Hi there, I’m Aman Thakker. Welcome to Indialogue, a newsletter analyzing the biggest policy developments in India. The aim of this newsletter is to provide you with quality analysis every week on what’s going on in India.
Thank you very much for subscribing. My writing, and this newsletter, benefits from your feedback, so please do not hesitate to send any suggestions, critiques, or ideas to aman@amanthakker.com.
Glaring Failures - of Policy and of Humanity - in Hathras Rape Case
The disturbing, heart-wrenching reports from Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, has, quite simply, been a horrific nightmare. Four upper-caste men, belonging to a family with a documented history of caste-based violence, raped and assaulted a 19-year old Dalit woman. This heinous crime, and everything that has happened this week from the investigation into the crime to the state government of Uttar Pradesh’s response to it, has simply been marked by total failure - both at a policy level, and at a human level.
The State of UP, and Its Police, Have Failed at Every Level
This week reminds us, yet again, that India remains a fundamentally dangerous country for women. Data from India’s National Crime Records Bureau shows that 45,536 total cases of rape were registered in India in 2019 alone - such a high number of cases that, on average, India records a case of rape every 12 minutes. However, this statistic hardly captures just how rampant this heinous crime is. Data from the National Family Health Survey, collected between 2015-2016 and released in 2018, finds that 99.1% of sexual violence cases are not reported in India.
Numerous organizations have pointed out several policy failures on the part of the Indian state and criminal justice system, which include “poor utilisation of funds, misguided focus on technologies in place of strengthening of institutions, and contradictions in the legal provisions” that have contributed to India’s abject failure in protecting women in India. However, I want to focus on one particular failure - the apathy on part of law enforcement - which has been at the heart of the Hathras case.
When the victim’s brother first reported the crime to the Chandpa police station in Hathras, police officers treated her and her family with inhuman apathy, telling him, “Just take her from here. She’s being dramatic and lying here. Do you want to trap us?”
Despite specifically naming the alleged four perpetrators of the crime, the Additional Director General of Police, Prashant Kumar, insisted on October 1 that no rape had occurred, overlooking the statement from the victim herself, and pointing to Forensic Science Laboratory reports - the evidence for which was collected more than a week after the crime.
After the victim’s death on September 29, the police, according to reports, which “had till now not had enough manpower to lodge a timely FIR, or to take the victim to the hospital, or to ensure timely collection of medical evidence, emerged in full force to lock up her family members, deny them the body of their daughter without any legal right to do so, and carried her body to the wilderness to be burnt in the middle of the night.” After cremating the victim without so much as allowing the family to see their loved one one last time, or allowing them to conduct her last rites per the customs of their community, the police told the family that “mistakes have been made (galtiya hui hai) but it is time to ‘move on.’”
And let’s be clear: the lower-caste identity of the victim is at the heart of this apathy. Scores of reports on India’s response to the widespread instances of rape in India have pointed out that police officials “resist filing the First Information Report (FIR), the first step to initiating a police investigation, especially if the victim is from an economically or socially marginalized community. Police sometimes pressure the victim’s family to ‘settle’ or ‘compromise,’ especially if the perpetrator is from a powerful community.”
Many have sought to downplay the role of caste in this case. Some readers, too, may believe that constant discussions of caste is what contributes to its persistence. That caste isn’t real, that it can be “transcended.”
However, for this victim - where her attackers were her upper caste neighbors - caste was central. It was central when her neighbors dumped “all their garbage and dirt on our side because we are Dalit,” as the victim’s mother told journalists. It was real when those neighbors exerted power, which they believed came from their higher caste identity, on her to assault and rape her. And it was real when the police mishandled her case, disrespected her family, and denied the crime of rape despite statements from the victim herself.
The Role of Police Power, Use of Force, and Surveillance
However, to even begin to fix these problems, we have to talk about how the police and the UP state government have actively resisted all scrutiny with force, intimidation, and violation of civil liberties.
