In ‘a sorry state of affairs’ when Parliament ceases to be a forum of enlightening debate and discussion, and when ‘privilege’ is invoked to block scrutiny by a parliamentary committee, it is propitious that the recommendation of the National Commission of Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) to bring all minority-run schools under the purview of Right to Education Act (RTE Act) and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), has generated a new debate. The NCPCR also backed reservations for students from minority communities in such schools after its survey found a large proportion of non-minority students studying in these schools.

The NCPCR report points out that Christians comprise 11.54 per cent of India’s minority population and run 71.96 per cent of schools and Muslims with 69.18 per cent minority population run 22.75 per cent of the schools of the minorities. Sikhs comprise 9.78 per cent of the minority population and run 1.54 per cent of schools. Buddhists with a 3.83 per cent population run 0.48 per cent of schools, and Jains with 1.9 per cent population run 1.56 per cent of minority schools. The report finds a surge in the number of schools securing Minority Statusafter the 93rd Constitution Amendment, with more than 85% of schools of the total schools securing the certificate in the years 2005-2009. A second surge was seen in 2010-14, after the 2014 judgement of the Supreme Court in Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust v. Union of India making the RTE Act inapplicable to minority schools.

The NCPCR has, therefore, recommended to the GoI to bring all minority schools, including Madrasas under the purview of the RTE Act and SSA and also recommended reservations for students from minority communities in such schools in view of its finding that 74 per cent of students in Christian missionary schools belonged to non-minority communities, and overall, 62.50 per cent of students in such schools belonged to non-minority communities. The report also points out that many schools have registered as minority institutions to thwart the implementation of the RTE Act. Some of the conclusions are contentious, for instance, the number of students studying in Christian schools as against the students of the majority community studying in them. However, let me confine here to the limited questions of bringing the minority-run educational institutions within the ambit of the RTE Act and whether such an action would impinge on the Cultural and Educational Rights of the Minorities. The moot point is, can the minorities, permitted to run educational institutions under the protective umbrella of Article 30, contravene Article 21(A) which protects a child’s fundamental right to education. Another cause of serious worry is after the Pramiti judgement, placing minority schools outside the purview of the RTE Act, there is no compulsion to admit students from disadvantaged backgrounds even those belonging to the minority communities.

Under the Indian Constitution, all minorities, whether based on religion or language, have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. Article 29 protects the interests of the minorities by making a provision that any section of citizens residing in the territory of India, having a distinct language, script or culture have the right to conserve the same. It further mandates that no discrimination would be done by the State on the ground of religion, race, caste, language, or any of them for admission in educational institutions maintained by the State. Article 30 guarantees the right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice and bars the State from discriminating against such institutions on the ground that they are under minority management in the matter of grant in aid. The Parliament inserted Article 21A in the Constitution vide Eighty-sixth Constitution Amendment, making it incumbent that the State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of six to fourteen years in such manner, as the State may, by law, determine. The amendment also substituted Article 45 which now reads, “The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children until they complete the age of six years.” Besides, it inserted clause (k) in Article 51A casting an obligation on the parent or guardian to provide opportunities for education to his child or ward between the age of six and fourteen years.

The 93rd Amendment added clause (5) to Article 15, which enables the State to make any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause (1) of Article 30. To give effect to the constitutional provisions, the Parliament enacted The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, (RTE Act).

The recommendation of the NCPCR, a statutory body set up under the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2007, has caused anxiety in some sections of the minorities. There is an apprehension that by bringing the minorities-run educational institutions under the ambit of the RTE Act and the SSA, it would violate the fundamental Cultural and Educational Rights of the Minorities guaranteed by Articles 29 and 30. The expression ‘minorities’ in Article 30 is not defined in the Constitution. However, Section 2 (c) of the National Commission for Minorities Act, 1992 notifies Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, Buddhists, Jain, and Zoroastrians (Parsis) as minority communities. The question is if the minorities-run educational institutions are brought under the ambit of the RTE Act and the SSA, will it curb, control, or erode the fundamental Cultural and Educational Rights of the minorities. To answer this question, let’s have a closer look at the aims and objects of the RTE Act. Education, being a Concurrent field of legislation under the Constitution, the RTE Act casts an obligation on the appropriate Governments and local authorities to provide and ensure admission, attendance, and completion of elementary education by all children in the 6-14 age group. The RTE Act also requires all private schools to reserve 25 per cent of seats for children of weaker sections whose stipulated fee would be reimbursed by the State. The Right to Education of Persons with Disabilities until 18 years of age is reinforced by the Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and the SSA. The SSA, launched in 2002-2003 in partnership with the State Governments and Local Self Governments, aims to provide education for all. Now rechristened as Samagra Shiksha, it subsumes the three Schemes of SSA, Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan and Teacher Education. It is now Government of India’s flagship programme for the achievement of Universalisation of Elementary Education in a time-bound manner in a mission mode, as mandated by the 86th amendment, making free and compulsory education to the Children of 6-14 years age group.

