This week, Newslaundry’s Abhinandan Sekhri, Manisha Pande, and Anand Vardhan are joined by political analyst Suhas Palshikar, tech expert Madhav Deshpande, and professor Shruti Kapila.
On the robustness of the election voting machines, Suhas Palshikar says EVMs have “definitely lost the credibility that they initially had”. He cites Lokniti-CSDS data. Madhav says “major technological change” in 2013, with the introduction of VVPAT has made EVMs a “different beast”.
The panel then discusses the BJP’s poll promises. Shruti says the BJP manifesto is “very weird” and that “it wants to lower the temperature on Hindutva”. Anand calls it the manifesto of a party that is “very sure of a renewed mandate”, unlike the Congress manifesto, which is trying to “tick too many boxes”.
This and a whole lot more. Tune in!
Hafta letters: Kejriwal arrest, farmers’ protest, defection
We have a page for subscribers to send letters to our shows. If you want to write to Hafta, click here.
Check out the Newslaundry store and flaunt your love for independent media.
Download the Newslaundry app.
General elections are around the corner, and Newslaundry and The News Minute have ambitious plans. Click here to support us.
Song: Jhooti Mooti Mitwa
Timecodes
00: 05:02 - Headlines
00: 13:16 - Trust deficit in EVMs
00: 53:24 - BJP’s manifesto
01: 28:36 - Letters
01: 34:00 - Recommendations
References
Election Commission's FAQs on EVMs Don't Really Address Major Design Deficiencies
BJP manifesto will disappoint its core voters who are waiting for a Hindu-first Bharat
Recommendations
Madhav Deshpande
Suhas Palshikar
Vajpayee: The Ascent of the Hindu Right
Shruti Kapila
Anand
The Story of India's Elections
Knife: Meditations after an Attempted Murder
Raman
Truth about Modi government's claims about doubling of farmers income
Abhinandan
EVM Vote Count Mismatch In 370+ Seats and EC Refuses to Explain
Check out our previous Hafta recommendations.
Produced and recorded by Aryan Mahtta, edited by Hassan Bilal.
Hafta 481
Sting: [00:00:00] This is a News Laundry podcast, and you're listening to nfta.
Abhinandan: Welcome to another episode of Hafta in a Week where we have teams in harmony states traveling. Sir, right now, man, we have,
Raman: uh, people in Karnataka, Carla , uh, then we have, uh, in Asam. And Maharashtra, Tanishka is leaving. And where is
Abhinandan: Manisha gone?
Raman: Manisha is going to Kerala today.
Abhinandan: And we will be having people in Manipur as well.
And, uh, probably Tripura. So you will see a really wide on ground coverage on the News Laundry and the News Minute election coverage. And why it is unique is because it is non sponsored ad free powered by you. All our journalism is only funded by you. You will not see [00:01:00] any ads, whether Sarkari ads or large corporate ads.
Journalism funded and powered by you. So do top up our NL election funds. I think about four funds have been topped up as we speak. I'll give you the exact data by the end of this show, but do top up our funds so that we have journalists covering this election from everywhere. And hopefully my next election.
The News Minute, News Laundry partnership should have at least two journalists in every state. In fact, Raman sir has an ambitious plan of sending people to Kashmir also. Right now, uh, I said okay, let's see how much we can spend and save. But even as we speak, uh, the another election show is just about over a lakh that is left and our other the battleground states gendered pole and idea of India funds are about halfway there.
So I urge you to click on the link in the show notes below or go to newsline. com or the newswinner. com click on the election fund and contribute because Journalism should be powered by the public, [00:02:00] otherwise it can never serve the public. I say that all the time. I'm saying that yet again, and I'm starting with an appeal.
And those of you who have contributed, thank you so much. We have, you know, about 12 to 14, 000 people who have actively contributed to these funds. You know, we, we need a hundred thousand, 200, 000. So take your time, click on the link and contribute to journalism. So journalism remains a public service and doesn't become a tool in the hands of large corporations and governments that can afford to fund all the ads, which there are many of full pages that you see these days on that note, let me introduce the panel, like I said, Manisha's traveling.
Uh, so joining me in the studio is editor in chief, Raman Kirpal. Hello. Welcome, Raman sir. And Anand Vardhan, whose law exam should be over by now.