The State’s Home Ministry, which is handled by the Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath himself, oversees the police in the state. It is the same police which sent 300 of its personnel, 17 of its vehicles, and five barricades to lock down to the village in Hathras where the victim and her family reside. The same police which stood guard over 200km away from Hathras at the Delhi-Noida-Delhi flyway to block anyone from entering the state by road.
The UP police then used its investigative surveillance capabilities to monitor calls to and from the family, including calls with journalists, such as Tanushree Pandey of India Today. Those calls with the victim’s families were leaked on social media.
It was the same police that used gratuitous violence against politicians from opposition parties who were demanding access to Hathras to ensure justice for the family, and shine a greater light on the mishandling of the case.
To be clear, all political parties, whether in power now or in power in the past, have used the police as a political tool, particularly in Uttar Pradesh. However, it has been particularly egregious under Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath, who has given the police free rein to use force, and conduct extrajudicial killings. And that free rein is manifesting in the police abject failure to show any sense of humanity to a rape victim, and its blatant misuse of its power and force to shield itself from any scrutiny whatsover.
Until we start to address, and reform, these issues, it is clear that no meaningful change that can prevent crimes such as the heinous one last month in Hathras, or provide justice for victims and their families, can take place. Until then, India will continue to fail - at a policy level and at a human level - to respond to, or prevent, crimes of rape and sexual assault.
If you would like to support Indialogue, please consider sharing the newsletter with others who might enjoy it using the button below!
COVID-19 Update - 100,000 Confirmed Deaths
India has registered more than 100,000 cumulative confirmed deaths from COVID-19, with total confirmed cases reaching 6,549,373 as of Monday, October 5.
The month of September alone accounted for nearly 40% of India’s COVID-19 cases, and ~33% of India’s COVID-19 death toll.
However, India’s recovery rate, based on confirmed cases, stands at 84%, which is the highest in the world.
Epidemiologists and other public health experts have noted, though, that the confirmed cases likely make up only a fraction of the true number of COVID-19 cases in India.
They have pointed to recent serological surveys from New Delhi and Mumbai which suggest that the ratio of infections to recorded cases is 20:1.
In a recent piece, Dr. T. Jacob John, former Professor and Head of Department, Clinical Virology Department at CMC Hospital, Tamil Nadu and Dr. M.S. Seshadri, former Professor and Head of Department, Clinical Endocrinology Department, also at CMC Hospital, have also recently argued that India may be past its peak.
They argue that the peak of India’s COVID-19 curve took place during the middle two weeks of September (September 5-11, and September 12-18).
They also argue that based on the sero-survey conducted by the Indian Council of Medical Research in May-June and published in September, India’s total burden of infection was between 480 million and 600 million.
They estimate that herd immunity among India’s population is therefore in the range of 35% and 43%
They also argue that “is reasonable to assume that the epidemic will continue for a further six months, until mid-March 2021, before it turns endemic.” However, vaccinations can change this assumption.
Despite the continued rise in case numbers and deaths, India’s Ministry of Home Affairs continues to push ahead with re-opening, issuing new guidelines this week for permitted activities from October 1.
These new activities include opening cinemas, theaters, and multiplexes with 50% capacity, as well as giving additional flexibility to states and union territories to make their own decisions on the openings of schools, colleges, and other educational and coaching institutes.
As Dr. T. Jacob John told The New York Times, “Now, today, the economic revival has priority over handling the virus.”
The Latest on India-China Tensions
Tensions remain unresolved between India and China as the process of disengagement continues to proceed extremely slowly, pushing the ongoing standoff into its sixth month (if we count May 5, the earliest date publicly reported in Indian media, as the start of the standoff, then October 5 marks a full five months since the standoff began).
While there have been two attempts to push forward on a disengagement process - one in the aftermath of the July 15 fatal clash between Indian and Chinese forces in the Galwan Valley, and another following the September 10 meeting of Indian and Chinese foreign ministers in Moscow - there has largely been little to show for it. Rather, this week, a new area of differences emerged.
