Do the Panama Papers dwarf the Panama Canal?

The Panama Canal was launched in 1914 and has helped trade grow. But over the last few years, law firm Mossack Fonseca may have helped built another canal via Panama, one that's punctured the global response to shadow financing and tax evasion. This one needs to be plugged. Photo credit: Cnet

Until a few weeks ago, the Panama Canal was the only thing that defined the country for a lot of people, but today people are likely to know more about it – unfortunately not so much about it’s beaches or music, but a lot more about Mossack Fonseca, a law firm based in Panama, and its murky deals. This firm seems to have drawn a lot of inspiration from the canal as it built another kind of a canal through which it helped many rich and powerful people hide money (read tax evasion) and also contributed to and shielded the world of shadow financing. Here’s a game to show how easy they made tax evasion appear. There goes a lot of your not-there-yet soft power Panama!

So, Panama Papers! Why is this important now? Haven’t we known that these activities have been happening? Here are some thoughts on why the leak, the thorough investigation and the timing may well be a game-changer. And here’s more information from the direct source. All put together, it helps deconstruct the (secret) global phenomena of shell companies, tax evasion and war financing and to then publicly construct and prove the links between them.

Proof is Power: Well, yes we have known about the existence of shadow financing, but we’ve never had so much data and information about who these people are, who is helping them and how is the money trail being developed. Knowing something exists and having proof about its existence are two different things, and without the latter, the former cannot translate into sustainable impact. It’s significant because not only does it again blow the lid off on the world of shadow financing and tax evasion, but also because it helps build strong legal cases to nail culprits.

Another Wake-up Call: It’s also another warning that the current domestic and global system are not really working well. It’s a reminder to push for further domestic tax reforms and for greater global collaboration on exchange of related information. It’s a strong nudge towards signing more treaties on tax transparency and enforcing them because the existing institutions for information exchange are caught up in too much of red tape as well. Perhaps, the bureaucracy is what’s adding to the inefficiency. Also, it’s reminder that secrecy is far more valued in monetary terms than transparency – that capitalism tends to side with secrecy until regulated.

Tip of the Iceberg: There’s a graph that’s popular on social media. This is what it looks like.

So clearly, while this revelation is big, we’d do better not to forget that it’s just be the tip of the iceberg. Economist Gabril Zucman estimates that tax losses due to shadow financing and offshore banking and investments total up to be about $200 billion per year, that’s almost four times Panama’s national income. "We may only be scratching the surface then," as Zucman puts it.

It’s an Industry: Another thing the size of the leak – over 2,600 GB of data – confirms is that this isn’t about malpractice by a firm, but it’s about the hidden industry of shadow finance and tax evasion. This is an industry that now, like many others, is global. Technology has made things easier for it and law has just not kept up. It’s an industry that draws large capital too and this makes states also reluctant to take active and immediate steps to block it. Political will is not that easy to garner when it comes to cutting off a serious flow of money. That’s one reason why big states like the US too have not acted as fast on the issue – that’s why Delaware has more registered companies than residents. It thrives on secrecy and the more data that goes public about it, the better. That’s how you beat secrecy, right? Go public with all the information. Of course, validate that information too as you take on the industry. That’s why this investigation by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists in collaboration with so many other publications around the world has taken over eight months. Great work ICIJ! A clear sign that there needs to be planned and collaborative response to the industry.

A Big Link to Peace: There’s been lots of talk about stopping financing to warring sides, terrorist organisations and rogue militant outfits. Well, not all of that has succeeded despite some firms linked to transferring money to major stakeholders in the Syrian conflict for instance being blacklisted. Why? Well the Panama Papers also describe that money trail. It’s all through shadow financing that money gets delivered to these banned, dangerous entities. It’s a big-big link then to peace and to ensuring that you hold power when negotiating peace treaties. With more data going public, more governments can be pressurised to act on those companies and more governments can come together to block these money trails and to dry those treasuries. War is an industry and this is where some of its exchequer is filled. Again, the Panama Papers may provide the missing evidences that can help legally tie the financiers, the middlemen and the final culprits to bring them to justice and to curb organised war and violence.

The Iron is Hot: This may well be one of the most important part about the Panama Papers revelation – its timing. About 15-20 years ago, this may not have created enough noise, but this time perhaps, there’s hope that it can grow into a silent revolution that forces reform. What’s changed? Well, since the late 2000s we’ve never really in totality gotten out of the financial crises. From the US sub-prime collapse to the PIGS economic downturn that’s still on, there’s more economic inequality in the world today, then there was before. But now, we have the Internet as a medium to get information out to people and to mobilise over issues.