Anand: Yes,
Abhinandan: yes. So now are you a judge?
Anand: No, no.
Abhinandan: Are you a lawyer? Then why are you taking exams? See, sir, I want instant gratification. I'm the, I'm the Gen Z. I'm Instagram.
Three
Anand: semesters left.
Abhinandan: Three semesters left. And after that, any of you want to sue us, now bring it on. [00:03:00] We'll have the top lawyer of the country on our team. We'll take you to the cleaners and joining us online are two very accomplished panelists and we are thrilled that they could make the time for us.
In fact, um, I think we've been trying to get Suhas Sir on the show for a while. Is that right? Uh, yes. Okay. So, Suhas Palshikar is joining us from Pune. Thank you for joining us, sir.
Suhas: My pleasure.
Abhinandan: So, those of you, uh, who may want an introduction, although he doesn't really need one, he taught political science at Savitrabhai Puli University.
Uh, he's the chief editor of the journal Studies in Indian Politics. And he also, uh, the co director of Lok Nidhi Program on Comparative Democracy, CSDS, and we have quoted many of their reports, et cetera, on this show several times in the past year. So, uh, that is Suhas Palshikar. Welcome, sir. Also joining us on Zoom, uh, is Madhav Deshpande.
Hi, Madhav.
Madhav: Hi. Namaste.
Abhinandan: Namaste. Are you joining us from Bangalore or elsewhere? I'm joining you from Pune. From Pune. You're also in Pune. Okay. [00:04:00] So you're a computer industry veteran, a technical expert with four decades of experience in the field. You are the CEO of Tulip software. You have consulted with the US government and projects during the Obama administration and your piece on the, the de possible design deficiency or just critiquing or looking at the design of EV VM machines called election commissions.
Facts on evms don't really address major design deficiencies is available on the link in the show notes below. It appeared in the wire and, uh, we shall discuss the whole election. Uh, the election voting machines. designed with him and as many of you know, it is being heard in the Supreme Court. In fact, yesterday was the
Raman: ongoing thing.
So today there was no decision has been taken,
Abhinandan: but it was yesterday. We're recording this on the Thursday, 18th of April at 3 21 PM. And on Wednesday, there was one hearing on this. I don't know when the next one is due. So thank you all for joining. And since Manisha isn't here, the headlines is my [00:05:00] responsibility and duty today.
Uh, so here are the headlines. So by the time you hear this episode, citizens from 102 constituencies would have voted in the first phase of the 2024 Lok Sabha election, which is scheduled for Friday, April 19th, which is tomorrow. Tamil Nadu, which has 39 seats, votes in the first phase.
Raman: Right.
Abhinandan: Then the Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed criticism of voting through the electronic voting machines and said that attempts should not be made to.
Court, bring down the system, unquote. A bench comprising justices Sanjeev Khanna and Dipankar Datta also said that the electorate process in India was a humongous task and rejected suggestions by petitioners to order a return to ballot papers and polling. This case is still being heard. We have an area expert on this.
Uh, so we'll be talking to Madhav on this issue. This
Raman: result doesn't mean it is decisive. Right. Decision is yet to come.
Abhinandan: The decision is yet to come. It's it's going to be heard. Then the Bharatiya Janata Party on Sunday launched its manifesto for the [00:06:00] Lok Sabha elections, promising to hold simultaneous elections in the Lok Sabha and Citizen Leagues, the one nation, one election promise and the implementation of Uniform Civil Code across India, among other promises.
And we have two experts, uh, to talk about this manifesto. So today we have a really fantastic panel for you. Then 29 alleged Maoists were killed and three security personnel injured in Chhattisgarh's Kanket district on Tuesday. Uh, this also was got made, got a lot of media, uh, and I mean, I don't know if it's practical go and actually send someone to get an on ground reporter.
All media
Raman: stories have, are fed. They are not from the ground. So we haven't got any report on the ground.
Abhinandan: So we haven't got any report on the ground for this. And I was just. wondering that something so big should be investigated from the ground, but it hasn't happened so far. Then former Nagpur University professor Shoma Sen was released on Wednesday after being granted bail by the Supreme Court.
