Anubandh: Hello again!
Since the interview took longer than we expected, due to all the
fascinating topics that we discussed, here is the second part of the discussion
with Renuka VISHWANATHAN. Enjoy!
Moving on, now I would like to touch upon the Indian judiciary part.
However, I would really like you to focus on one example and which comes really
as a heart touching example from your narration in the book and it is about
your father. So, he was a High Court judge and then he also became the Chief
Justice of Kerala there. Hhe comes from… he was the first person from his
family to study so much and to go so far. He came from the “Ezhava” caste,
which was highly marginalized in Kerala. What really happened was that he was
unceremoniously and unfairly removed from his post, in a non-transparent way
and it was very difficult for you to look for the truth. You were also helped
in a way by the Justice MURALIDHAR of Supreme Court. Could you please tell us
this story briefly?
What really happened in this matter?
Renuka: I put it in a
perspective, to a limited extent in the judiciary chapter. I just wanted us to
realize that the judiciary is not really… No matter what we do, it can never be
completely independent of the legislature or the executive. If we assume the
contrary, then this is wrong. In any
country, it is just not possible and nobody can be totally independent, in that
sense. That is one problem.
What happened and in the case of my father, what I wanted to mention was
that we all believed and we were right to believe that impeachment is the only
way by which you can actually remove a judge from the high court and from the
Supreme Court. What has happened is that in the case of my father, a purely administrative
action was taken based on a constitutional provision which gave a little
leeway. It said that the if a person, if a judge of the High Court or Chief
Justice, if his age has to be determined… it is just one line which states that
the President of India can determine the age of the judge. Now, that is an
administrative action. It is not a judicial action and it is definitely not an
impeachment. It is not a forum where you can actually be treated, the way even
the lowest criminal would be treated, that is, you get an opportunity to
formally, legally present your case and be heard and be judged by maybe a jury
or a group of your peers. That did not happen because of this just one line
reference in the Constitution. When they wrote the Constitution, nobody
probably imagined that this thing could happen, this sort of thing would be
misused. Now, the President in India is to a large extent a figurehead. We know
that the President is not directly elected. He is not… He is just the head of
the State. The real power is with the government which is basically the Prime
Minister and his cabinet.
So, you can have a situation in which the decision, the political
decision taken can be… Well, you know, if somebody is an inconvenient judge
because he is not doing what we are asking him to do and he is not giving the
kind of judgments that would make it easy for us to manipulate decisions, etc.
Now, you and I do not need to talk about what has been happening over
the last 8 or 10 years. We know that and that is exactly why you have been
pointing out that you are uncomfortable with my marking of 5. You would have
probably given a lower marking to the judiciary. Let me go to that because I
think that is important why I gave 5 marks is because the judiciary as a whole…
Of course, I should have confined myself to the Supreme Court and to the High
Courts because they are implementing the main jurisdiction. However, the truth
is that there are a large number of judges in the system and believe me, there
are a lot of them… lower down the line too, who are giving judgments of which
we ought to be very proud. I mean the ones who see the objectivity of a case
and come up with the right kinds of decisions that the public appreciates, that
people look at and say, okay we still have faith in the judiciary.
Now, what happened in the case of my father was that a notice was sent
from the President. Yes, he gave a reply. We found out all the information
through RTI (Right to Information) and that is why I am grateful to RTI because
RTI came into effect just around the time when I left my job.
Anubandh: Sorry, just
to add there… It was about his birth certificate, right?
Renuka: Yes, it was
about his birth certificate. They created a situation where they said that what
he had presented, and I have given the copy of the birth certificate in the
book where they said that it was not a birth certificate. The interesting part
is that they said that his date of birth which he had presented at the time of
his selection and which was consistent. I mean, he maintained it throughout his
entire college days, his appointment, there was not a single mistake. And you
can look at that document and you can see that it was not tampered with.
However, it is not a birth certificate. The problem with India is that we never
had an official birth certificate issued by a hospital in which you are born.
Because often you are not born in a hospital! Even I, several years later (than
him) I have not been born in a hospital. I mean, I was born in a hospital but I
do not have a birth certificate because this practice of issuing a formal birth
certificate, a legal birth certificate, was in place only in the 1990s. It is
not before that. Most of us, 99% of us, we never had proper birth certificates.
Now, there was an entry there. There is an entire set of entries in the village
records that are confusing or are contradictory. Often, they do not tally at
all with the realities of his own family because it was just entered by
somebody, somewhere and there was a person with the same name, but with a
different date of birth which was entered by hand on some paper.
The judges, the judiciary the legal profession, the settled law was that
whatever was entered for your matriculation exam, in your assistance
certificate, that is taken as your date of birth. It is the one that I have
presented in the book. That is exactly the one that tallied completely with
what my father had said. That tallies even with the date of birth that we are
celebrating today for him. Therefore, it is our family who has celebrated that
date of birth. There was never any suspicion or any belief that it was a
different date of birth. It is completely consistent to everything else that
happened until the end of his last days.