The SSA envisages opening of new schools in those habitations which do not have schooling facilities and strengthening the existing school infrastructure through the provision of additional classrooms, toilets, drinking water, playgrounds, boundary walls, maintenance grant, and school improvement grants. Also, schools with inadequate teacher strength are provided with additional teachers, while the capacity of existing teachers is being strengthened by extensive training, grants for developing teaching-learning materials, and strengthening of the academic support structure at a cluster, block, and district level.

The rights of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice under Article 30 have become litigious due to misplaced apprehension and fear of interference by the State. Regulations for maintaining academic standards, ensuring proper infrastructure, health, and sanitation, etc. cannot be construed as violative of Article 30 in view of the provisions contained in Articles 19, 21A, and 26. The Pramati judgment failed to notice that besides the 25 per cent quota in Section 12(1)(c), the RTE Act also has provisions on infrastructural norms, pupil-teacher ratio, prohibition on screening tests, and capitation fee and ban on corporal punishment, etc. These provisions benefit both the students and the minority community. Moreover, the judgement did not consider the fact that the government-aided minority schools stand on a different footing from their unaided counterparts, and as such are subject to regulations in order that all children receive free, compulsory, and quality education.

All regulative measures which are not destructive or annihilative of the character of the institution established by the minority, have been held valid by the judiciary. In the Ahmedabad St. Xavier’s College case (AIR1975), while considering the importance of teachers in an educational institution, Ray C.J. in his leading judgment observed, “The minority institutions have the right to administer institutions. This right implies the obligation and duty of the minority institutions to render the very best to the students [….] checks and balances in the shape of regulatory measures are required to ensure the appointment of good teachers and their conditions of service.” It was further stated that “regulations which will serve the interests of the teachers are of paramount importance in good administration.”According to Khanna, J., “The regulations have necessarily to be made in the interest of the institution as a minority educational institution. They have to be so designed as to make it an effective vehicle for imparting education”, and “Regulations made in the true interests of efficiency of instruction, discipline, health, sanitation, morality, public order and the like may undoubtedly be imposed.”

Justice Khannaalso cautioned, “The minority institutions cannot be allowed to fall below the standards of excellence expected of educational institutions, or under the guise of exclusive right of management… Balance has, therefore, to be kept between the two objectives, that of ensuring the standard of excellence of the institution and that of preserving the right of the minorities to establish and administer their educational institutions. Regulations which embrace and reconcile the two objectives can be considered to be reasonable.” These observations were quoted, and concurred in, by the Supreme Court in Sk Md. Rafique vs Managing Committee, in their judgement delivered in January, 2020, setting aside the judgement of the Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court, and upholding the West Bengal Madrasah Service Commission Act, 2008. The Supreme Court held that the State has the right to introduce a regulatory regime in the national interest to provide minority educational institutions with well-qualified teachers so that they can achieve excellence in education.

It would be worthwhile to mention that an eminent scholar like Faizan Mustafa has termed the judgement per incuriam, i.e., contrary to law. However, in the light of a catena of judgements of the apex court, minority institutions cannot ignore or contravene the regulations issued by the State which aim to strengthen the reach of quality education to all children. The children belong to the State, regardless of their religion, and it is the paramount constitutional obligation of the State to strive incessantly to provide universal access to quality education to all children regardless of their religion, gender or community. The objective of the successive National Policies on Education has been to provide universal access to quality education and promote lifelong opportunities for all. India is a signatory to Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG4), and committed to attaining these goals which are in accord with the philosophy, and specific provisions, of the Constitution. The RTE does not bar the minority-run institutions to choose their own management, appoint teachers and staff subject to their fulfilling the necessary norms and standards of education, admit eligible students, have a reasonable fee structure, and use their properties and assets for their institutional benefit subject to the laws of the land. The provisions of the Constitution have to be construed harmoniously to give to each one of them. It is time to review the Pramati Judgement.

The author is a former Addl Secretary of India and a member of the Delhi Bar Council. Views expressed are personal.