In the Elgar Parishad case, this happened on the 5th of April, uh, her bail. This happened [00:07:00] six years after she was arrested by the Pune police. Six years she was inside, without conviction. Our justice, our justice. Then the Election Commission on Monday said it has seized cash, liquor, drugs, precious metals, and other freebies or incentives worth Rs 4, 650 crore since the 1st of March is the highest ever amount in the history of Lok Sabha polls.
Can you please repeat the question? Isn't black money eradicated,
Raman: demonetised?
Abhinandan: I have only asked for 50 days from the country,
sound byte: give me a chance till 30th December, my brothers. If after 30th December, I miss someone, if I make a mistake, if I make a wrong decision, the country will punish me.[00:08:00]
Raman: And transparency electoral.
Abhinandan: Then a group of retired judges of the Supreme Court in high courts have written to Chief Justice of India DI to express the shared concern regarding the escalating attempts. by certain factions to undermine the judiciary through calculated pressure misinterpretation and public disagreement. The letter said, quote, their methods are manifold and insidious with clear attempts to sway judicial processes by casting aspersions on integrity of our courts and judges, unquote.
Well, the judiciary cannot remain, you know, free of such commentary going forward. So it's, I guess, inevitable in times we live in. Then the CBI, the Central Bureau of Investigation, has registered an FIR against Hyderabad based Megha Engineering Infrastructure [00:09:00] Limited, which was the second biggest buyer of 966 crore in an alleged bribery case.
And the bribery is of a few lakhs, it's not very much. So I'd like to see what happens to this case. Because our case is also being heard today as we speak. Right. Where I have apparently done some major income tax gotala. Uh, but yeah, it's being heard today. Then, uh, in a flare up after a period of relative peace in Manipur, two persons were killed on Saturday morning in an area.
at the border at the methi majority in fall east district and cookies only majority Kang Pok P district. I hope I've got the pronunciations correct. And also 11 months after violence hit that Mr. Shah has now gone to Manipur.
Raman: To give an assurance that the state will not be divided.
Abhinandan: And on election, but all this time he didn't have the time to Mithra to go.
He was busy stopping the war in other places. Then India has lost 2. 33 million hectares of tree cover [00:10:00] since 2000. I mean, this is a very alarming headline. And it, it depresses me when I read it, uh, which is equivalent to 6 percent decrease in tree cover during this period, according to the latest data from the global forest watch monitoring project.
And I'm assuming this is very accurate data just purely from 2000 to now when, because you know, I've driven across the country because I used to do all the travel shows. So many of the highways that used to go through forest don't go through forest. Baki chhodo. Sir, 15 years ago, we're in Till even 2004, 5 driving from Basant Kunj.
to Vasant Vihar. You have to pass through this forest. Now it's just malls and buildings, malls and buildings. Then an analysis of official data by PTI found that raids by the enforcement director increased 86 times while arrests and attachment of assets by the central agencies rose 25 times between 2014 and 2024.
This is under the Modi government as compared to preceding decades when the Congress led [00:11:00] United Progressive Alliance government was in power. Of course, depending on how you interpret it, it said Modi ji is going after the corrupt early. No one was going after the corrupt, but if you go slightly deeper into the data and see who was arrested and when they joined the party and when then, you know, kind of files got lost or prosecution stopped, the
Raman: corrupts were let off.
As soon as they joined the party.
Abhinandan: Then the United Arab Emirates, UAE recorded the heaviest rain after a severe thunderstorm hit the country on Monday. This is Monday night, killing at least one person, causing damage to homes and businesses, bringing air travel to a standstill in Dubai. I'm sure all of you have seen the videos that have come out of there.
And today's Times of India suggests that it may be because of cloud seeding. So if you've seen the Netflix series, Snowpiercer. Now's a good time to go watch it. And in this Hafte Ki Adla Bidli, where every week we tell you who joined which party from where, because it's election season, Odisha, former BJD MP, Prabhash Kumar Singh on Monday, joined the BJP.[00:12:00]
Then Jammu and Kashmir, Jahanzaib Sirwal, Congress's Jammu and Kashmir spokesperson, also joined the BJP. In Gujarat, former congressman and spokesman, Rohan Gupta, joined the BJP. And finally in Rajasthan, BSP MLA And Jaswant Singh Gurjar joined Shiv Sena, Shinde faction, which is also a BJP ally. So this hafte ki Adla Badli is only Adla.