But the little entry in some document which they pulled out from a
village record and they said this is the one that was the true date of birth
and without giving him a proper opportunity to explain the whole matter in
front of other judges. This was actually required under the law which says that
this should be done. This was not observed and one morning, he just gets a telegram
saying that, “you are deemed to have retired with effect from today”. It is
just a telegram. He did not even get a written order. I mean a government order
saying this is why the President determines this and that… Now, when I looked
at the RTI documents of the Rashtrapati Bhavan which I located after I filed a
petition and I am very grateful to the lawyers. To Mr. Venu GOPAL and to Mr.
Gopal Shankar NARAYANAN and to Justice S. MURLIDHAR who decided the matter. He
forced the Rashtrapati Bhavan to give the documents. They were holding it back
but the law said, they had to give it. Therefore, they gave it to us and I have
all the papers with me.
Those documents show very clearly that even the President had
reservations at that point. Even the President was saying, “listen, why are you
rushing me forward to pass this decision?” I have got that document! It says
that. However, there was definitely something happening there. He was certainly
the kind of person who would not have, who did not follow any kind of guidance
or direction from the executive. That was one of the reasons…
The second reason I would like to say is that it is largely believed,
you can ask anybody who knows the matter in Kerala and in Delhi, among the
legal profession. It was largely believed that there was definitely a caste
factor which played into this game but I can only say this. I know only what
others have been telling to me, right?
Anubandh: I think, to
most observers of Indian politics it would not be a surprise if it were true.
Nevertheless, let me remind to the audience also that your father was born in
1915, right?
Renuka: Yes.
Anubandh: So, imagine
requesting for a birth certificate issued in 1915! This makes a corollary with
the anti CAA protests as well, right? We have seen the difficulties. Therefore,
that is quite impractical or unreasonable, in a way.
Another comparison I wanted to make about the judiciary and the
advocates and the judges, is the example of Pakistan. You know, how President
Musharraf had to give away his power because of the agitations by the judges
and advocates there. Thus, that is what is happening in our neighbouring
country or had had happened.
Next and a very fascinating chapter is about the role of women in
democracy that you treated. Again, I propose to read few highlights.
You said that it is the question of “नियत” (inegrity), of intent of the politicians. In fact, most of them are aware
of the real concerns of women but they just do not… They are indifferent to
them, in a way and for various reasons… You made a list of concerns, main
concerns of women.
First one is the “physical safety and dignity”. Thus, you highlighted
the domestic violence and sexual harassment issues.
Second is… And in this regard, you wrote as well an article in The
Citizen in 2022: “Why do we not talk about violence against women in their
homes?”. Second is “education and health, high illiteracy”. Thus, in 2010, the
census said that 35% of women were illiterate which means only 65% were
literate. While men were at 81%. Then there is higher maternal mortality. There
is under nourishment of women. You also cited the example of Rajasthan. For
instance, in 1987 you were an election observer there to the Tong parliamentary
constituency. You found that most of the women voter could not sign their
names. This was a shock to you because you come from Kerala where the female
literacy rate was 90% while Karnataka has it at 68%.
Third point you raised was about “income and livelihood”. Thus, many
women occupations with high representation of women, such as teachers, child
caretaker, healthcare workers, garbage collectors, nurses… You said that large
proportions of families depend upon the income of women and that it is not
really well recognized yet in India.
Fourth is “Equality of status”. Therefore, you talked about family and
property laws, inheritance laws which are often discriminatory. There are
practical hurdles due to patriarchy. You talked about the political experience
with the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) on women issues. You were not really happy with
them. There are very few women leaders and ministers in AAP, although they were
in power for quite some time. You were disheartened that the woman issues were
added into the manifesto of the party as a last minute addition to aim at the
woman voter but it is not done with a serious intent. In a way, it is tokenism.
It is a sign of tokenism.
You were shocked that senior AAP leaders were objecting to use the word,
“women empowerment”, as a consequence of free bus pass to women in Delhi. You
said that the AAP government which came with the support of loyal women voters,
and yet they did not do much for increasing the funding for protection officers
and shelters to break the vicious cycle of domestic violence, providing equal
treatment and job security for Anganwadi and Asha workers. Thus, these were
like policy issues. They could have been implemented without much controversy
but that was not really done.
You said, the first time you entered the AAP party office in Bangalore,
you were taken aback by the suggestion of the Head of the State Unit to join
the women's wing which was meeting in an adjacent room to consider women's
issue. It is like when women come to our homes, they are sent to the kitchen! Therefore,
that seems to be there a bit of a similar treatment.
You mentioned that you parted with the Kannada AAP organisation in 2020
while you still continue to vote, campaign and volunteer for them.
You lauded the “triple talaq (bill) that went all out at the heart of
the woman's issue”. You are not really in favour of reservation for women in
politics as you consider that it will not really result in implementation of
policies demanded by women voter.
And last, even to a natural optimist like you, the political future of
Indian women seem bleak
Over to you.
I think you have summarized it very well in fact.