Sushmita Dev’s exit from the Congress is the third high-profile exit from the party in a little over a year. What she has in common with Jyotiraditya Scindia and Jitin Prasada is that she too was part of Rahul Gandhi’s ‘camelot’, a key player in Team Rahul, and also a dynast. One does not know exactly why she quit, though one hears rumours of her not getting a say in ticket distribution during the Assam polls and so on. One could argue that both Jitin and Scindia had their individual reasons, but what stands out is that despite all their access, none of them saw a future for themselves within the party. Yes, they are dynasts, but they did put aside an alternate future to join the party of their forefathers. That they saw it stuck in the status quo and left for greener pastures could also be seen as a shrewd career move.

Manish Tewari was one of the first to tweet to Sushmita asking her for an ‘explanation’ for her actions. Kapil Sibal reacted with another tweet, commenting that while the young are leaving the party, we ‘oldies’ are being blamed for our efforts to strengthen it. Both Sibal and Manish are part of the G-23 group within the Congress that has been petitioning the Congress leadership for some much-needed reforms, beginning with elections to the post of the party president and the congress working committee. That this group has not been able to do much more than hold dinners and write letters, shows just how strong the hold of the Gandhis over the Congress really is.

In fact, some will claim that the ‘real’ Congress is the G 23 as it is filled with leaders who have been the public face of the party for ages, both as the party headquarters and beyond such as Manish himself, Ghulam Nabi Azad, Bhupendra Hooda, Mukul Wasnik, Shashi Tharoor and so on. Currently, the party leadership’s response to the G-23 has been ‘divide and rule’ by singling some of them for party posts and others for a cold shoulder. That they were all present at Sibal’s dinner shows that the group still holds.

The larger question of course remains: who will lead the Congress, and will the leadership give in to the G 23 demands and hold inner-party elections? Moreover, what shape will the opposition finally take in its fight against the BJP led by Prime Minister Narendra Modi?

Perception, almost always, has a symbiotic relation with perspective. One shapes the other and only in a manner that one can. A person, whose perception is honed, over time and with experience, is perceived as one possessing an exhaustive perspective on the issue. That the perspective is subjective doesn’t matter in the least to a homogenous audience, with views similarly coloured, which conveniently considers it entirely objective.

The perspective derived from a sea of ‘local’ indigenous experience lies shrouded and, concurrently, unaffected by any external, ‘foreign’ perspective on the ‘local’ issue. This, in a liberal extension of interpretation, can be loosely applied to hard-nosed nationalism usually associated with love for one’s nation and almost always to the exception of every other.

Oddly, in India, historically too, it’s a foreign perception that almost always has distinct precedence over an Indian perception. A foreign historian’s take is considered objective in sharp contrast to an Indian historian whose take would be considered subjective and swiftly dismissed as an attempt to ‘change history’. The call for Vocal for Local and Aatmanirbhar Bharat is coming after seven long decades of attaining Independence, Purna Swaraj, says it all.

Understandably, nothing’s wrong with loving one’s nation. Issues arise when skewed perceptions lead to dangerously damaging judgements about other nations of which one has poor little or no idea about. So, to an extent, what seems like lofty nationalism to one could be interpreted as a biased perception pivoted on ignorance to another.

In what appears, on the face of things, to be a fuzzy, lovable movie like the recently-released Mimi lies the scourge of insidious posturing aimed to perpetuate ignorance and deep-rooted bias. Here, as usual, a wonderful, read ‘rich’, US-based couple arrives in India after failed attempts to conceive, dangling the lure of a lofty commission to one who could help procure a surrogate for them who would be paid a fortune, read Rs 20 lakh, for the job. The Rs 20 lakh would help Mimi provide her the means to launch a career as an actress in the Hindi film industry. It would change her life!

And then, despite the initial hitches, as usual, the lure of the lucre got the better of them: poor Mimi complies, and mostly because she’s poor. All stayed well, till it’s learned, in a prenatal diagnosis, the child would be born with Down’s Syndrome, following which the couple had a change of mind and swiftly beat a retreat to their home in the US.

The belle in question decides to drop her Bollywood dreams and keep the child as her own. Following battles with a zaalim society and the usual for being an unwed mother to an older man who faked being the father, delivers the child who … turns out to be normal. Now, after a few years, during which the truth of Mimi having opted to be a surrogate to a foreigner couple, emerges amidst the usual drama, the biological parents return.

After heated arguments with the Indian family, grandfather, grandmother, friend, and surrogate mother Mimi, the biological parents threaten legal proceedings against the Indian surrogate mother and her lot. To worsen things, a host of lawyers advise her that the contract she had signed, specifying the same, would be upheld in any court of law which would ultimately decree the foreigner couple be given the lawful custody of the child.