This time around, there’s bound to be greater public interest in the revelations because they care – while many are affected by this economic inequality, others are losing patience with not insufficient action against tax evaders. In India there’s the case of Vijay Mallya who’s fled the country and is wanted for not paying loans worth billions. Elsewhere, there’s interest because other big players are involved and black money is a vital issue in all places, especially with elections in the US this year and poll promises of fighting corruption in other countries by national leaders like Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. They are being pushed to deliver and the boundaries of the discourse are being widened. This time around, we could certainly see some real impact because tax evasion has become a real subject in politics.

That’s why these revelations matter and why the work done by the consortium and other journalists is highly commendable. If there’s a whistleblower involved, well thank you. You’ve all helped deconstruct and publicly construct again the world of shadow financing. It’s a big nudge towards further reform and action, and this time around, with greater public interest, this may well change the balance, bit-by-bit and this Panama Canal may be plugged. But how the others are exposed and handled is another big challenge. 

Imagining nationalism

In the last one month, different incidents and protests at the Jawaharlal Nehru University have provoked us to question the meaning of nationalism all over again. Photo courtesy: The Quint

So far, this word and its interpretation had perhaps been the few words that had instigated and fueled wars across borders, but in February this year, this very word and its interpretation sparked one on the same side of the border. While religion can easily be that word, this time around, however, it was nationalism.

It’s highly improbable that you’ve missed the ‘anti-national’ label that’s been accorded in plenty in the last one month after an incident at a government university in the national capital kicked-off a political war. In case you missed it, here’s a quick fact-checked backgrounder.

But what is nationalism?

Nationalism is not an uncontroversial word. While it is seen as a derivative of the word nation, there are two schools of thought about looking at it. The first, the primordial school of thought takes an evolutionary route and looks at nationalism as the idea that yields the contemporary form of groups or societies that people subscribe to so as to ensure survival; what adds value to the idea of nationalism is that it is thought to be emotional and durable, especially because it draws on a common history, even ancestry.

The second, the so-called modernist idea says nationalism is what is invoked in societies that have a self-sustaining industrial economy and a central authority that can ensure unity while employing certain common or central norms or languages. It essentially looks at it more as an idea used for nation-building. That’s where the idea of ‘imagined communities’ as articulated first by Benedict Anderson comes in for nationalism then is essentially a project that attempts to draw on individual and societal patriotic currents.

So then, did nation come first or nationalism? To me, right now, these interpretations tend to suggest that nation is what nationalism results in and re-enforces. Perhaps one could argue both ways and maybe it is another chicken-egg conundrum.

Does patriotism equal nationalism?

So nationalism wants to draw on patriotism and build further and patriotism by itself may be re-enforced by nationalism, but these related words still represent disparate meanings. While patriotism is a sentiment and has an organic quotient attached to it, nationalism is a introduced idea that builds on an identity. Nationalism requires instruments such as a national anthem or a national day to unify people and to keep on etching the idea of the nation.  

Patriotism is innate and it just grows on its own. If it is not entirely selfless, it is certainly unselfish. Nationalism though may ask for something in return, for it is assumed that the nation-state is also a purveyor of certain essential things. What further adds to this mix is the social contract of citizenship in the post-Westphalian world where sovereignty and self-governance are norms. While sovereignty promises to promise freedom from foreign interference or intervention, citizenship means that for all rights and freedoms promised to the individual, there are a ‘reasonable’ number of directive principles as well. Discussing the validity of these is not the objective of this essay, however, this essay does acknowledge the need for citizenship in the modern world order and the fact that the idea of nationalism (and citizenship) may thus be subject to the central authority.

Multiple realities and the post national

Perhaps, like in most cases, here too a reality exists in a complex overlap of it all, since the primordial seems to have merged with the modernist in an age where the religious, economic and demographic divides are as evident as you have the patience of observing them.

Where an individual like me in an urban setting is drawn to the idea of post-nationalism (not non-nationalism) in the global yet local ever-connected world, there are individuals and families in rural regions who are now beginning to feel the prominence of the nation as they are better connected with other parts of the country and as they emerge out from regional or local shadows.