Renuka: Regarding the
four points that women are interested in, I am absolutely, I am hundred percent
sure that the politicians of all parties, including the Aam Aadmi Party are
aware of these issues. Because you just have to talk to a single woman voter to
get the feedback which I have given and this is exactly what women want. These
are the things they want. I actually feel very let down by the fact that they
could have…
There was money in Delhi and they used it for various purposes. They
used it for some excellent schemes. For example, the bus travel for women. I
thought it was an excellent scheme because in addition to actually making it
possible for them to earn incomes with a lower cost, the commutation cost was
actually removed from the expenditure list for them. It also provided a way for
women subjected to domestic violence to escape that violence. By domestic
violence, I do not mean only from the spouse, I mean from all the people who
are committing the violence within the four walls of the house, inside the
house. You do not know who is doing it. Thus, if many women who are working,
who are earning money who find that they do not have control of their own
money, they are left sometimes without any money and if there was violence, it
would have been possible for them with the free bus pass to actually open the
door and walk out and catch the bus to escape the violence. That was definitely
an excellent policy.
However, I was very let down by the second thing that they did. This was
picked up by everybody, all over India, including in Karnataka. This suited
everyone. This was basically giving a doll (money) to women. Now, I have a
deep, in principle objection to the doll. This is not because I do not believe
that people require social security. Women do require social security. They
should give it to them. However, the entire agenda of the political parties is
to downplay or not to implement anything that gives the agency into the hands
of women. For example, training a woman in self-defense means that she will be
feeling protected when she walks around with her head high, which people do not
want to see and that she will be in a position to face anybody, even on a dark
street. No (political) party is talking about it. They do not want it. And it
works! I tried it myself when I was a deputy Commissioner in Dharwad
(Karnataka). It definitely works. That is one of the things they could have
done. What I am talking about is what they could have done and that they did
not do. This was one.
The second thing that they did not do was to put money into shelters,
into counsellors, into running the Protection from Domestic Violence Act. While
not the Indian Penal Code, because Indian Penal Code is beyond repair. We
cannot do anything and it is a problem across the world about domestic
violence. The police are not really the protectors of women, of those who are
in these situations. However, when you come to provide a way for the woman who
is trapped inside the house, without any confidence in her ability to run her
own life, she could have the Protection of Domestic Violence Act, suitably
funded, for which AAP had money and they would have provided the escape route. You
did not even have to actually put it on item 1 on your manifesto. You just had
to do it because if it is going to be controversial, it is going to divide your
party into women versus men, then okay, forget about it. Nevertheless, do it so
that the women could get that relief. That did not happen.
The third and this I feel really very upset about is that there were at
least three professions which are almost totally run by women. One of them is the “Anganwadis”, that is the
childcare centers, free childcare centers for poor children in villages all
over the place, totally run by women. Then they have the healthcare workers or
the Asha workers. This I think is probably unconstitutional. These jobs are
(exclusively) reserved for women.
Then of course, you have the third thing which you and I have seen in
Bangalore. That is the garbage pickers. A large number of people who actually
do the picking up of the garbage. Let us not forget about the nurses and
teachers who are also extremely important. These three sets of people are
directly controlled by government institutions, by local bodies… and why is it
that nothing was done to give (them their rights?) Because what they earn is a
pittance and that pittance… I can tell you during the Covid lockdown, the full
day work was being done by the healthcare workers. The garbage pickers were
always on the ground and they were being paid after two months, three months,
six months! This is 100% (illegal)! I mean, there is no doubt at all about
this. They were not being paid a living wage. Therefore, they could have been
made government employees. They could have received all the protection, that of
the permanent service, which means a chance to move ahead, a chance to get
medical support, a chance for insurance…and
everything. They could have got that as a right, not as a social
security payment that you are giving. And you expect them to be grateful for
it? Thus, my point is that everything that can be done to make women actually
straighten their backs, stand up and say this is our right, we are getting it,
they did not get.
If you look at the whole history of the women's suffrage, you will find…
We (in India) did not fight for it but the countries which fought for it, the
women who fought for it, they fought for their right to vote. Because they
wanted the vote (power) to actually change the inequalities which were there in
society against them. That (process) has not happened in India and this is the
reason why I am being pessimistic.
This is my pessimistic chapter.
Anubandh: Thanks.
I would like to underline that the observations you made about the Aam
Aadmi Party (AAP) could have been for any other political party in India.
Renuka: Yes,
definitely!
Anubandh: And this is
not specific to AAP.
Renuka: You are right.
Anubandh: And you have
also lauded them (AAP) for their governance and other aspects.
Since we are talking about AAP, I should also clarify that I was also
involved in the initial days of AAP (movement), until 2015. However, then I
stopped my association with them and we parted ways. While you continued. Thus,
that was one aspect.
Now, there is one issue that I really wish to highlight as it is important for me and from the perspective of the Indian audience. Because they do not get much exposure in this account. It is about the comparison that you made with different democracies in the world. I wish to share my screen so as to highlight it.
These are the observations that you made in the book. I have added one
category that was not present in the book. It is from my side. However, I
invite you also to comment on that.
Thus, we are talking about world democracies. You grouped them into
functioning or full democracies, in between democracies and errant states or
undemocratic states.
In the functioning or full democracies, you have included Western
Europe, USA, Australia, Canada, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. You mentioned
that Switzerland is the most democratic country where the executive, the
Federal Council is a collective body without a single leader.
In between democracies: You highlight Turkey and Singapore as examples
and you claim that they are on the cusp between democracy and totalitarianism,
authoritarianism.
Errant states: You say that about Russia, Iran, Hungary, Saudi Arabia,
China and USA under the Trump era.