There's no Badli happening. I wonder why. And another very important, um, headline, uh, there have been a series of takedowns of YouTube channels and Twitter accounts in the last one week. In fact, Twitter, ex formerly called Twitter has said that they have taken this down on government orders, but they disagree with the order.
Uh, National Dastaks YouTube channel was taken down, Bolta Hindustan was also taken down, and, uh, Letters have been written asking them to explain why, how, but it is worrying in my view. And
Raman: several notices have been issued to the YouTubers. [00:13:00] Yeah. Who had shown the opposition or, or, or anybody speaking. And also
Abhinandan: their things, they have demonetized or what do they call it?
Some channels. In fact we are doing that story. And our former colleague Meghnath's channel has also been demonetized. So those are the headlines of the week. We'll get into the discussion. Let me get into just some general. you know, feedback from our guests regarding the entire election voting machine, you know, debate discussion that's been on and off for the longest time.
And honestly, I just say, I don't have a position on it because I hear so much and it's so technical. Like someone was telling me that, uh, You know, where you press the button and the, where the slip comes out, uh, you know, that's between where the data is captured. It should not be between that. You can't see the slip getting cut.
There's so many technical, I just learn something new every day. So it's really blowing my mind. Uh, so before we come to the [00:14:00] technical aspects, because we have an expert and that is the advantage of Hafta, we bring you experts. You don't want to listen to me payloading gyaan on everything. We actually have people who know about stuff.
Uh, let me first, uh, just ask, uh, you know, uh, Suhas sir before Madhav gives us technical aspects. This entire discussion on the robustness of election voting machines, sir, do you think it adds to the confidence in the democratic process or as Many politicians say it erodes the confidence in democratic process because depending on which politicians you look at and when he said what everyone has cast dispersion and shown confidence in the voting machines.
Suhas: You know, when the electronic voting machines came on the scene in the first place, uh, there was quite an amount of excitement and people thought that this was not only a technological innovation, but also some improvement on the paper ballot. Uh, because, you know, paper ballots have a tendency of getting lost.
Valids have a tendency of getting stolen [00:15:00] and so on and so forth. So in view of that, there was a tremendous confidence among the voters about the electronic voting machines. There was excitement also about the electronic voting machines over the last decade or so. I think, uh, it is good that some debate has started about the technological aspects of the electronic voting machines.
about the obduracy of stillness of the election commission to count the vb packs and as a result of that a number of anecdotal stories coming out with some proof sometimes and sometimes without proofs that uh there is a discrepancy between what i vote for and what my vote is counted for this has eroded over the time the confidence of the voters in the evm leave aside the democratic process as such But the EVMs definitely have lost that credibility, which initially they had, uh, in the Hindu recently we have published, Lokmita has published, uh, one of its findings [00:16:00] where we find that compared to some few years ago, uh, the confidence of the people, the trust of the voters in electronic voting machines has considerably declined.
This is not good for democracy because unless your processes are trusted, democracy cannot be something that people will be really confident, confident about.
Abhinandan: Right. And why do you think there is a reluctance of the election commission to count the VPATs? I mean, what, what is in your view, the stated and unstated objective?
I mean,
Suhas: I think one is simply, I mean, the stated objective and unstated objectives may be left aside. Uh, it would be more my take on what the election commission has been doing. And I think the election commission rightly feels, or at least felt at the beginning, that this was a great thing that they have done.
And, uh, let us not drag back on that. Let us go ahead with it. Uh, they must also have been advised by their technical advisors that there is nothing wrong with this. Therefore, they challenged [00:17:00] earlier election commissions, challenged the opponents to show what is wrong with electronic voting machines.
Increasingly, however, the obstinacy of the election commission seems to be more a function of not just their pride in what they are doing, but also their laziness in addressing the issues that technology has produced and made them face.
Abhinandan: Right. So, um, you know, Madhav, uh, a couple of reports I just want to point out before we go in, there is a report by Poonam Agarwal in the Quint and Poonam Agarwal is the same journalist who had actually done that fantastic expose on every, uh, uh, that, uh, electoral bond has a unique number that can be seen under.