The university at the backdrop of this particular incident is said to be under a Leftist strong-hold, where as the central Indian government currently tilts to the right. Photo credit: JNU 

It’s also important here to note that how (divided) voices from urban or sub-urban spaces on social media appear to get a shot in the arm from the absence of voices from rural settings on social and mainstream media. Thus, this makes the premise of the any debate (in this case around nationalism) appear smaller than it is. Therefore, while the debate may tend to represent many voices, it still may not represent all voices. We must also note that there are attempts made to label these debates as only being stirred by ‘pseudo-intellectuals’ while adding that the common population is not concerned by it; but that argument must always be treated with serious doubts, for in most instances (especially ones that do not comprise economic factors and immediate security), the common population is too engrossed in the daily act of survival that raising debates may not even cross their mind, and if it does it may come way behind ‘roti, kapda and makaan’ (food, clothes and shelter) in their list of daily priorities. But then again, haven’t polity and politics been spheres the elites (or at least the privileged) have always called the shots?

Getting back, when I use the word post-national, I in no way use it as a argument against nationalism, on the contrary I use it in the context where it may be seen as a probably superlative of nationalism. It to me describes an idea where while the national is very dear to the individual, its relevance has merged with the presence of global or supranational entities like say, the European Union or ASEAN and the deep reach of transnational and multinational organisations. While domestic politics, the contemporary international order that celebrates sovereignty and the uneven spread of education and wealth ensure that the nation-state will remain very relevant, growing global inter-connections, trade pacts and joint efforts also signify that other groupings also acquire greater relevance. Perhaps, a supranational entity like the European Union then could be seen as a primordial evolution of the nation into another bigger grouping that then employs modernist grouping-building techniques. Either way, the significant point to note for the current context is that India thrives in multiple realities and to label them all under a particular kind of nationalism is not only a case of mistaken purpose, but also an unwelcome task. 

The nationalism of a Mini Cooper driving management executive in New Delhi may never be the same as that of a farmer in drought-hit Maharashtra, but then again, neither of those nationalisms may be wrong, and nor their distinct (and perhaps invisible) interpretations and manifestations of it.

Distinctions we must question

So, on a bigger stage when talking about more than one nation, while this debate may also be seen as a burgeoning disagreement between the idea of nationalism and supra-nationalism in the modern age, it definitely must be seen as a rub between the varied ideas within the nation about that idea of nationalism in question. Clearly, it has also grown into one about ‘patents on nationalism’ to freedom of expression. But some more distinctions that will help approach the subject better include:

1. The state is not the same as the government.

2. Nationalism is not the same as patriotism.

3. Order is not the same as justice.

4. Fiction is not the same as facts.

Will this debate end?
‘Imagined communities’ have long existed and will continue to; only the unit of their realisation (or analysis for social scientists) is expected to change with time. And as long as they exist, debates around topics such as what nationalism entails will always continue, for no one can have set of questions to test it. And as long as those debates thrive in peace, India, or any nation-state (or any other grouping) for that matter will be making some form of progress. Until then, it may be better off to establish that while nationalism may cover a similar set of ideals, there may be various exclusive subsets to that which may co-exist in harmony and that to question any of them without valid reason may yield nothing of value. 

Temples in India to the ‘Joy’ of success: Comparing paths to feminism

In the movie Joy, Jennifer Lawrence plays a single mother whose struggles are fueled by the non-recognition of creativity at home and the absence of economic opportunity outside, all subject to the undercurrents of neoliberal individualism that influence her decisions and help her define her road to success. Photo credit: Joy, the movie

There are numerous objectives or quests in life, from individual and societal to national and global, and correspondingly and arguably there are numerous ways of achieving them. With that in mind, this essay focuses on understanding the definition of feminism and the various approaches towards advancing or enforcing it.

The first month of the year highlighted two approaches to the cause of feminism. While one long unfolding incident in the Indian state of Maharashtra saw a group of women frame their argument around the “right to pray” (a socio-political rights approach) in their quest for practicing feminism, the other was a break from tradition in Hollywood to depict lone women in their fight for justice with the release of Joy, a film inspired by the life of Joy Mangano and her struggles as a single mother as she built her own business empire (an economic rights approach).

While it is imperative to underline that individual beliefs, life experiences, immediate needs and larger political social and economic environments prevalent and dominant in the surroundings have a lot to contribute towards their actions, it would be a mistake not to see how both these disparate approaches that sought to achieve different goals fall under the wider umbrella of realising feminism and advancing the cause of gender equality.