I added a new category there. It is about the forced democracies. I
would like to hear if you have a comment on that, because all this promise… I
mean, we know that Afghanistan, Iraq were attacked by the United States and
“democracies” were “instated” there. The arguments then were also about uplifting
the status of women under Taliban in Afghanistan, you know? We recently had
also this coup in a way in Bangladesh and there is a democracy there but there
are also these allegation that it was all engineered by the United States. We
also have the example of the “Arab Springs”. Many of them, there are again
allegations that the United States was behind it to have in place governments
which would be cooperative to them and all…
So, do you agree with this?
Renuka: No, no, I do
not actually agree with this.
Because I would take out the USA from the errant states. I did not make
the calculation, a division of this sort. All I said was that I believe there
are six points which are required for deciding whether a country is a democracy
or not. This I called as the “identity kit for democracy” and every country or
a citizen of every country should probably sit down and check whether their own
country is a democracy or not. Or how far down the line they have gone.
I would certainly put USA in number one as a functioning democracy. It
is a functioning democracy. After all, India is definitely there… I would put
India also in the functioning democracies. It is still there, it is still a
democracy for various reasons and I have tested India against my six criteria. Therefore,
I would definitely put in the USA up there. All democracies are having issues
of various kinds because none of them is actually delivering the rule of the
majority. Which is what my thesis was about.
At the other end of the scale, I mean, I am not bothered at all about
Afghanistan, Iraq and Bangladesh and all that. I consider that Arab Spring in
any case was just an episode which did not deliver on its promises. Thus, I
would say at the other end of the list is definitely those countries that are
not democracies. I would clearly say that it involves those countries who have
not even said that they want to be democracies, like China for example. It does
not even say that it wants to be a democracy. The middle eastern monarchies,
these are monarchies there. None of them has a democracy. They do not want to
be a democracy. They have not even pretended to be a democracy. And then you
have a… Well, am not really commenting about Hungary because I do not know
enough about it. I mean, how it figures on the six criteria that I have put
down. I am not an expert in that. So, I really cannot say.
Turkey is very much on the cusp, so I would put it on the cusp.
Regarding Singapore, I have an issue. I would not put it on a total democracy.
No, definitely it is somewhere in between and probably a decision has to be
taken. Russia clearly… though it has a constitution, it is not a democracy.
Thus, I would definitely change all this around.
I absolutely do not understand this “forced democracy” thing because I
have not conceptualized it. You have and you probably are moved by a different
concept of what a forced democracy is. So, Afghanistan and Iraq and of course,
as I said Arab spring is just a phenomenon which happened, which was a hopeful
phenomenon but it has degenerated into or it has broken up into, we can see in
many of those countries like Tunisia, Egypt and so on where the influence was
felt.
On Bangladesh, I am confused. I really do not know what is going on
there. We know that they have changed their government and you hear a lot of
narratives. What drives those narratives is also something… I feel nervous
about, taking a stand without knowing much about it. There are some people who
say that it is the Americans who are driving them, making them perform in
particular ways. You know, Muhammad YUNUS is a person who has done a great deal
of good and he has a certain reputation. I would find it… I really do not know,
so I am left, you know, worried about that.
However, to end on a very good note, on a happy note, it is about Sri
Lanka. Sri Lanka is one place where I felt that everything contrary to… you
know, I was sitting on the edge of my seat, thinking how is this going to move,
what is going to happen. However, they came out of the protest which were very
nasty. They actually sat down. They wrote out a constitution, worked out
something and came up with a government about which now we are not hearing very
much. As long as we do not hear anything, it may be a good news! Thus, Sri
Lanka makes me feel good.
Anubandh: Right. Thank
you.
I am sorry. There need some corrections in this graph. I should have
made those. Nevertheless, I tried to compile information from your book. It was
not really presented this way there. Nevertheless, the idea is to further the
discussion and I am happy you took it in that spirit.
Now, as we are talking about these democracies around the different
corners of the world, and since I am in France for almost last 10 years now, I
also had a chance to compare and experience the democratic functioning here. To
the Indian audience, I would like to highlight few of my observations and since
you also have stayed in France, you perhaps could relate with them.
Thus, first the good things, about the best practices and then I will
also talk about some issues here in the democracy. In France, the election
funding is in place. Therefore, it is the State which takes care of how the
political parties are funded. I mean, of course, there are still issues with
that as well but there is some structure to rely on. This is one point.
What I found really interesting was that the election manifesto for
every party is actually distributed by the local municipalities. What they do,
they ask every party to print their manifestos on one page and then they make
an envelope. The party manifesto is put inside and then sent to every resident.
This way, you do not see the election advertisement everywhere and each party
gets a chance, with the public money, to communicate to the voters.
Then, I was really shocked when I first voted here in France. They still
have the ballot vote system here. The counting is done by citizens! There is no
election commission doing it. There are no police, there is no military
patrolling. And then, when people come to vote, sometimes they ask them, “would
you like to stay back and help us for the counting?”. Therefore, this is really
the spirit of democracy where there is an active participation that is solicited
from the citizens.
I had also talked to you about the Scandinavian countries’ example.
There, in their tax declarations, people are given a form in which they can
give their preferences regarding where their tax money should be spent. Whether
it is on education, on defense, on public health and so on. The government,
whichever is in place, has some constraint to broadly respect those public
wishes. That is something I find as being novel.