Following tear-jerking melodrama, the family decides to return the child to the biological parents who, surprisingly, in heartrending benevolence, decide to leave their child with the surrogate. Instead, the pharisaic couple adopts a young Indian homeless girl child they saw at an orphanage and were, now, taking her back home. All’s well that ends well and everyone was left misty-eyed and fuzzy-headed enough to fall for the drummed-to-death bias that everyone lapped up without registering even a whimper of protest.

For one, like most movies, Mimi is a remake of a 2011 Marathi film Mala AaiVhhaychy! Both plots, however, echo identical true-life incidents. Much like the one that occurred in 2014 in Thailand where an Australian childless couple abandoned a baby of the twins born, with their Thai surrogate mother, after discovering the boy was born with Down’s Syndrome.

Incidentally, following ultrasound results seven months into the pregnancy that indicated the surrogate was carrying twins and one of them, a boy, had Down’s Syndrome, the couple requested the surrogate to abort him and said they would keep only the child’s twin sister.

However, the surrogate had refused citing her Buddhist beliefs, and instead opted to raise the boy, who went on to be named Gammy, on her own. The Australian couple returned home in December 2013 with Gammy’s twin sister Pipah with them. Their decision to leave the blond, brown-eyed twin brother with a freshly-discovered congenital heart condition behind in Thailand sparked global outrage.

The fact that the father, David Farnell was a convicted sex offender (sentenced to three years in prison in 1997 for molesting two girls aged 7 and 10) also compounded the controversy.

An Australian court even ruled Pipahwas not allowed to be alone with her father and that she had to be read a photobook with age-appropriate language every three months for the foreseeable future that explains her father’s offenses.

David Farnell died in July 2020 of an illness. Gammy got an Australian passport on the application of the surrogate mother because his father was Australian but remains in Thailand.

Around the same time, in Bangkok, the police raided a house and discovered nine babies born via surrogate to a Japanese businessman Mitsutoki Shigeta who had reportedly fathered 16 or more children and planned to continue having children as long as he lived. The founder of the clinic claimed he wanted 10 to 15 babies a year.

In 2015, a federal law passed in Thailand made commercial surrogacy illegal for all intended parents and banned all forms of surrogacy for international intended parents. The commercial process had been forcibly shut down since 2014.

Only married heterosexual Thai couples, married for at least three years, with at least one holding Thai nationality could fulfill surrogacy requirements. Singles of all sexualities and same-sex couples were banned from availing surrogacy in Thailand, even if they were Thai citizens. The move directly affected wealthy couples from Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Australia where commercial surrogacy was then outright banned.

While some nations are known to tightly restrict surrogacy, only a few ban it outright. Some which do not have surrogacy laws depend on national medical boards to tackle it in their codes of ethics. Like in the case of India which, for years together, did not even feel the need to have a law banning surrogacy.

In India, it is a Supreme Court judgement of September 2008 in the case of Baby Manaji Yamanda vs Union of India that is quoted extensively and relied upon, by ill-informed academicians and an unreliable media even Google that, till date, erroneously maintains ‘the Supreme Court of India formally legalised commercial surrogacy.’

This, while the Supreme Court had only, in its order, disposed of a Writ Petition of Habeas Corpus initiated to seek out Baby Manaji, described “Commercial Surrogacy” besides other forms such as Traditional, Altruistic and Gestational Surrogacy. Accordingly, the Apex Court said, in a Commercial Surrogacy, “A gestational carrier is paid to carry a child to maturity in her womb and is usually resorted to by well off infertile couples who can afford the cost involved or people who save and borrow to complete their dream of being parents. This medical procedure is legal in several countries including in India where due to excellent medical infrastructure, high international demand, and ready availability of poor surrogates it is reaching industry proportions. Commercial surrogacy is sometimes referred to by the emotionally charged and potentially offensive terms ‘wombs for rent’, ‘outsourced pregnancies’ or ‘baby farms’.”

That “the medical procedure is legal in several countries including in India,” phrase was carefully handpicked and amplified by motivated quarters to maintain that ‘commercial surrogacy had been legalised by the Supreme Court’. It only meant that the ‘medical procedure’ was legal and that the medical fraternity was qualified by science and law to perform the procedure. That did not, in any way, accord legality to the ‘commercial’ aspect of surrogacy or ratify the acts of stakeholders involved.

Why, the 11th point in the same order that refers to, in continuance of its definition of surrogacy and its variables, the intended parent could be “either a single male or a male homosexual couple,” was conveniently glossed over. It could be interpreted as a go-ahead by India for commercial surrogacy for single gays or gay couples too, right? But that, being outright outrageous, even in thought then, was ignored.

The Supreme Court had gone on to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that if any person had any grievance, it could be ventilated before the Commission (for Protection of Child Rights 2005) constituted under the Act.