While as individuals, one may be subject to limitations in terms of what goal(s) among these (social, political or economic rights) we are able to focus on and correspondingly what road we take in our struggles to achieve them, as societies and larger communities it is essential for us to work towards protecting and ensuring an all-inclusive enforcement of feministic ideals and to perpetually interrogate and adjust the road we take to achieve those goals. Because to realise feminism in all it’s earnest, equality needs to be protected and ensured across all realms (social, political and economic among others). And what road we take to do that may well define how we look at feminism it self.

But who or what defines feminism?

For all further references, it is imperative to define the meaning of feminism as understood and studied by me. Feminism, as its name suggests, was born as the idea of advocacy of women’s rights. But it has grown into a bigger idea today. Today it stands for equal rights for all, across all realms. It’s an all-inclusive understanding and approach towards advocating equality.

However, as the definition of feminism has itself evolved and enlarged to encompass more than women’s rights, it will only be wise to recognise that this definition may further evolve over time. And what will affect this definition or the realisation of these values are not just other socio-political or economic factors, but also the approach we take towards practicing feminism. For the architecture we design, also designs our perspectives. Since the journey is part of the destination, it holds enough power to influence the ride and throw up its own set of challenges. In the words of Professor Nancy Fraser, our critique of sexism may “supply the justification for new forms of inequality and exploitation”.

This temple at Shani Shingnapur, Maharashtra, was the subject of a debate around the equality of rights for women when it comes to praying there. About 1,000 women had together to storm this temple to enforce their rights. Photo credit: The Indian Express

The two approaches

So in the two cases described above, while the parent idea is that of feminism, the goals and approaches to them are part of the subsets of socio-political and economic rights and opportunity respectively.

Social solidarity - The Shani Shingnapur temple issue: In brief, this one’s about a 1,000 women led by Trupti Desai gearing up to storm a temple in Shani Shingnapur, a village in western Maharashtra. At this temple, women were not allowed to set foot on the open platform where the idol is installed. Men, however, could do so, for a fee. Here’s the full story. Though this doesn’t directly concern the subject of this essay, here’s also a take on if we should even care about temple entry, and that even when we do, putting it all under the umbrella of the ‘right to pray’ is not the best thing to do.

So this quest for demanding equal rights stemmed from the discrimination at a place of worship and it took a socio-political approach to enforcing it. Social solidarity, something that has long been a characteristic of the feminism struggle, is what Desai sought in this path to tackle gender discrimination. The recent appointment of women qazis in Jaipur and their resolve to bring in a feminine perspective when it comes to pronouncing judgments is another example of social solidarity being the go to approach to advance feminism.

Neoliberal individualism – Joy, the movie: This one’s a story inspired by the life of Joy Mangano, a single mother entrepreneur whose home-made mop made her a fortune. Here’s more about the movie. So in this case, Joy’s story draws from her fight for freedom and opportunity while struggling with the disappointments of a life curtailed by her modest surroundings, and complicated by the responsibilities of being a single mother of three, a supporting child to her divorced parents and a lone bread-earner.

But this story chalks closer to the path of entrepreneurism, a spirit that’s fostered by the invisible hand, as Joy earnestly grabs or even creates economic opportunities that help her build a huge business and rewrite her circumstances. Her quest for feminism is fueled by the want and need of a better quality of life, and she sees economic equality and opportunity as the road to it and she fights for it. This story also goes a long way to show how the quest for feminism and the path we take to it is also a product of the times we live in. Joy, in the US, is subject to the undercurrents of neoliberal individualism that influence her decisions and actions, and while hers is a story of success, it must also be seen as a success story of capitalism feeding off the ambivalence of feminism.

What road to take: Solidarity or individualism?

On the onset it may not seem to matter, but while in the short-term capitalism demands equality in all respects so as to ensure that the invisible hand thrives, in the long-term unattended (read: unregulated) capitalism also does have a huge tendency to fall prey to corruption and thus advancing itself while reshaping what it feeds off, thereby, in this case perhaps, creating a form of neoliberal feminism.

And while social solidarity may have been the go to approach for feminists, in contemporary times, the lure of this form of solidarity has been dominated by the overarching attraction of individual success stories. It has also been diluted by ideas that exist at the very peripheries of capitalism and feminism and stand for gender equality but can be maneuvered to feed capitalism while advancing feminism in the short-term, and hurting the overall quest for it in the long-term. The “feminist critique of the family wage” and it’s implications is an example where this complexity can be further observed.