Now, some problems and it is important to talk about these as well
because a lot of people in India look at as being examples of good democratic
practices towards the functioning democracies here in the West. We do not
really know much about their weak points.
In France, because you talked about the referendums and the Brexit
referendum, I think it would also be pertinent to talk about the 2005
referendum in France. It was about the European Union Constitution to be
adopted by the member states. The French citizens, along with the Dutch
citizens voted a “NO”. Unfortunately, two years later, in 2007, under
(President) Nicolas SARKOZY a treaty of Lisbon was signed and the constitution
was imposed through back doors. Thus, that was really not respecting the public
choice.
Again some 80% of laws which are passed in the French assembly have EU
directives as inspirations. Which means they have no sovereignty left. They are
just implementing what is being decided at the European Union (EU). We will
visit as well the problems with the EU later.
Further, there have been some serious accusations of state violence
towards the French government. For instance, how they handled protests,
especially the “Gilets Jaunes” (the yellow vests), that we know. They are
criticized by both Amnesty International and by the EU human rights entities.
We also know that the recent reform about the pension which saw millions
of French people coming on the streets, and yet their demands were not
accepted. However, whenever Volodymyr ZELENSKY comes to France, he often gets
cheques of billions of euros, without any discussion in the parliament, without
any approval. Thus, there is this contrast.
And the French government is also quite severe against investigative
journalists. Especially, whenever the interests of the State are under
scrutiny. This was about France.
Now about the European Union. Then, I will invite you if you have any
comments.
Thus, the EU Parliament is quite powerless. For example, it cannot even
propose a new law on its own. It can only vote a law that was proposed by the
European Commission or the Council of Europe.
Ursula VON DER LEYEN, who is the “nominated” President of the EU. She is
not an elected President, she is a nominated President. Thus, there is also a
problem there. By the way, earlier, she was the defense minister of Germany.
And there were quite some allegations of corruption under her tenure. And yet,
she was “selected” as the President of the European Union.
Even during the Covid period, she is accused of having signed contracts
worth billions of euros through mere SMS, keeping aside all the procedures and
norms.
She is also accused of being autocratic. For example, when she banned in
the whole of European Union, Russia Today and Sputnik channels, accusing them
of misinformation. However, they did not get a possibility for a legal
recourse. This certainly was undemocratic. While at the same time, BBC, CNN and
other western channels could be seen in Moscow, although Russia is not a
“democracy “ and all. Thus, there is this contrast. Of course, now the Russians
also stopped it, but well.
Then, the EU Council members
which are 27 members of each Nation State. They are again not all elected. They
are mostly nominated. They have huge powers deciding about the whole of
European Union.
Further, lobbying is official in the European Union. Thus, it is not
morals, it is not ethics or principles, it is the money that decides.
Therefore, all of this, we can put together under “deficit of
democracy”.
If you have any comments on this.
Renuka: Yes sure.
I think you have really given a very good perspective of some of the
good and the bad points of what is happening in Europe. Of course, every
country, every democracy has challenges and I am very happy that France was the
home of the « droit de l'homme » (Human Rights). It is actually the home of
democracy even though it had a lot of violent revolutions before it came to
where it came. All the brilliant ideas that they have adopted. The people
participation and all.
Now, the fight against plutocracy which I think is so important. I
specifically said that in my book, I am not dealing with plutocracy issue. However,
I recognize that it is a huge challenge to many countries. This is definitely a
very very important thing. I am so glad that you mentioned it and maybe I
should study a lot more about how public funding of elections can take place.
This is definitely a priority. Also because we have had the electoral bonds
problem which has gone on for so long. Thus, it is very difficult.
Then there are one or two other points that you are making. I think the
most important issue which a lot of people in democracies everywhere are facing
is how do you influence the foreign policy of your government. That seems, in
some way or the other to escape democratic control. It is meant with the
intention of, Ok, if I have to fight a war, can I always go back and get the
approval of the people before I fight a war? However, we know exactly what
happened during the Vietnam war. You know what happened during the Iran - Iraq
war. In no country do people feel confident that their elected, so called
elected government is taking into account their own feelings before it decides
on foreign policy. This is a huge issue in a democracy which I think, I hope
somebody will be writing about, how it is possible to control a government's
foreign policy. Because whatever is there in the constitutions, it does not
work in almost all democracies. This is really an issue. We can see what is
happening in the US where there are people on both sides who are screaming for
the Palestinians and also for Israel. How to influence the government when it
makes foreign policy? That is a huge issue.
Now, you have come up with the issue of this interface between the
member states of the EU and the EU itself. I know that the word Brexit is a
very bad word in the minds of a lot of people. However, one of the big issues
in Brexit was exactly this, that why are we listening to the directive from an
external body which does not have democratic credentials? Especially when we
have elected our government and that our government should have the power to
handle those issues.
Obviously, France and Germany, I can hardly imagine France or Germany
wanting to leave the EU. I mean, are they actually saying that no, we do not
want the European Union! Because then that would be the end of the European Union.
Since they were the central part of the European Union. Thus, other countries
may threaten to move out or just think about moving out but not France and
Germany. The French and the Germans do not… Well, it is not the case as if
there is not a large body which has an anti EU sentiment in these countries. It
is of course very much there.