A simple search in Google on the issue yet brings up this piece of misinformation that persists and continues to wreak havoc on the issue. That India hadn’t, till then, even initiated legislation in the regard didn’t make commercial surrogacy legal. The absence of a law on an act in question does not, in any way, accord any legal validity to the act. It only means that the act in question, should it arise, will be treated on merit and in accordance with the Common Law, i.e., judgments or orders passed by judges deciding matters relevant to the act.

It must be pointed out that proponents of commercial surrogacy, now completely outlawed in India, are swift to point out that, in the United States, by law, it is mandatory for surrogates to be covered with Life Insurance and that contingencies of health complications, even loss of life itself during pregnancy or delivery, were real and provided for in US law. What they do not tell you is that the provision stems from a very real fiscal predicament of having to cough up a fortune by way of compensation as is the wont, for damages as such, in the legal processes in the US. Insurance covers just that.

The shockingly low USD 27,000, Rs 20 lakh in Indian currency, was offered to a commercial surrogate Mimi, in the film, by a foreign childless couple, a steal in comparison to what they would have to pay for the same in the US, was played out as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the aspiring actress. Sadly, the perception sticks with the viewers even despite India having initiated a legislation to ban commercial surrogacy. Little wonder then that, over the last decade, the Who’s Who of the Hindi Film Industry — fully aware of strict legislation on surrogacy on its way in India— rushed to get themselves children born through surrogacy before the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill came into effect. Almost all of them may not qualify for surrogacy, should they apply for the same, under the new law.

Contracts for the same were voidable to date and will become void once a law is put in place: Void, simply speaking, meaning unenforceable in a court. Till a law expressly making commercial surrogacy an offence is promulgated, the consent of a ‘poor’ surrogate procured by the lure of wealth would translate into one being procured through coercion and, if ‘obtained’ by a ‘powerful’ couple, undue influence. Either way, the agreement would then be voidable at the option of the aggrieved party, the surrogate mother in the case.

Now, when the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill gets passed in the near future, and bans commercial surrogacy, the ‘consideration’ could itself become illegal, and the contract void and unenforceable in a court of law.

With the biological parents, in Mimi, depending entirely on a ‘contract drawn with the surrogate,’ threatening legal action to procure the custody of their child after having obtained her consent illegally and already having dishonoured their part of the contract by shirking from the contractual responsibility, was preposterous. For Indian lawyers calling it a lost case for Mimi, only underlined a concerted attempt to further the bias. It not only furthers ignorance by glossing over the law, it further an age-old patronising attitude towards the issue.

If that wasn’t ludicrous enough, in the film, it was the swift adoption of an Indian homeless child by the childless couple at the end– a la Saroo style of the award-winning Nicole Kidman-starrer Lion– with complete disregard for Indian laws and processes that hit the final nail. Surrogacy by ‘poor mothers’ or adoption of ‘homeless’ children in India is covered by legislation, judgement, or processes, with exhaustive procedures in place for foreign couples, but all of that is conveniently overlooked.

In the UK, surrogacy is perceived as a ‘Gift from One Woman To Another,’ while in India, ‘A Chance To Earn A Fortune And Change One’s Life’. In the United States, commercial surrogacy is exactly what it is spelt out to be: Commercial!

Interpreting the issue of surrogacy is a matter of convenience and selective perception.

For a surrogate in India, till a legal process was put into place, the practice of commercial surrogacy was perceived as going on ‘without any control’ by a powerless government and female surrogates continued being ‘exploited owing to their poverty, lack of bargaining power and absence of law’. Once a bill banning commercial surrogacy was initiated, the potential female surrogate’s Right of Choice and Freedom were projected as being ‘trampled upon’ by the State whose ‘draconian’ laws would prevent her, now, from ‘earning the fortune she could’ despite being in the world’s largest democracy.

That surrogacy is “a result of a patriarchal system that grants men the right to control and dispose of women’s bodies for their interests, even grants access to women bodies to Capitalism that turns them into mere commodities especially when the women are poor, vulnerable and migrant,” as a European Network of Migrant Women statement maintains, is reserved for select nations.

The making of Mimi, the intentions behind such works, and ensuing populist reactions expose the bias of art and cinematic perspective and freedom for those selectively perceptive. That, it’s a case in point matters and how.

The writer is an editor, solicitor, and a filmmaker. Views expressed are personal.