So while in Maharashtra socio-political rights and social solidary defined their path for gender equality, in the US that quest was defined by neoliberal individualism for Joy, with each quest being subject to its context.

Perhaps, another characteristic of feminism then, is that while it advocates equality, it recognises that there may not be a particular approach to enforce it and that the quest and the approach may themselves be defined by the times and the context. And while this definition evolves, it may not be in a strict solidarity or in naively taking neoliberal individualism as the approach that feminism may find its best friend, but perhaps in a new form of balance that may reside between these and perhaps others.

Will Free Basics cost us more?

While Zuckerberg has been trying to hard sell Free Basics like an extension of the free healthcare programmes run by states, it's imperative to question the long-term changes such a programme can lead to.  Photo credit: Facebook

Much like many other things in the world, the Internet is always subject to debates about its ownership, usage and regulation. What services can be provided, what can’t? Can it be free? Should it not? Lot’s of such questions arise. Essentially, it’s got to be free. That’s all net neutrality is about – the right of anyone or everyone to access any website or mobile app from anywhere. And then again, while business solutions to public problems are welcome, other related questions arise: Does the private sector also have a role in public policy? If yes, then what kind and how do we go about it in a dynamic setting?

There are times this debate seems like the debate around the ownership and regulation of the polar regions, or the high seas or even outer space. – all public commons or goods. And so, there are treaties that enshrine the rights to access these spaces and are many of these laws are a work in progress. But the Internet, in some sense, is much more than these since it was created by man and because it is in many ways inexhaustible, and because of what it can do and because it can be accessed from almost anywhere. Thus, it must be treated like a man-made public good.

But trouble arises when it comes to its delivery – when one needs a device and a telecom connection to access the Internet. Technology is cheaper today, but not so cheap that this right to access the Internet can be uniformly enforced and the operations of Internet service providers are often subject to the invisible hand. And therefore, there are always threats to net neutrality. These issues are thus the source of many debates and that’s where the current one comes in from too – Free Basics.

One step forward, two steps back?

So Mark Zuckerberg-led Facebook has big global ambitions of connecting the world by fast-tracking the reach of the Internet, providing certain free services and by reaching out more people than ever before. Free Basics is a part of that big plan that all comes under Facebook’s Internet.org and what it essentially does is provide a set of online services free of cost to a mobile user. But Facebook gets to pick these free services that it calls ‘basics’.

Now, that’s a problem – it divides the Internet into free and not free elements, it overlooks the notion of net neutrality and it promotes a certain few online services as ‘free’ and ‘basic’. However, Facebook argues that this is like introducing the user to the online world and later they are free to do anything they want. Zuckerberg says Free Basics has to be seen like free primary education or free healthcare, as provided by the state. He argues that something is better than nothing.

Internet.org also adds that the Free Basics programme is running in many other countries, but then these are places where the net neutrality debate is still far, because the net is still not yet around in visible entirety. So the debate can only come alive once that understanding is reached, and than can only happen once a threshold of Internet connectivity and knowledge is acquired along with support from the civil society. Seeing the opposition take on Facebook head is also a good sign for the Indian civil society. But it is the final government or legal call on this debate that’ll decide if it’s a good sign for the Indian democracy.

Apart from the issue around net neutrality, the idea of Free Basics also raises fundamental questions about looking for business solutions to public problems and the evolving role of the private sector in public policy. Photo credit: Facebook

While there are lots of issues people and organisations of all kinds have here, from dividing the Internet to privacy, that are being talked about, this is yet another of those indicators that signals a big shift, towards the evolving nature of capitalism, the changing dynamics of state responsibilities and action, and world politics in general.

Here’s a barrage of questions this debate provokes and some considered thoughts on them:

Who decides what are the basics on the Internet?

This step by Facebook is a big indicator about how the demarcation between who gets to take a call on the elementary services in a respective field is changing. Sure civil societies play a role, but so far, it’s always been states that have deliberated and acted upon when it came to elementary education or health services. But can corporations be the primary partakers when it comes to this? With Free Basics, Facebook has blurred that line on who gets to decide upon what are the ‘basics’ and what goes ‘free’. And clearly then, when the private sector gets involved more questions are asked, irrespective of their validity. In this case, they most certainly are valid. So this essentially marks a shift even in that model of providing basic infrastructure and services with a corporation calling the shots.

So, would it be okay if the government launched Free Basics?

This makes for an interesting hypothesis. It would have raised questions and may not have been allowed to reach the stage of execution, but had the state been the initiator of such a move, it would have lesser resistance. But then, had such a move come, it would have likely been on the back of some version of crony capitalism.