And as regards to the referendum, it is a very interesting point that
you make because I have been repeatedly referring to it in my book that when
people take a decision based on a referendum, which is fairly held, and the
victory could be even by just one vote margin, they are declared as winners. I
mean, you know with what narrow majority it was decided that Quebec would not
leave the Canadian union. It was a very close majority. It was not a very large
majority with which Scotland decided to remain with the UK. Thus, it is not a
great majority but it is still a majority. Now, if you do not respect the
referendum, then you are not being democratic. That is all. It is as simple as
that. You have to implement the decision taken in the referendum, whether you
like it or not. Because the democracy, it forces us for that. We can look at
what is happening in the UK. They are talking about setting aside what happened
in Brexit and slowly working their way back into the EU, through a different
set of methods or ways. But the point is that if you do not respect the
referendum and then you just wait and say, I will come back when I am are
ready, then that is just not acceptable. That is not democratic. Thus, if that
is happening and that is what you say is happening, then yes, I think it is
very serious.
I believe, there is some tension between the EU and the members. And
this is actually going to increase over time. You may have to formulate a
completely different organization, a different treaty which can take care of
the common interests. It may not be a natural passage from being a member of a
sovereign country to a federation. You are not going to go that way as people
are imagining.
Anubandh: Thank you for
these important comments.
On the referendum, I have a quick remark.
For instance in Switzerland, the one that you held as one of the
important democracies, functioning democracies, there, sometimes they have
referendums on some very trivial issues. For instance, “if there should be
minaret on the mosques or masjids? ”. For me, that is not a sort of question
one should ask to the people. It will be equivalent to having a question in
India, “Should there be a Ram Mandir or not?”. Then they also ask, “What should
be the percentage of foreign immigrants every year to be accepted inside
Switzerland?” Thus, there is a debate whether such questions should be asked or
not.
Anyway, there is one more example. EU is also accused of interfering
with the Presidential elections in Romania that were held recently when the
candidate which came as the first was not the favourite of the EU. Even the
French, how do you say, the equivalent of Research & Analysis Wing (RAW) in
India, the French intelligence service is also accused of some interference in
these Romanian elections. Thus, there are several issues.
Now, moving ahead.
I would like to give a glimpse of the status of media in France. Perhaps
this could be an inspiration to do something similar in India. Thus, these are
all media channels in France and there is a “Le Monde Diplomatique” which is
not really the same as “Le Monde”. It is a different newspaper. This one works
with the subscription of its readers and it is quite independent, in the sense
that you see the stark difference in reporting between the mainstream media and
this alternative “Le Monde Diplomatique” media. It might surprise many in India
but 95 to 98% of media in France, be it print media or television, be it
electronic media, it is all in the hands of big industrialists.
Therefore, you have Bernard ARNAULT. You see here the names of
industrialists and their rankings in terms of their wealth.
Therefore, the major names here are Bernard ARNAULT, Vincent BOLORÉ, you
have Xavier NIEL… So, I would say these are the AMBANIS and ADANIS of France.
It has been more than 20 years that they have been publishing this chart. They
keep updating it every year. Therefore, I really wish that we also have someday
in India something similar to track the media holdings. That was about the
media.
Renuka: May I a comment
about the media?
Anubandh: Sure.
Renuka: Actually the
media in India is in a really terrible state. From one point of view, I feel we
had an Arab Spring earlier… Probably people like you were too young to know it,
but we saw the transition from Doordarshan to a private media which was
actually independent. It was really and truly independent and was doing all
kinds of fascinating work. I met at that time a diplomat from the Netherlands.
I was not really working at that time and he said, “I am seeing things in the
Indian media which even in the Netherlands, we would never have!”. You know, it
is so open and vibrant. All kinds of stuff was actually happening.
And then, it was taken over by
the industrialists who realized that power had to be controlled. This power,
this extraordinary power of the media. Even earlier there were some
industrialists who were in the media but they did not do this. Like, the
GOENKA's were there or even “The Times of India” was also owned by a private
industry. Nevertheless, this kind of power which they have acquired now and
which they are shamelessly exploiting.
The difference between the French situation… by the way, that was a
really an educative slide out there. The difference between the French
situation and the Indian situation is that the number of people who are
controlling the Indian media, you perhaps can count them on the fingers of one
hand. You have a slightly greater spread there (in France). That is all. There
is no more difference.
However, the one very bright thing on the Indian horizon is the social
media. Well, I find that there are a lot of influencers who are also bought up
and who are coming up with all kinds of fake data, fake opinions and every kind
of thing. And yet, there is definitely a very strong, a good, a truthful social
media, with honest comments, honest facts which is actually there and most of us
follow them… And you know, I saw this during my campaigning. People would tell
me on the doorsteps… This was quite some time back, “we are not watching the
mainstream media. We do not want to watch it”. The people are actually turning
to the alternative media outlets.
I think that is an excellent way, which is why I believe in the people
of India that they are definitely reaching out. The best is something like “ALT
News”. We do have “ALT News”.
Anubandh: Yes.
What I really would like to highlight here is that this is not specific
to India, as you said as well in the book. It is quite a global phenomenon.
Two important scandals that really should open our eyes.
