In Solidarity With The Dissenting Student Community In India:

A Statement From Australian Academics 
These are the views expressed by the above and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Indian Link editorial team 
As academics, students, writers, artists and activists from Australia, we condemn the use of oppressive power by the Indian state, its police, and Hindu fundamentalist groups to shut down voices of dissent emerging from within public universities in India.
We join the international community in extending our support to the students, faculty and staff at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), Hyderabad Central University (HCU) and many other public universities, who have been courageously protesting the overreach of state power and brutal stifling of dissent, carried out in the guise of majoritarian Hindu nationalism (Hindutva).
Students at JNU and HCU have been targeted for opposing the death penalty awarded to Afzal Guru and Yakub Memon, convicted for “terrorism” by the Supreme Court of India. Students’ opposition to the death penalty – an act of violence carried out by the state to assert its sovereign might – has been manipulated by the state, university administrators, and irresponsible media reports, to be understood as their support for “terrorists”, and thus considered treasonous. The labelling of student activists as “anti-national” by invoking the draconian law on sedition (a legacy of British colonial rule), is a blatant attack on academic freedom. These attacks have been orchestrated by the BJP regime to strike fear among citizens who question its practices of anti-minority religious hate mongering and xenophobic propaganda. HCU student Rohith Vemula was suspended and driven to suicide because of the way the university administration and the state intimidated and threatened him. These attacks on students and free speech are not aberrations or sudden spurts of violence. Rather, they are part of a pattern of attacks on every idea and expression that does not pander to fascist Hindutva ideology.
We deplore the attack on journalists, students, academics and activists by the lawyers at the Patiala House Court premises. The silence and inaction of the police in controlling this situation only testify to the state’s complicity in these events. We are appalled by the jingoistic and prejudiced reporting by some media channels to vilify JNU student activists Kanhaiya Kumar and Umar Khalid.
We endorse the demands made by the protesting students, staff and faculty at JNU and HCU. We demand: a) the immediate release of the Kanhaiya Kumar, President of the JNU Student Union, and Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya; b) that the Bar Council of India enquiry into the attacks on journalists and protestors in Patiala House Court be carried out without political manipulation; c) that there should be no further intimidation and arrests of student activists for carrying out peaceful protests; d) the government must preserve the autonomy of universities and de-militarise campuses.
We acknowledge that our solidarity is being extended from territory occupied by a settler colonial state. We also acknowledge that the Indigenous peoples who have not ceded their sovereignty, own this land. This acknowledgement is a necessary precondition for building transnational solidarity against governments – like those in India and Australia – that use democracy and national security as alibis for legitimising their everyday violence.
Details, contact: Oishik Sircar, Melbourne Law School | The University of Melbourne | oishik.sircar@unimelb.edu.au
 
 
Endorsed by:

1. Debolina Dutta, PhD Researcher and Lawyer, Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne

7. Oishik Sircar, Teaching Fellow and Doctoral Researcher, Institute for International Law and the Humanities, Melbourne Law School