Would it work if it was not called Free Basics?

In that case, Zuckerberg’s argument about clubbing it along with free education or health programmes may not work, but it could have mitigated the opposition perhaps. While free may pass, the use of basics is also a problem. Again, who gives the right to Internet.org to decide what the basics are? Perhaps, had the name been something else that did not make the service seem like the only pathway to the Internet, it could have taken off it India already.

Why call it net neutral?

In that case though, like in the current one, the programme wouldn’t be net neutral. Then why does Facebook insist on calling it that? While there is value in the short-term for many users in what Free Basics offers, in the long-term it means more harm for the structure and accessibility of the Internet. So shouldn’t Facebook just say it isn’t net neutral, and that for now this is a temporary solution which can be scaled back once other net neutral ones kick in?

Perhaps that’d make things easier, because social issues require business solutions, and to begin with they may incline more towards the private sector, but only with strong safeguards and timelines in place to not let capitalism run unregulated in the long=term.

What else can be done then?

Instead of just labeling some services as Free Basics, Internet.org can always work on ways to provide free Internet (something it is attempting to so) and educate new users with other stakeholders to let them choose how they want to use the Internet. Or they can help build the Internet infrastructure in the state.

Let’s also look at the issue from different standpoints, without undermining the fact that irrespective of the number of standpoints or variance in them, these all co-exist, thereby making things more complex. Nothing exists in isolation.

A legal standpoint: Since the Internet is still young and widely not governed by a common set of laws, this is a legal gray area. Then there is the matter where states claim cyber sovereignty and things get murkier further. So these are perhaps the formative years when it comes to the legal basis for the Internet, and this legal foundation must enshrine in it laws that ensure net neutrality.

A financial standpoint: Two things are visible here in terms of what business do or can do. Firstly, business will always look for innovative (ethically right or wrong is another question) ways to grow– and to do so they may want to help society in the short-term with an eye on profits in the long-term. That’s more like a given. The second thing, as pointed above, is that business solutions are needed for certain social problems, but they need to be vetted. While in the short-term they may need nudges and incentives, in the long-term, businesses must never hold the upper hand when it comes to solving social problems.

A social standpoint: Thus, while this episode also exemplifies the need for and an endeavor to provide a business solution to social issues, it is also a reminder of the enormous social challenge that lies ahead globally. Especially in terms of the physical infrastructure that needs to be developed to ensure connectivity and in terms of providing balanced education to entrust users with making the ‘right choices’, even if services like Free Basics exist.

A political standpoint: While this debate illustrates how the Internet is subject to politics when it comes to deciding who gets to write its rules, there’s clear politics at play in terms of designating owners, users and regulators of the Internet because it is today, more than just a tool that promises power and profits.

But the biggest takeaway is also the ever so over powering reach of the private sector when it comes the audacity of private players to not just participate but lead in matters that were until now unquestionably believed to be exclusively under the purview of the state. Thus then, is this another manifestation of the post-national?

While Free Basics doesn’t seem to be the right move ahead, the programme must  not be dismissed without notice and consideration, for it is only through debates and revisions that will pertinent solutions to such problems be invented or discovered. While a public private partnership solution may be best, one may have to remain very wary of that morphing into a private public partnership solution, or solely a private one.

Talking tolerance

A sand sculpture in Odisha talks about the #AwardWapsi campaign and the debate around 'intolerance'.

A new Indian government was sworn-in last summer. It had a mammoth mandate. It promised reforms and began revitalising brand India across the world. While for some it has reimposed India’s position as a global player, to others it has only played on perceptions without adequately strengthening the pillars of the economy and society. Some laws have been passed, other major economic reforms are still stuck in logjam. While on a grade scale where green would stand for excellent and yellow for disastrous, the government’s performance is more like a lime green. Some of it’s said work shows, some doesn’t.

But evaluating the government’s first 18 months in office is not the aim of this essay. An 18-month evaluation could also be as misleading in hindsight in a few years as it may be detailed right now, if attempted. The use of the words tolerance and intolerance and actions that have invoked them is what this essay is about. It was also provoked by the notion of perceptions and how they affect states.