UV light or infrared. I can't tell one from the other. Uh, so it's a article in The Quint, EVM vote count mismatch in 370 plus seats and EC refuses to explain. And, uh, you know, that is an article that's worth reading. It gives you an idea [00:18:00] of the mismatches that have happened. Uh, now in light of that and the kind of, you know, questions that keep getting raised, now it's in the Supreme Court.
Madhav, is it correct that if one just counts the VVPAT, it's settled? Because I've now heard one more theory. That the VVPAT, earlier, the way it was designed, you saw the slip coming out, printed out, gets cut and gets dropped. Now, earlier it was like, a mirror, now it's a prism, a lens, and therefore it just shines a light, but you don't see it getting cut.
I mean, every day I hear something new, so it's like, information overload in my head. Tell us, because your article does show You know, exactly how the architecture of the machine is. Tell us what in your technical expertise view is the problem and can it be addressed?
Madhav: Okay. Uh, before getting there, um, let me take a couple of minutes to [00:19:00] point out a few things in the current EVM based electronic election system, as I call it.
Um, it is interesting to note that although electronics has come in now, the first attempt to mechanize voting happened in, if I'm not mistaken, something like 1878 in England. So this drive to mechanize voting is not new. It's not the way we see it as ultra modern. That's one. Second is. We have to look at Indian evms in three time spans.
The first time span is from 1977 to 2013 where we had, uh, of course in between, we had, in 2002 we had a modification. So let's say 1977 to 2002. 2002 to 2013, and 2013 till date. So [00:20:00] 1977 was the first time this whole system was designed. And obviously as any system, this was designed with the context of that time in mind.
That time we didn't have any internet. We didn't have even telephony. So the whole security, you know, don't look at the EVM as a, as a single device. Whether monolithic or multi component, it doesn't matter. Don't look at it only as a device. This has enabled an electronic system and the whole election system has been affected.
So look at the entire system. From that perspective, the system was designed keeping in view the physical aspects in mind. So the security was more physical. We will keep army personnel, we will keep CRPF jawans so that it will not be stolen. That was the kind of security, uh, you know, perspective. It changed in 2002.
We had [00:21:00] some changes to that, that, and in 2013, a major change happened, which was introduction of vpac. So like this EVM before Vpac is a different beast, and EVM with VEV Vpac is a very different beast. Before the v Vpac was introduced, there was one control unit and one ballot unit. One or multiple ballot units.
Ballot unit was primarily like a keyboard. It didn't, it really, they had to separate these two because there were many candidates in one constitute. Yeah. Which
Abhinandan: could not fit on one machine. So if you had like 20, you needed many buttons.
Madhav: So you could cascade those keyboards. That was the idea. But both were essentially location agnostic.
They had no location specific data in there. Those, the, the, the candidate list that was pasted on the, that was a physical pasting inside. It, uh, saved only.[00:22:00]
So the counts came out like count of two is 200 count of one is 300, you know, something of that kind, nothing to do with any local candidate. So that is a completely different. So even then you could malfunction, make it malfunction, but you would need physical access to each and every bar. Ballot unit or control unit.
Abhinandan: Right.
Madhav: So you are one leg, uh, pulling boots in India, you would need to, to manipulate those, you would need physical access there, right? That was a big constraint and in a way, big security. Sure. Uh, advantage with Vwe at what happened was the third component that was introduced to the EVM, which is a VV pad, had the MO had still has the most powerful computing, uh, processor inside.
It has location specific data. It has, it knows, you know, who is in position one, who is in position two, not by name, but it has that [00:23:00] data inside. Now, if you look at the way the signals flow inside, the control unit tells the ballot unit, be ready, somebody will vote, tell me what value you receive. Ballot unit, when the voter goes and let's say presses for ballot unit, tells the control unit.
I have received for control. It now tells the VV pad print the slip for four
Abhinandan: VV
Madhav: pad doesn't know what is at four. Imagine a chest of drawers, each drawer having an image. And those drawers are number one, two, three, four serially. So what VV pad does is it just goes, opens the fourth drawer, looks at the image and prints that out.