7. Samia Khatun, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Department of History, University of Melbourne

7. Shakira Hussein, Hon. Research Fellow, The University of Melbourne

7. Mridula Nath Chakraborty, Academic, Monash University

6. Irfan Ahmad, Associate Professor of Political Anthropology, ACU, Melbourne, Australia

7. Rajgopal Saikumar, PhD Candidate, The Australian National University

8. James Goodman, Associate Professor, University of Technology Sydney

9. Kama Maclean, Associate Professor, UNSW

10. Monique Hameed, Tutor, University of Melbourne

11. Jordy Silverstein, Postdoctoral Research Associate, University of Melbourne

12. Heather Goodall, Professor Emerita in History, University of Technology Sydney

13. Sukhmani Khorana, Lecturer, University of Wollongong

14. Dr Zeena Elton, Independent Researcher/Writer

15. Trish May, PhD student, UNSW

16. Maryam Alavi Nia, PhD Candidate, UNSW

17. Assa Doron, Academic , Australian National University

18. Meera Ashar, Lecturer (Assistant Professor), The Australian National University

19. Samanthi Gunawardana, Lecturer, Monash University

20. Josh Cullinan, Secretary, Australia Bangladesh Solidarity Network

21. Dr Lionel Bopage, Retired Public Servant, n/a

22. Neeti Aryal Khanal, PhD candidate, Monash University

23. Erin Watson-Lynn, Lecturer, Monash University

24. Roanna Gonsalves, Writer and academic, UNSW

25. Michelle de Kretser, Writer, University of Sydney

26. Dr Ruth De Souza, Stream Leader, Research, Policy and Evaluation, , Centre for Culture, Ethnicity and Health

27. Hannah Courtney, PhD Candidate, UNSW

28. Dr Danny Butt, Lecturer, Centre for Cultural Partnerships, Victorian College of the Arts, University of Melbourne

29. John Zubrzycki, PhD Candidate, University of New South Wales

30. Ben Spies-Butcher, Senior Lecturer, Macquarie University, Australia

31. Camilla Palmer, Postgraduate Researcher, University of New South Wales

32. Brenda Dobia, Senior Lecturer, Western Sydney University

33. Coel Kirkby, Postdoctoral Fellow, Melbourne Law School

34. Elizabeth King, Student, UNSW

35. Rajpaul Sandhu, Teaching, ACS

7. David Feith, Subject Coordinator, Humanities, Monash College

7. Wimal Jayakody, Member of PHRE

7. Steve Pereira , Community Engagement, Melbourne University

39. Anura, Real Estate Sales, PHRE

40. Sithy Marikar, Vice President – AGGSl, Australian Labor Party

41. S. R. Sivasubramaniam, Engineer

42. Padraic Gibson, Senior Researcher, Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, University of Technology Sydney