Tolerating tolerance

Tolerance by definition means “the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislike or disagrees with,” according to the Oxford dictionary. It goes on to say that it originates as late middle English word to denote the, “action of bearing hardship, or the ability to bear pain and hardship.” Tolerate is defined as, “Allowing the existence, occurrence, or practice of something one disagrees with without interference,” by the Oxford dictionary. While the word has now become part of common parlance, such an origin and current usage of the word should be questioned, especially when it is used in lines such as, “India is a tolerant society,” “India culture is all about tolerance,” among many such one-liners.

When used in such a way, the word by itself, tends to establish or promote a certain power relationship. Viewing the statements mentioned above, is India tolerant because it is more powerful and can allow it? Or is India tolerant because it is less powerful and does not have an option to argue against it? Does that ability or willingness to tolerate not draw from a power relationship again then? And should this act of accepting or rejecting other views be excused on the grounds that the other (again a form of a power relationship) is able to or willing to tolerate or not tolerate the opinions or actions? How does the ubiquitous usage of such a word then impact the freedom of expression or the freedom of choice then? Is it seen as something that is allowed (once again a word that establishes a power relationship) or as something that cannot be allowed or rejected, but just exists? Does it not just change the fundamental meaning of a fundamental right? How is it a right if there’s a power equations involved? The word intolerance uses the same premise, making a call for tolerance seem like a request at times, more than an appeal.

Here, India’s tolerance levels were subject of the questions and thereby the playing field would be international relations. Now, wouldn’t the usage of tolerance propagate a realist ontological view then and impact policy decisions? Change that subject to say the government’s actions or a religious body’s remarks, and they would again re-emphasis on a certain power relationship, where someone is understood to have taken the high horse. 

Where’s the room for a constructive approach then? Well, that’s where the constructivism’s inherent optimism comes out. It means that even while using the word tolerance, we can actually move towards a society, a region, religious factions or even states that are more tolerant, and may be while we are attempting to get there, we can think of a newer word, or an older one to describe this attribute as a given and not just something that presupposes the existence of a power relationship.

Now let’s get to the ongoing national discussion. Rising levels of intolerance as decried by some or bogus calls as argued by others. We’ve all got sides and arguments. Choosing a side is not the objective of this essay as that may put the other content of it under a certain bias again. While such discussions strengthen or theoretically should strengthen democracy, acts of ‘intolerance’ harm it, and with it the global flow of capital (or capitalism) which has come to be very closely associated or guided with the values of democracy, political and economic stability and infrastructure among others. That’s where perceptions come in, especially global perceptions about states, their politics and economics. And these influence business.

Playing on perceptions

Perception. It’s a strong word that can make or break relationships, of any kind - from emotional to commercial. It’s also a word that impacts the sway of democracy, capitalism and  corresponding debates. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word as “the way in which something is regarded, understood, or interpreted” and as “intuitive understanding and insight”. So, essentially, a perception is how a certain object, action or phenomenon is recognised, irrespective of the actuality of that object, action or phenomenon. 

A perception could therefore be correct, incorrect or in between the two at varying shades. What contributes to this possible change in the actual nature of the object, action or phenomenon and the perception of it could be a stubborn pre-established bias or ontological view, the complexities it exists in and an inability to sieve through them, an apparent attempt to paint it over for whatever reason, or a combination of both. And since a perception impacts the understanding and recognition of the object, action or phenomenon directly, it therefore also directly impacts any discussion on the object, action or phenomenon and the peripheries along which such a discussion is held. Thereafter, impacting any other discussion that it leads to or is invoked in.

In global politics today, perception holds great value, especially amid the changing nature of the perceived nature and discourse around capitalism, socialism and the likes. The way how a country is perceived, when it comes to political stability affects the inflow of investments, the perception about economic safety affects businesses too, and the perception about societal security affects tourism, among others. We all know the salience of brand value. It is also a great source and indicator of soft power.

In that respect, and in the current context on tolerance and intolerance, it is the perception about it that may finally seal the deal when it comes to how it affects the image or perception of India, globally, at varied levels - in academia and in regular conversations, in business and in schools as well. While the Indian Prime Minister with his numerous foreign trips is trying to build on positive perceptions of and about India, actions such as #AwardWapsi or a celebrity being vocal about insecurity about living in the country may have mixed impressions on it for different audiences. This is not to say that the former should be supported and the latter disgraced. Both have different objections and are not part of the same debate too. More importantly, both may only affect short-term perceptions, thereby having economic and cultural impact, only in the short-run. In the long run, those perceptions will only be shaped by the supporting policy measures or their absence that the government takes or does not take and the positive or negative discussions on measures like #AwardWapsi and the impacts of those discussions.