In the end, it was a whimper. All that talk about the Afghanistan government putting up a credible fight to the Taliban crumbled, as the jihadi militia sauntered into Mazar-i-Sharif and then into the presidential palace in Kabul, snatching power with the ease of snatching candy from a child. President Ashraf Ghani and his core team have fled Afghanistan, allegedly with bags full of dollar bills. Several “legendary” warlords such as Abdul Rashid Dostum and company, who were claiming that they would not go down without a fight, have left too, without putting up even a semblance of a fight. And all this without a thought for their people, thousands of whom are rushing to the airport in Kabul hoping to catch a non-existent flight to safety, and dying in the process. Apart from the millions who are now quaking, wondering what fate befalls them next, even as the Taliban raid the homes of those perceived to be with the enemy. The US has brought in around 3,000 soldiers, but only to protect the airport from where they are evacuating their own citizens, while exchanging gunfire with the Taliban. There is no government, no United Nations, no superpower to protect the Afghans. Afghanistan has been left to its own fate. The journey from here will possibly take it back several centuries as a medieval force returns to rule it.

Amid this, even among US’ friends and allies, its reputation as the world’s leading superpower is in tatters. The trust in its ability to lead or be a reliable ally has taken a hit. President Joe Biden’s foreign policy goal of stitching an alliance to counter the Chinese dragon has started looking shaky, for trust is the bedrock on which alliances are built. This may have larger geopolitical ramifications, especially for the Quad.

It is not the decision to pull out of Afghanistan that rankles—because that is a US domestic political compulsion—but the way the pullout happened, where both Donald Trump and Joe Biden chose to be led up the garden path by the Taliban and Pakistan. The operative word here is “chose”. The flawed “peace” agreement that Trump had struck with the Taliban in February 2020 ensured the release of 5,000 hardened Taliban fighters, as a precondition for negotiations to start. These fighters added heft to the ranks of the militia and emboldened them. The Taliban never intended to share power with Ashraf Ghani’s government, or any other democratically elected government. It was never about an Afghan-led, Afghan-owned peace process, but a Taliban-led, Taliban-owned government, an Islamic emirate backed by Pakistan and China. Worse, it was there for all—except, we have to believe, the Americans!—to see from the Taliban’s military campaign to capture territory. Even when the Taliban leadership was assuring the US that they would not take any big city forcibly, that’s what exactly they were doing.

Even until July, President Biden was intoning how the Afghan forces outnumbered the Taliban and would fight for themselves and their country once the US troops pullout happened. Was it intelligence failure about the Taliban’s preparedness and the nature of training and backing that they were receiving from the Pakistani military establishment that made him issue such statements? How did some US “experts” arrive at the assessment that Kabul could resist a Taliban assault for weeks, with some reports mentioning even 90 days? Why wasn’t air support provided to the Afghan forces to cut off the Taliban’s supply lines from Pakistan? Why isn’t Pakistan finding any mention in the current discourse on the Taliban? Why hasn’t there been talk of sanctioning Pakistan when GHQ Rawalpindi’s hand behind the Taliban is as clear as daylight? Why did President Biden ignore his top generals who advised retaining at least 2,500 soldiers in Afghanistan even when negotiations for a settled peace were going on? What happens next when the “out-of-work” terrorists in the Taliban ranks are made to turn their attention to the rest of the world, including India and the US? What did the US achieve by sacrificing so many of its own soldiers in Afghanistan? What is the US legacy in Afghanistan after two decades—a country full of embittered and disillusioned people? The questions are many, but answers are scarce.

End of the day, the world’s number one superpower is finding it difficult to evacuate even its embassy staff from Kabul at the time of writing. How clueless does President Biden’s government appear in all this, how uninformed! Sadly, that’s the image the world will remember.

The proclivity to resort to violence if the government did not respond the way they wanted showed complete frustration of Opposition members during the monsoon session that was adjourned sine die. Imagine what would have happened if Chairperson M. Venkaiah Naidu had not taken precautionary measures by deploying security staff.

On 11 August 2021, Opposition parliamentarians shamed Indian democracy by creating a ruckus and physically threatening members of security staff. Female parliamentarians charged that they were manhandled by male marshals. The video footage showed that it was they who pushed security people—male or female.

The fight left a bad taste more so since it happened in the House of Elders which is supposed to be having more calm and matured people as members. The unruly behaviour would always be quoted as shining examples of hooliganism by the Elders. Rather than evolving novel ways to protest that would fall within the norms of acceptable parliamentary behaviour, some Opposition parliamentarians decided to indulge in violence to settle political scores with a government they have miserably failed to counter or corner.