43. Vandana Ram, Artist

44. Victoria Baldwin, Administrator

45. Robin Jeffrey, Retired Academic

46. Nadia Rhook, Lecturer, Latrobe University

47. Mohamed Masood, President, Werribee Islamic Centre

48. Anthony P. D’Costa, Chair and Professor of Contemporary Indian Studies, University of Melbourne

49. Yamini Narayanan, ARC DECRA Senior Research Fellow, Deakin University

50. Monimalika Sengupta, PhD Candidate, Monash University

51. Parichay Patra, Doctoral Candidate, Monash University, Australia

52. Lucy Honan, Teacher, Australian Education Union Councillor

53. Arka Chattopadhyay, PhD student, University of Western Sydney

54. Rev.Dato’ Dr.Sumana Siri, Buddhist Cardinal of Europe, Buddhist Realists’ Movement, U.K.,Italy & France

55. Kalpana Ram, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Macquarie University

56. Dr Sagar Sanyal, Adjunct lecturer, University of Melbourne

57. Piergiorgio Moro, Secretary, Australia Asia Worker Links

58. Beth Sometimes, Researcher, VCA, Melbourne University

59. Russell Smith, Lecturer, Australian National University

60. Anuparna Mukherjee, Ph.D. Researcher, ANU

61. Amy Thomas, PhD Candidate, University of Technology, Sydney

62. Shak Sandhu, Restaurant Manager

63. Stephen Church, Doctoral Student/Casual Lecturer & Tutor, University of New South Wales

64. Angela Smith, Researcher, North Africa Mixed Migration Task Force

65. Balraj Sangha, Justice Of The Peace, Australian Labor Party

66. Emma Torzillo, Medical Doctor, University of Sydney and Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney

67. Anne Brewster, Associate Professor, UNSW

68. Lalitha Chelliah, Nurse, 3 CR Broadcaster; Socialist Alliance member

69. Max Kaiser, PhD Candidate, University of Melbourne

70. Dr Amanda Gilbertson, McKenzie Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Melbourne

71. Faisal Al-Asaad, Graduate Research, University of Melbourne

72. Jerome Small, Industrial Organiser, Socialist Alternative

73. Milo Adler-Gillies, Student, Paris 8

74. Priya Chacko, Lecturer, University of Adelaide

75. Vivien Seyler, Administrative Officer, South Asian Studies Association of Australia

76. Bina Fernandez, Senior Lecturer, University of Melbourne

77. Ghassan Hage, Professor, University of Melbourne

78. Maria Elander, Lecturer in Criminology, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne

79. Edward Mussawir, Lecturer, Griffith University

80. Julia Lomas, PhD Candidate, Art History And Theory, Monash University

81. Chris Andrews, Associate Professor, Western Sydney University

82. Ben Silverstein, Lecturer, UNSW

83. Alexandra Watkins, Academic, Deakin University

84. Isabella Ofner, Researcher and Lecturer, The University of Melbourne

85. Bina D’Costa, Academic, Department of International Relations, The Australian National University

86. Shweta Kishore, Teaching Associate, Monash University

87. Léuli Eshraghi, PhD Candidate, Monash University

88. Dr. Ridwanul Hoque, Visiting Scholar at La Trobe Law School, La Trobe University

89. Kristen Smith, Medical Anthropologist, University of Melbourne

90. Joan Nestle, Independent Writer

91. Adrian McNeil, Senior Lecturer, Monash University

92. Parakrama Niriella, Theatre and Film Director, National Federation of Theatre Artists Sri Lanka

93. Cait Storr, Sessional lecturer and PhD candidate, Melbourne Law School

94. Greg Bailey, Hon. Research Fellow in Asian Studies (Sanskrit), La Trobe University

95. Ian Woolford, Lecturer, La Trobe University

96. Michael Stevenson, Retired

97. Dolly Kikon, Department of Anthropology and Development Studies, University of Melbourne

98. Jasmine Ali, Researcher, RMIT University

99. Dr Kuntala Lahiri-Dutt, Senior Fellow, Resource, Environment & Development Program, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University

100. Alison Young, Professor, University of Melbourne

101. Usha Natarajan, Law Professor, American University in Cairo

102. Ekta Sharma, Poet & Activist

103. Rose Parfitt, Research Fellow, Melbourne Law School

104. Suzette Mayr, PhD Student, University of New South Wales

105. Leigh Hopkinson, Writer

106. Amy Parish, PhD Candidate, UNSW

107. Samantha Balaton-Chrimes, Lecturer in International Studies, Deakin University

108. Audrey Yue, Associate Professor, The University of Melbourne

The recent events at the JNU campus in New Delhi have spoken multitudes about the sharp religious and nationalist fundamentalist divides in certain sections of contemporary India.

On one side are those who believe that free speech is the right of every individual; on the other, far right Hindu fundamentalists who will not tolerate any dissent.