Meanwhile, let’s try and find a power-neutral word for intolerance and tolerance. Illiberality and liberality came to mind first, but  I suggest open and closed for now. Simple and direct. Won’t that work? 

Whose seat is it anyway and how do we get it?

Can India, without expressing opinion on major global issues, hope to assimilate support to push for reforms at the UNSC?   Photo credit: UNGA

India has long had aspirations to get a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council. Many other states have had to. But who is to get this seat? Who is to give it? Can there be just one more such seat and not a bigger set of reforms? And how is this complex yet institutionalised power relationship panning out? These are just a few questions that come to mind whenever the subject is stirred. It again came up a few days ago as the United Nations marked its 70^th anniversary.

The following essay is an extract from my dissertation that I wrote last year and it argues for the establishment of a globally active state-backed Indian media house and states that such an establishment will only aide India’s bid for that permanent UNSC seat. After all, it’s all about communication, right? And that’s what the media does. It informs, it communicates. But it is essential for such state-backed media to have pluralistic and constructive values.

While over the course of the past few months, I continue to abide by this argument. However, what has changed is that the establishment of a new government in India in 2014 and its rightward tilt has made it primitive to talk about this state-backed media as a voice of the state, and not the government that is in power. Institutionalising such a media outlet and recognising the distinction between the state and the government have never appeared as paramount as they do now.

Where’s the global Indian voice?

India, as an economy and a regional power and potentially a global one, has been registering significant growth and has shown visible desire for inclusion as a permanent member of the council, but neither this growth or this desire has been reflected in the global media space by Indian actors. Nor has any Indian state media channel informed the world or even its neighbours about its opinion on major world issues, let alone spreading Indian norms and values through delivery of world news. And it is when speaking of norms that the distinction between state and government becomes even more critical because both, as entities, may favour a partially overlapping, yet separate set of ideas and norms.

I must here underline that to adjudge the sanctity and the pertinence of this ambition of acquiring a permanent UNSC seat is not the aim of this argument. The argument is premised around the factors that influence such an argument, especially the global activeness of Indian state-backed media.

“If any country has a right to be on the Security Council, India does,'' AP Venkateswaran, a former foreign secretary of the country had noted once (Monitor, 2007). The former foreign secretary, along with others who make the case for India permanently being on the UNSC, has lots of parameters to base their argument on – from India being the largest democracy in the world to being among the top ten states with the highest spending on defence. The only element that seems evasive in that equation is India’s representation in the global media space and the absence of an Indian perspective on global issues. How then, does India, without expressing opinion on major international or regional issues, hope to assimilate support to push for reforms at the UNSC? Maybe economic and military might may get India there eventually, but wouldn’t the soft power of media hasten the process? Ever since taking charge in 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his numerous foreign trips have created a certain global buzz about India, but should he be just the only public spokesperson for India? And can that buzz really last?

What further makes these questions demand urgent answers and subsequent actions is the certitude that all of the five permanent members of the UNSC, contemporarily, have strong presence in the global media space. This may not have been a necessary condition for such an inclusion in the council or reformation in its structure when China became a part of the permanent set up in 1971 or France in 1958, as these states were not represented as actively in the global media space then, as they are now. But in the contemporary scenario of world politics, a lot has changed and the soft power that state media may internationally accumulate may well be the missing ingredient to seal the argument for a permanent seat for India at the council. China’s CCTV and France’s France 24 have been vehemently active globally over the past few years; so has Russia’s RT; UK’s BBC has always been a sort of benchmark for global media actors and US’ Voice of America and CNN among other actors have never allowed America to be under represented in global media. With so many disparate voices in the global media, an Indian state-backed voice may face competition, but it will also only furnish the ground-work in terms of global and regional public opinion that needs to be urgently addressed in order for India to strongly pitch for a UNSC seat, if it is really desired/ aimed to be sought.

Of course, the establishment of such a voice must not be understood to be an easy route to that seat, but a factor that could multiply those chances. And who knows, over time this voice may grow into a regional voice given that the global system is moving towards a multi-polar structure that’s likely to be influenced more by regionalisms than individual states. And perhaps, India’s immediate neighbours could pitch in as well and could this collaborative media in a sense then, lead to constructive pathways across the most militarised border in the world too? Well, economic lobbying among all other channels of diplomacy is needed to try and get that moving, but, one can always hope. Meanwhile, it appears that the path ahead is certain to be guided in many ways by the construction of communication and the communication of construction.