the Parliament- is crucial for the BJP, until now the lack of a majority in the Rajya Sabha has been an effective roadblock in their plans. Perhaps that is the best justification for why recently, the politics of polarisation has been championed by both sides of the aisle.

In a comprehensive study of communal riots, Yale University researchers assert that ‘riots produce ethnic polarisation that benefits ethnoreligious parties at the expense of the Congress’. In fact, the BJS (parent of BJP) saw a 0.8 percentage point increase in their vote share following a riot in the year prior to an election.

This growing trend in denouncing all those who disagree has become a frequent model of campaigning, the most recent of which is Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s claims in his Palanpur speech, that Manmohan Singh, the un-named vice president and Mani Shankar Aiyar were conspiring with Pakistani officials to influence an election in India and a retired Pakistani army officer was simultaneously interfering in the process.

It takes a while to process, but the Prime Minister has just accused a former Prime Minister, a former Vice President and a former Minister of Parliament of sedition. Ordinarily, claims like these made by a person holding the highest Office in the country would be taken seriously, but as a nation, we are so used to hyperbole laced rhetoric, that we only take it with a pinch of salt.

While Prime Minister Modi may not be the first (and certainly isn’t the last) to make sweeping claims during the campaigning trail, his fault is amplified by the office he holds. And though the meeting was secretive, from the details that have emerged it was a quiet routine meeting. The only thing the Prime Minister succeeded in by turning it into a far-fetched conspiracy, is redefining the political Opposition as the enemy.

The central government’s political hegemony doesn’t just lie in fuelling the flames, they also easily dictate the agenda of its challengers. Whether it was turning the Presidential and Vice-Presidential polls into an ideological battle, or how easily all major players in the political arena have been running around in circles in the BJP established nationalistic discourse. Capitalising on class and communal divides to win votes has worked in their favour quite frequently since 2014.

But it has also failed them, if the Assembly elections in Bihar were any indication. And it may fail them again, but this time, in their stronghold of Gujarat. The only way to counter communal politics is by forcing the issue of social agenda onto the agenda, and then you get to witness the BJP falter. After all the only time the BJP’s rhetoric failed over the past three years was during the Bihar elections.

While India has a history of backing vote bank politics, trying to denounce all opposition, and dissent will never be a tactic that works. In a perfect world, both sides of the aisle create a dialogue together in a combined effort to ensure that every sect is adequately represented. But when the party in power is decidedly ‘nationalist’ and the largest opposition party is still scrambling to organize themselves in a coherent manner, it is the people they represent that suffer.

As we move from coalition politics to single party politics, the need for an Opposition is even more accentuated. The democratic process accounts for an Opposition because it is a reminder that a democracy cannot be used as an instrument for power. And by seeing the prime minister dismiss it so easily, it reveals a massive problem with how political discourse is viewed. It is no longer about trying to accommodate the most people and bringing cultures together in harmony, it is now about fighting for only those who will vote for you.

As for everyone else? They might as well be traitors.