That the Indian media played a leading role in flaming the situation is indeed shameful.
What started this current saga was an on-campus rally to mark the death anniversary of convicted terrorist Muhammad Afsal, who was hanged for his links to the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament. Whether such a rally should even have been organised is being challenged by the right wing of the BJP, ignoring the fact that BJP is in itself in coalition with the ruling People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in Kashmir which has condemned Afsal’s trial and execution.
The student rally was addressed by Kanhaiya Kumar, President of JNU’s student union. Kumar is a member of the Communist Party of India and his 24-minute speech was heavy with rhetoric on the state of inequality in India. He took the ruling BJP to task on their lack of progress in reaching out to the grassroots of society. At various times in his speech, he condemned those who work against India and terrorism in any form. For keen observers of political discourses, his speech is a wonderful piece of oration.
What was broadcast to the nation was not Kumar’s speech or even highlights, rather what has become clear as “doctored tapes”, showing protestors shouting anti-India slogans. The slogans televised on Zee TV, without verification by the channel, were attributed to Kumar.
Delhi Police arrested Kumar on grounds of sedition and for anti-national tendencies. Further evidence of the strange workings of the law and order situation, was the beating up of Kumar by three advocates in front of police as he was being brought to the courts to answer his charges. Lawyers and BJP supporters assaulted journalists and students as the police refused to intervene. Even the Delhi Police Commissioner BS Bassi was accused of letting his force “be taken over by the goondas of the BJP”.
There seems to be a blurring of lines about how ‘voicing dissent’ should be defined:  is it a vital right in a flourishing democracy, or is it “an assault on the integrity and unity of the nation”, as Home Minister Rajnath Singh has said. The Indian Supreme Court has limited the definition of sedition to speech that is “incitement to imminent lawless action”. Kumar’s speech did not incite as per this definition.
Over the past few days, citizens have turned out in their thousands to protest the heavy handedness of the government. Support for the students has come from as far as Harvard, Oxford and even over 100 academics from Australia who have released a statement condemning the government’s actions.
To quote Lindsay Hughes, Research Analyst, Indian Ocean Research Programme in Australia, “India’s greatest strength, bar none, has been its historic ability to absorb aspects of other cultures, religions and societies and to integrate those into its own while giving them a decidedly Indian flavor… While it may have been politically and militarily subjugated by the British for two hundred years, India left its own impression upon British culture, its language and thinking. It is, sadly, losing that strength due to the myopia shown by a relative few who cannot discern between India’s strength and their own insecurities. Nationalism could easily be, if allowed to get out of hand, a precursor to social collapse. If students raise “seditious” chants on a university campus, they ought to be defeated in debate and discussion. Physical might, violence and coercion will never take the place of persuasion.”
What the ruling BJP needs to do now is: 1) find who doctored the tapes aired on TV; 2) the people shouting the slogans at JNU, and 3) take to task the three lawyers and the policemen involved in the beating of the accused Kanhaiya at Delhi courts.
 

Critics who complain that Modi has not met the expectations of Big Business may need to change their opinion as he lays the groundwork for major changes to the way India does business, writes Future Directions International’s LINDSAY HUGHES

Background
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to office on the back of the huge expectations of, among others, India’s business community. They had every reason to maintain their expectations; as Chief Minister of India’s western state of Gujarat Modi had carried out major reforms in how business was conducted there. If he could carry out similar reforms as India’s Prime Minister, they reasoned, they could tap into the Indian community’s innate business skills to lift India out of the quagmire of bureaucracy and colonial red tape in which it had floundered since it became independent in 1947. Over the first year of Modi’s government, however, many of these expectations fell by the wayside. The expected reforms had not come about and business seemingly continued to flounder. As we will see, this perception is myopic. Modi is preparing the groundwork for a major shake-up of the manner in which business is conducted in India.
 