NCP leader Sharad Pawar has shown he has become like Mahabharat’s character Dhritrashtra whose love for his sons undermined his capacity to see the truth and uphold dharma. “In my 55 years of parliamentary career, I have never seen the way the women MPs were attacked… More than 40 men and women were brought into the House from outside. It is painful. It is an attack on democracy.” After the video footage of the violence came out, he should have withdrawn his statement and criticised the Opposition for their unruly behaviour. It is the women MPs and others who were aggressive and not the security staff.

The security people, who saved Parliament from terrorists’ attacks in 2001, should not be spoken in a language that maligns them. They are very much part of Parliament’s security system and go by the biddings of presiding officers of both houses. They are very disciplined and they know the protocol very well. Imagine the situation if some of these angry MPs had gone to the Chair and beaten the person occupying the Chair or beaten the minister for not accepting their demand. Should democracy in the House be settled by the physical strengths of the members? How to prevent such an occurrence if members become violent?

Vice President of India and Chairperson of Rajya Sabha M. Venkaiah Naidu’s anguish should not be missed. He said what Opposition members were doing was “sacrilege in the temple of democracy” and was propelled by a sense of competition among some sections of the House. He was speaking in the context of some members becoming violent during a discussion on farmers’ protest against new farm laws.

When the issue was being taken up for discussion on Tuesday (10 August), some Opposition members climbed the table of an official in the well of the House, one MP waved black cloth and another threw a file at the Chair. Some members squatted on the table for more than an hour. Venkaiah Naidu broke down and said: “…You can’t force any government to do this or do that…There can be a difference of opinion…they (MPs) could’ve discussed, protested and voted.”

The worst was yet to come. Next day, i.e., on Wednesday, there was precautionary deployment of security people to prevent occurrence of what had happened on Tuesday. After smooth passage of the bill that restored the states’ powers to notify their own OBCs list, hell broke loose when the government brought the Insurance Amendment Bill that sought to further dilute government stakes in State run Insurance companies as outlined in the budget.

Members rushed to the well calling it a sell off. Security personnel—both male and female—were there to cordon off areas around the Chair to prevent them from going near the Chair or table where officials sit. Members from the Opposition tore paper and threw it at the Chair, shouted slogans and jostled with security people while trying to break the cordon.

Members pushed security staff and later alleged that female MPs were pushed by male security staff. The video footage of the incident showed the contrary. Leader of the House Piyush Goyal demanded a high-level committee to inquire into the incident and strict action against those guilty. “Attack on security staff had lowered the dignity of the House,” he said while stressing that “no simple punishment can suffice”.

The lacerative and venomous tone of the Opposition continued outside the House. CPI Rajya Sabha member Binoy Viswam compared the government with the Taliban. “They (BJP) have made the Parliament a military battle. They used women as a human shield. They are like the Taliban of India. We are ashamed of them and the fight will continue outside the Parliament. The Insurance Bill is anti-national, anti-worker, and anti-democratic,” he said after the House was adjourned sine die.

Imagine the frustration that a duly elected government wedded to democratic principles is compared with Taliban. You first become unruly and when attempts are made to prevent you from becoming violent, you blame the government. Dilution of government shareholding in these insurance companies was promised in the Union budget to mop up additional resources and allow more roles for the private sector. One may disagree with the government but one should not forget that the government has full mandate to take such decisions. One could have registered objections by voting against the bill or staging a walk out. But nothing can justify attempts to hold the House to ransom.

There is no way the Opposition could stop passage of the bills in both Houses of Parliament. The best way in such a situation was to discuss the bill threadbare and highlight their objections. But a discussion would have exposed the evil design of the Left, the Congress and the Trinamool Congress to prevent the government from removing fetters from the country that aspires for excellence in every field. They are not bothered about the country as much as about their political survival.

The background to what happened on 11 August was already prepared. Merely two days into the session and Rajya Sabha member from Trinamool Congress Shantanu Sen snatched paper from the hand of IT Minister Ashwini Vaishnaw when he had risen to give a statement on the Pegasus controversy that was reported in the media a day before Parliament’s monsoon session was to begin. He was suspended the next day for the remaining part of the session.

Now that he had taken the lead in disrupting the House, other members of the Trinamool Congress too had to show their mettle. On the 14th day of the session, six MPs from the party entered the well of the house and showed placards and shouted slogans. The issues were a combination of Pegasus and farm laws since the Chair had accepted discussion on farm laws but had refused discussion on Pegasus. These MPs were Dola Sen, Md. Nadimul Haque, Abir Ranjan Biswas, Shanta Chhetri, Arpita Ghosh and Mausam Noor. They were suspended for the day.