One is the US Aid scandal last year that we came to know about. I mean,
since last many years or decades, the USA has been funding major global media
outlets. Thus, one would wonder why this was done. Because we can guess that it
is for the sake of fabricating the opinion. We can even call this as being a
“Western propaganda”.
Another scandal is the “Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project
(OCCRP)”. There were hidden links between a giant investigative journalism
institute which is the OCCRP and the US government. It is the largest organized
network of investigative media in the world. This investigation has revealed
that there are links with the US government. “And Washington supplies half of
its budget, has a right to veto its senior staff and funds investigation
focusing on Russian and Venezuela”. Thus, this was reported by Mediapart on 2
December 2024.
You also mentioned about the plutocracy. Since the next danger to
democracy is not just the capture of some media houses by big industrialists,
but now we are moving towards capture of the complete State itself! That is the
challenge of our times. I will highlight some key points here for you.
There is also artificial intelligence now and for example… Artificial
intelligence needs a lot of stable and powerful electricity and only nuclear
energy can provide such electricity, at such a scale. Therefore, what is
happening in the United States is that this has (nuclear energy production) now
gone in the hands of private entities, which is rather a serious matter. Thus,
since 2013 they provide this electricity to major AI companies and these same
AI services are then used by the US State, because the government does not have
their own (AI), you know? Therefore, you can imagine. Thus, more you put energy
the more you create intelligence. This is the relation. Again, I have to
highlight here that just for the electricity, Invested! Some of these are
already invested and by 2026 or 2027 the whole will be spent. Further, more
than 3,000 billion dollars are going to be invested for AI by 2030.
Now, we have to keep in mind the scale of this investment. Because, the
debt of France is 3400 billion euros, which is almost 113% of its GDP. Thus,
this is happening at a huge scale. If we accept that resources are limited in
the world, and if such huge amount is going in one direction, one can imagine
the impact on democracies and on people.
For instance, Italy has recently conferred the cryptic defense
communication to Space Link of Elon MUSK. The strategic implication of this
decision is incredible. In Germany, the police of different landers… Thus,
landers are like small districts. They use surveillance softwares from
Palantir, which is a private American company. In UK, since 2023, the National
Health Service (NHS) uses Palantir software to manage patient data. In France,
it is Microsoft that gets the data of the patients. Then there are also private
cloud facilities for public and government entities. Again a conflict of
interest and sovereignty issues.
Finally, in 2025, the United States passed a “US Security Chip Act”,
which means Nvidia, which is a major IT hardware company and the one covers 90
to 95% of the world computer market. Thus, this means in all of our laptops,
they now have made by law, a requirement that there should be a GPS tracking
feature. By the way, this is what “we“ (The West) have been accusing Huawei and
other Chinese companies. And now, it is being legalized by the United States.
This will affect whoever uses those laptops, Indian, French or whoever.
Thus, these are the next challenges.
In case you have any comments, please.
Renuka: You seem to
have investigated a number of things. As I said regarding plutocracy…. In the
beginning of my book itself, I mentioned that plutocracy is a huge issue which
I frankly did not touch upon. Though, of course, the scope for that to overturn
and to harm democracy is tremendous. That is a fact. However, really, I am not
very familiar with all the details that you are mentioning.
Of course, you are raising many very important issues and I am sure
concerned countries, they will probably, hopefully they will look at it and
there will be pressure from their people, when they shall become aware of some
of these challenges.
Anubandh: Who knows,
perhaps you will add a chapter on this aspect in the next edition of your book!
I hope as well that your book is translated into different Indian
languages, so that this important discussion reaches them.
Renuka: Well, I hope so
because we have a lot of challenges in our country, with multiple languages.
And we ought to be able to reach people. However, you know, the good news from
India is that people are aware. You keep bumping into people, I keep moving
around and talking to everybody I meet, and not necessarily just the well to do
people like us and when you talk to various categories of people, of different
income levels and the very poor as well, you get feedbacks which are absolutely
encouraging. They do believe when they come out to turn out to vote, right
there at the bottom of their hearts, they do believe in that little thing that
they are holding and the power that they are wielding. Thus, that is there. I
am glad for that.
Anubandh: Well, what
your book has really highlighted or underlined for me is the fact that Indians
are part of this world. We have a stake in the world and conversely the world
has a stake in India. We all are interconnected. These are issues of our
common, shared existence, our democratic existence in a way. That is really
great. I am thankful to you for that.
Now, I really wish to wrap our discussion as it has stretched quite
long. Because these are interesting issues and topics.
One last question. In fact, I will rather club them as I have two
questions.
I really wish to hear you reflections on the importance of reading books
in our times. This is really for the next generation or for people of my
generation. Perhaps for you it was more common than it is for us today. We have
a lot more distractions. Yet, I feel reading is very relevant today.
Also, you told me that you have a next project, a plan to write a new
book. So, if you could club these two questions and then we will stop.
Renuka: Yes, reading!
I am very happy to note, despite the false prophecies that reading is
dead. We hear it all the time that reading is dead. I seem to be one of the
fortunate ones who has most of the friends who read. They do read a lot. They
read all kinds of things, which I find fascinating. Because, for me, reading
was the way in which the world opened to me. I mean, you are in your own
environment and reading actually guided me through life. It taught me what to
expect, in different phases in my life. It was like having somebody, like a
ghost standing next to you, holding your hand and leading you forward. Thus,
reading is vital and it still continues to be very important to me. Nevertheless,
I think the friends of mine who do not read, the difference between them and
the others is that they depend upon social media to collect a lot of their
information.