Comment
A major drawback to conducting business in India has been the indecisiveness exhibited by various governments over the years, none more so than that of the previous Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh. Modi inherited a stagnant economy; in 2014, for instance, India ranked 134th out of 189 countries in the World Bank’s ease of doing business index. Several factors have played their part in this. India’s bureaucrats have made their suspicions of private enterprise eminently clear. For instance, when the Hindustan Construction Company (HCC) undertook a US$55 million project on behalf of the National Thermal Power Corporation to work on the Loharinag Pala hydropower plant in the Himalayas, environmental protests erupted, bringing that project to a halt. When HCC sought compensation from the NTPC and was awarded costs and compensation of around US$15 million, the bureaucracy refused to pay and, instead, appealed to India’s legal system which, in a country whose bureaucracy moves at snail’s pace, is seen as exceptionally slow. HCC now faced an extended period of ten years at least to obtain their compensation.
This is but one example of the suspicion in which private enterprise is held by the bureaucracy. By one estimate, around US$23 billion is held up in disputes. As Rajiv Lall, Executive Chairman of the Infrastructure Development and Finance Company stated, “Historically, the bureaucracy has never seen it as their role to nurture or help business.” The antipathy, if not downright hostility, the bureaucracy feels for private enterprise stems not only from colonial methods of governance but also from India’s education system. India’s top bureaucrats see themselves as the elite who have gone through the education mill and now deserve to be approached deferentially if they are to dispense their favours on supplicants.
Tax is another drawback to the ease of doing business in India. According to Arun Jaitley, India’s Finance Minister, around US$66 billion in taxes is being arbitrated in the legal system by private enterprises who feel they are being over-taxed and government officials who require to extract every rupee from an extremely narrow tax base.
Speaking in New Delhi in the latter half of 2014, Jim Yong Kim, then President of the World Bank, stated that if India as a whole could reach Gujarat’s efficiency in developing business, India would jump 57 places in the ease of doing business index. The equivalence is understandable. He simplified the approval process for new businesses, offered organisations cheap land to establish their factories and offices in Gujarat, provided them with low-interest loans, and gave them reliable supplies of power and water. Hardly surprising, then, that Indian and foreign organisations set up their offices and factories there – and equally unsurprising that the expectations placed on Modi as Prime Minister were huge.
Soon after being elected, Modi carried out several reforms. He has started the process to bring in an overall tax similar to Australia’s Goods and Services Tax, a reform of income tax so that tax is deducted at source (by some estimates less than 2 per cent of employees pay income tax) and has, arguably more importantly, started to change the culture of the bureaucracy. No longer do senior bureaucrats play golf on working days; their honorary golf-club memberships have been cancelled, all government employees are now required to sign in when they arrive at work and their attendance is displayed on a public website, and bureaucrats are being made more personally accountable for their departments and the projects they undertake. The primary outcomes of these reforms have been enhanced business optimism and energised foreign relations. Modi himself has undertaken several visits to foreign countries and makes it a point to ensure at least one deal is concluded per visit. Consequently, he has concluded deals with Australia for the supply of uranium, with Canada for uranium and energy products, with Russia for defence and energy products and with the US for defence products, technology transfers and energy products.

A major aspect of Modi’s revamp of Indian industry has been the “Make in India” project, whereby foreign organisations are invited to manufacture india – provided they enter into partnerships with Indian companies. Thus, in acquiring defence platforms such as fighter aircraft and ships, Modi insists that his government will purchase those products provided a significant portion of each order is manufactured in India by Indian partners. To achieve this end, bureaucratic reformation is vital.

As a consequence of these endeavours, India’s economy is said to have grown by 7 per cent in 2015 and is expected to increase by another 7.5 per cent again, if not more, in 2016. But Modi realises that more is needed. He takes very seriously the dictum that governments should not be in the business of business and has begun to selling off government holdings in public companies. He has also opening some sectors, including defence, to foreign investment, and has terminated India’s Planning Commission, a hold-over from India’s past that churned out Soviet-style five-year economic plans under successive Congress governments. He is fighting to reform India’s byzantine land-acquisition policy. While the main opposition Congress and other liberals see this as a corporate land grab, Modi says it is the only way to make it easier for businesses and government to buy land from farmers for factories, roads and other infrastructure projects.
Modi’s main battle now is to win a majority in India’s upper house of Parliament, the Rajya Sabha. If he can do this, he will have a much easier task ahead to bring about the major reforms he wishes to make. That victory, coupled with India’s talent for business, could see the country surge past the 7.5 per cent growth it is scheduled to achieve. It is up to Indian businesses, then, to recognise this fact and jump onto the Modi bandwagon. If they were to do so they would help themselves by creating a much larger market and a healthier and more competitive one at that.
 
Lindsay Hughes, Research Analyst, Indian Ocean Research programme
This post has been republished from Future Directions International Pty Ltd.
80 Birdwood Parade, Dalkeith WA 6009, Australia www.futuredirections.org.au