Then came the fatal Tuesday when Pratap Singh Bajwa of the Congress climbed the table and threw Rule Book at the Chair while opposing the farm laws. It was an ugly scene seeing elders behave in this fashion. If they wanted to discuss farm laws, they could have done so under the subject allowed by the Chair. But discussion was not their forte. Bajwa was unrepentant.

Disruption and unruly behaviour are going to be the norm for time to come since the Opposition is completely frustrated. Prime Minister Narendra Modi rightly said that they should be exposed before the people. They have failed to rake up even one issue that would find traction with people. Sensitive issues such as Covid management and likely third wave and price rise, etc, were not discussed for a more personalised issue like Pegasus. They had calculated that this would become a Watergate moment for this government but nothing like this happened.

They are forgetting that this government had been voted to power to bring change from the old order. Now that the government has a majority in both Houses, the Opposition can’t stall the change momentum. The only way they can stop this government is by going to the people and seeking votes against the BJP. But they have completely failed in this. Even in West Bengal, the Congress and the Left could not prevent the BJP from becoming the main Opposition.

The Opposition’s next target is Uttar Pradesh. The agitation inside the House and frustration may enable them to try to come together on one platform. As of now it appears that the Opposition has already lost the battle in UP. Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath has done a commendable job in implementing the pro-poor beneficiary decisions of the Modi government. Also, he has provided the state with a much better law and order situation where people are feeling safe and secure. His no-nonsense approach has brought him admirers from all sections of the society.   

What to do in such a situation? How to show that you exist? Vice President M. Venkaiah Naidu’s statement was apt when he said that there seemed to be a competition going on who could disrupt the House better. Is it not surprising that the Trinamool Congress took the lead on Pegasus, Congress on the farm issue, and the Left on Insurance Bill?

Coming back to Sharad Pawar. Vaulting political ambition blinds reason. He split the Congress and formed the NCP on the issue of Sonia Gandhi’s foreign origin in 1999, joined the Congress in alliance after eating his words, made an alliance with the Shiv Sena for political power and is now repositioning himself to become the Opposition consensus for the Prime Minister’s post closer to 2024. Ideologically too he cannot be trusted. The person who scripted APMC reforms has become a supporter of so-called farmers’ agitation that is opposing the same reforms. At least he should have respected the mandate that this government has.

The writer is the convener of the Media Relations Department of the BJP and represents the party as a spokesperson on TV debates. He has authored the book ‘Narendra Modi: The Game Changer’. Views expressed are writer’s personal.

The astonishing military victory of the Taliban over the Afghan nationalist forces in just a matter of one week has huge ramifications that could disturb the peace in the region for a long time. To begin with, it would ensure that Ashraf Ghani steps down to pave the way for a Taliban-sponsored regime, which may have as its head someone from within this terror outfit. The immediate concern for New Delhi should be that it should without any further delay evacuate all Indian nationals from this troubled area and also put into action any contingency plan which could have been drawn out by our foreign office and intelligence agencies.

The fall of Afghanistan is also a saga of betrayal by the American forces and total miscalculation by their intelligence agencies over the capability of the government there to hang out and resist the assault from insurgents grouped under the banner of Taliban and to a large extent, trained and inspired by Pakistan. The Doha negotiations being held under the watchful eyes of the Americans may not have any sanctity since those who are part of the insurgency have not honoured their word in the past. For instance, when they asked the National Army to surrender about a week ago in one of the provinces, the soldiers were butchered in cold blood without giving them any respite. The Afghan national forces have lost the will to fight after a clear message has come from many of their officers that the political support that was required was lacking.

The swiftness with which the Americans have abandoned their bases, without even allowing for a proper handing over, has also surprised Afghanistan watchers. The assurance of providing air cover to the national army was never fulfilled and to expect the Afghan Air Force to carry out sorties was something which was beyond all anticipation. The Russians, Chinese, and Pakistanis have been active in the region and the Taliban is not without support. Dr Abdullah Abdullah, who was negotiating on their behalf is back in Kabul and it is possible that the capital may formally fall to the Taliban as early as possible. New Delhi has taken a decision not to close down its embassy in the capital because it needs to keep its presence there.

The Taliban have promised that they would not be harming the diplomats and civilians but that is something which cannot be believed. It could be a repeat of the dark days when the Soviet-supported president, Najib was pulled out from the UN office and tortured and brutalised before being hung at a traffic crossing signal many years ago. A similar fate awaits many of those who were loyal to the Americans but now find themselves totally betrayed. In fact, it is the end of the Republic of Afghanistan which shall soon be replaced by some regime that would certainly put in something Islamic as a part of the description of the new government. The Indian establishment has many lessons to learn from its Afghan policy and must immediately review the situation to make amends. There are troubled times ahead.