The difference between social media and reading is that, just what is
happening right now, this kind of long debate in which you exchange views, you
see a person's arguments, you see the logic of what is being said, you look at
the table, you look at the diagrams, you look at the statistics and then you
make up your mind. That process, you can do through reading. You cannot do it
through social media. I do not think, even in future, that it will be possible
because it requires a certain concentration of thought, going back and
forth. You can do it, this you can do
only with the written matter in a book. Not even in a small format. It should be in a book. That skill, I hope is
not lost to our children. I am worried about that because the amount of reading
that they are doing in schools is actually getting quite constrained. It is not
as much as it used to be earlier. It is worrying me because people have to
train their minds to look at the data and to decide for themselves whether
something hangs together. The logic actually applies all the way down. If it
does not, then to be able to say, “OK it does not for the following reasons”.
Therefore, it is a process of thinking which only a book can do.
Of course, you can do it in Kindle or you can do it through a physical
book. I prefer it in my hand. As I find in Kindle, you really do not tend to go
back and forth that much. Thus, definitely I am glad to be among readers and I
think it has added a tremendous value to my life. I cannot even imagine a life
in which I would not read.
Anubandh: And your next
book?
Renuka: Well, I do not
know if I want to talk much about it here. I have of course skipped some of the
chapters but as you have mentioned at the beginning, I was interested in
political science and in economics. This book is about economics, in a
different way. I am going to personalize it because I have been very curious
asking myself the question of how much money is enough? Therefore, it means
that I really need to define money to find out what is the power that money
wields. Despite all that we talked today, there are a lot of poems and stories
and songs, popular songs that say, “money is not everything”.
It really is not everything. What are the things that money buys? What
are the things that money does not buy? What are the things for which money is
a proxy? Because we use money as a proxy in judging somebody's success, in
judging somebody's career. In actually keeping down certain genders, because we
say, if a woman earns more than a husband then there is a problem. I do not
know why the figure of money should be the proxy for the power or the dominance
or your sense of wholeness and it is in that direction that I would like to
explore, to spend some time studying how money can buy the votes of people. How
far it can buy and how far it cannot buy. Because the MAMDANI effect shows us
that it cannot really buy beyond a point. It may not be possible. I mean, you
never know. Thus, I do not know to what conclusion I will be coming. However, I
would like to actually examine this curious thing called money. What it is
exactly?
That is really interesting!
Anubandh: And it
reminds me of two things.
A friend of mine, she is French and when she was a child, she asked once
her mother, if a particular thing was expensive or not. How to decide? Her
mother's answer was that it depends for what purpose and where! In a desert,
for a bottle of water, you would be ready to pay a lot of money and not in an
everyday situation. Thus, it is relative.
Another aspect I see, and more so in the new Indian context, we see that
the more money you have/earn, probably it gives you more capacity to pollute
the world as then you have all the expensive habits of travelling abroad, how
you can spend your money on expensive gadgets, etc. Thus, there is a
correlation that I find.
On books, I would also like to highlight that I learnt that Dr.
AMBEDKAR, when he did his studies at the Columbia University in USA, he read
more than 2,000 books in just two years! With all the little savings that he
had he bought second hand books. Thus, that is the scale of reading that he had
and it is reflected in the kind of work he did later.
Renuka: I can tell you
looking back on my life, one of the happiest periods of my life was during a
period when I had hardly any money and I was living on a bourse in Paris and
walking, going, visiting all of Western Europe on a shoestring budget and it
still left me with such a feeling of joy. And yes, with my first earnings, I
spent them on buying books and I went into the bookstore to buy it and the
owner of the bookstore, he could read whatever what was on my mind and he used
to give me such huge discounts without ever… I mean without even making a song
and dance about it. Because, I think one lover of books recognizes another. There
is no need to haggle afterwards. Thus, I always remember that bookstore next to
my college where I took my first earning and went and bought a book.
Anubandh: I am hopeful
and I am almost convinced that this Interaction, this interview will inspire
more people to read books and in particular your book.
Thank you very much Renuka for having accepted to talk to me!
You have done a great contribution to the Indian democracy, in a way to
further it, to make it more accessible, in a very simple language. However,
that does not make things unimportant; to the contrary it makes it accessible. Rather,
that should be the purpose of democracies.
I thank you again and I hope to continue talking to you even in future. Thanks.
Renuka: Thank you very
much.
Renuka VISHWANATHAN
In 2018, Renuka had her maiden political stint when she contested the Karnataka assembly election from the Shanti Nagar constituency of Bangalore under the banner of the Aam Aadmi Party.
Renuka has been an activist for voter registration, enrollment in schools of children of economically weak sections under RTE (Right to Education). She is also involved in environmental issues & woman issues.
Renuka speaks multiple languages
with ease such as Malyalaym, Tamil, Kannada, Hindi, English, French and
Spanish. Besides, she has multiple interests and passions such as films,
theatre, music, literature and arts. She loves travelling,
reading and much more.
No comments:
Post a Comment