In a recent statement to Hindustan Times, the Chinese foreign ministry said that:
“Firstly, China-India border LAC is very clear, that is the LAC on November 7, 1959. China announced it in the 1950s, and the international community including India are also clear about it. However, ever since this year, the Indian Army has continued to arrive and illegally cross the border, unilaterally expanding the scope of actual control. This is the source of tension on the border issues. The key to disengagement between the two armies is India’s withdrawal of all illegal cross-border personnel and equipment.”
However, this November 7, 1959 LAC is not an actual line, but as former National Security Advisor Shivshankar Menon describes in his book Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy, is actually “a disconnected series of points on a map that could be joined up in many ways.” More recently, he was quoted this week by Rezaul Laskar of Hindustan Times, saying that “The 1959 LAC was never accepted by India” and that Chinese efforts to point to that conception of the LAC was a “red herring.”
India’s Ministry of External Affairs also responded to the Chinese statement on September 29, stating:
“India has never accepted the so-called unilaterally defined 1959 Line of Actual Control (LAC). This position has been consistent and well known, including to the Chinese side.
Furthermore, under their various bilateral agreements including the 1993 Agreement on Maintenance of Peace and Tranquility along the LAC, 1996 Agreement on Confidence Building Measures (CBMs) in the military field, 2005 Protocol on Implementation of CBMs, 2005 Agreement on Political Parameters and Guiding Principles for settlement of the India-China Boundary Question, both India and China have committed to clarification and confirmation of the LAC to reach a common understanding of the alignment of the LAC. In fact, the two sides had engaged in an exercise to clarify and confirm the LAC up to 2003, but this process could not proceed further as the Chinese side did not show a willingness to pursue it.
Therefore, the insistence now of the Chinese side that there is only one LAC is contrary to the solemn commitments made by China in these agreements.”
Meanwhile, representatives of the two countries - Joint Secretary (East Asia) Naveen Srivastava from India, and Hong Liang, Director General of the Boundary & Oceanic Department in Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs - took part in the 19th Meeting of the Working Mechanism for Consultation & Coordination on India-China Border Affairs. No breakthrough was reported in the meeting, with both sides reaffirming that “the agreement between the two Foreign Ministers should be sincerely implemented to ensure disengagement at all the friction points along the LAC.”
Meanwhile, reports emerged on Sunday, October 4, that a 7th meeting of Indian and Chinese military commanders will take place as soon as October 12. As with the previous meeting, which took place on September 21, Joint Secretary (East Asia) Srivastava will participate alongside the 14 Corps Commander Lt Gen. Harinder Singh, and his successor Lt. Gen. P.G.K. Menon, who will take over beginning October 14 (when Lt. Gen. Singh will assume his new role as Commandant of the Indian Military Academy).
News Roundup
External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar will travel to Japan from October 6-7 for bilateral consultations with his Japanese counterpart, Toshimitsu Motegi, and also participate in the second ministerial-level meeting of the “Quad” group of countries - Australia, India, Japan, and the United States. The representatives of the four countries will discuss the “post-Covid 19 international order and the need for a coordinated response to the various challenges emerging from the pandemic” as well as “affirm the importance of maintaining a free, open and inclusive Indo-Pacific.”
The Ministry of Power released new Draft Electricity Rules which, among other proposals, aims to affirm that wind, solar, hybrid, hydro, or other renewable energy power plants must be treated as a “must-run” power plant, which will not be subject to “curtailment or regulation of power on account of merit order dispatch or any other commercial consideration.” A full draft of the draft rules is available here, and the rules are open to comment until October 22, 2020.
The Bureau of Political-Military Affairs at the U.S. Department of State authorized a proposed military sale to India for follow-on support for its fleet of C-130J Super Hercules aircraft for an estimated cost of up to $90 million
The Ministry of Finance granted two states - Uttar Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh - permission for additional borrowing after the states completed reforms. For Uttar Pradesh, its steps to complete reforms to its public distribution system to implement One Nation One Ration Card System made it eligible to raise Rs. 4,851 crore ($661 million) through Open Market Borrowings (OMB), while Andhra Pradesh’s reforms on “Ease of Doing Business” made it eligible to raise Rs. 2,525 crore ($344 million) through OMB.
The Indian Navy participated in the 2nd edition of the India-Bangladesh Bilateral Exercise “Bongosagar” from October 3, 2020. The two navies will also undertake a Coordinated Patrol (CORPAT) in Northern Bay of Bengal from October 4-5, and patrol along the International Maritime Boundary Line.
The Ministry of Defense unveiled the Defence Acquisition Procedure (DAP) – 2020, which has gone into effect as of October 1, 2020. Under the new rules, the government has reportedly done away with offsets - which mandate that a foreign vendor was required to invest at least 30 percent (or in the case of the 2016 Rafale fighter jet deal, 50 percent) of the value of the purchase in India - for contracts involving government-to-government deals or those involving single vendors.
U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) introduced the Prioritizing Clean Energy and Climate Cooperation with India Act of 2020 in the United States Senate on September 30, 2020. The Act seeks to establish the United States-India Clean Energy and Power Transmission Partnership, whose activities will include “promoting joint research and development on clean energy technologies, encouraging U.S. private investment in the Indian clean energy market, and supporting initiatives to develop new renewable energy generation capacity in India.” The full text of the legislation is available here.
India and Myanmar held their 19th round of Foreign Office consultations virtually on October 1, 2020. Both sides discussed the full range of issues in their bilateral relationship including, but not limited to, “border cooperation and upgradation of border infrastructure, status of India’s ongoing development projects in Myanmar, trade and investment ties, power and energy cooperation, consular matters and cultural cooperation,” as well as “cooperation in regional and multilateral fora.”
Three to Read
From cogent analysis to potentially big news that you should keep an eye on, here are a few commentaries and other pieces of writing that I found particularly enlightening:
Dr. Happymon Jacob, Associate Professor, Centre for International Politics, Organization and Disarmament at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, argues: “it is high time New Delhi shifted its almost exclusive focus from the continental space to the maritime space, stitching together a maritime grand strategy. The MEA’s Indo-Pacific Division is a good beginning; so is the decision in 2019 to elevate the Quad meetings among India, Japan, the United States and Australia to the ministerial level. New Delhi would do well to ideate on the current and future maritime challenges, consolidate its military and non-military tools, engage its strategic partners, and publish a comprehensive vision document on the Indo-Pacific; the current ‘Indo-Pacific Division Briefs’ document put out by the MEA does not make the cut. More so, New Delhi should consider appointing a special envoy for Indo-Pacific affairs. The Asian geopolitical chessboard awaits bold moves by New Delhi.”
Jeffrey Gettleman and Suhasini Raj, both from The New York Times, write: “As Covid-19 Closes Schools, the World’s Children Go to Work… School-age children in India are now performing all kinds of work, from rolling cigarettes and stacking bricks to serving tea outside brothels, according to more than 50 interviews conducted with the children, their parents, teachers, labor contractors and child activists. Most of it is illegal. Much of it is hazardous.”
Dr. Jagannath Panda, research fellow at the Manohar Parrikar Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses, and Akriti Vasudeva, Research Analyst with the South Asia Program at the Stimson Center, argue: “With India’s post-Galwan reevaluation of China, Australia’s “wake-up call” vis-à-vis Beijing, a likely continuation of Abe’s policies in Japan under Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga, and the United States’ intensifying rivalry with China, the potential for Quad Plus is high. However, the idea of Quad Plus is still quite nebulous, and its fate uncertain… institutionalizing the Quad Plus is likely to be a difficult endeavor, not only because many of these countries have longstanding economic ties with China but also because articulating a shared purpose and identifying priorities may prove cumbersome. If they succeed, then the Quad Plus could be a mechanism for global recovery and stability in the post-coronavirus world.”
Thanks for reading this latest edition of Indialogue. Please let me know if you have any thoughts or feedback by emailing me at aman@amanthakker.com.