It doesn't know what it is. But here, then we will practice to respond to the control unit that yes, I have printed. Now, we assume that it will only communicate saying, I have printed four, it may give extra communication in case if it is aware of what is going on. Let's say in a [00:24:00] drawer, I don't, let's say in drawer one, I don't keep only the image, but I also keep a star and Vivipad is able to read that star because when it opens the drawer, it will see that.
Abhinandan: And
Madhav: it has been programmed when it was programmed, when it was manufactured, it has been programmed that when you see a star. Every third vote, you tell the CU control unit, put it to star.
Abhinandan: That star
Madhav: could be in any drawer. It may not be in the first drawer necessarily.
Abhinandan: Yeah, sure. Got it.
Madhav: Right. So now when, and Vivipat can count how many votes have been cast.
So every third vote, if let's say the third vote is four, it might respond instead of saying I've printed four, it might respond I've printed four, say one.
Abhinandan: Right.
Madhav: Now if control unit can understand that save one, it will record that as save one, which is all, this is very easily possible. So this
Abhinandan: is a very different beast.
And without the VVPAT, there was no, there was no component in the entire architecture that could actually do this. The [00:25:00] VVPAT introduces this component.
Madhav: Right. Now what they should have done. And this I brought it up and that's after I brought it up on 30th of January and on 7th of February election, I brought it up, I think on the 1st of Jan, uh, in my article in the, the India forum.
After that 30th of Jan and for 7th of February election commission came out with a technical, uh, explanation saying that control unit is the master and these two are slaves because otherwise what they should have done is. You have a ballot unit in the center, let's say on the left you have control unit, on the VVPAT.
When I press any button on the ballot unit, the same signal is transmitted at the same time to both. Correct. The VVPAT doesn't have, because it's only printing, right? Right. Receives 4. But you're saying now the
Abhinandan: VVPAT is put between the two?
Madhav: Now, that's a problem, not between the two, basically the whole thing is [00:26:00] Vivipat is communicating back to control unit.
And that is a problem.
Abhinandan: That is a problem. So it should not, it should be a one way communication. That is
Madhav: one problem, but that's not all because this is at the, at the booth level. The other problem, major problem is. There is no pairing. So if I use a pair, let's say a hundred and a hundred serial number, a hundred of control unit and serial number, a hundred of Vivipat at the booth, there is no guarantee that controlling it number a hundred will be used at the time of counting because the only verification is visual.
Abhinandan: Right.
Madhav: And in the days where currency notes can be faked, how difficult is it to fake a label?
Abhinandan: Hmm.
Madhav: Sure. And because, see, if you have 20 lakh units, when usually as a matter of good practice, 20 percent units are kept as, uh, you know, replacement, possible replacement, right? So they are, they are spare. [00:27:00] Now, if somebody lays hand, hands on the spare unit, stuffs it with whatever words that they want, change the label and replace the control unit, there is no electronic check.
It's only visual check. Whereas electronic pairing we use every day. You have a Bluetooth speaker at home, you pair your phone
Abhinandan: with
Madhav: that. I come in, I can't pair my phone to the Bluetooth speaker. Sure. Till you, you have not updated, disconnected. Right. Pairing was very easy.
Abhinandan: Hmm.
Madhav: We haven't, we haven't upgraded our thinking.
We haven't moved on.
Abhinandan: So you're saying this in 77 design 77 plan.
Madhav: Yeah. And then minor changes have been made, but see again, as, uh, so as mentioned, you know, they have been throwing challenges at people. That's not the right way to do when, when a car manufacturer makes a car, it doesn't throw a challenge at the customer saying, okay, crash it.
And if you die, I will compensate. No, they go to a third party, get [00:28:00] an NCAP certification and prove it to the customer that he has somebody else other than me. He's saying that this is safe in case of election commission, the same people who have filed for the patent have certified it. And even today they are giving a certificate against saying that this everything is hunky dory.
That doesn't work.
Abhinandan: So, um, I mean, let me give you the differences that I, cause I have reported. The only time I was a reporter, I haven't been a reporter for the last whatever, 24 years, but I was a reporter. It was during two elections, which was paper ballot. The two or three things that are huge advantages from a reporter's point of view, a, I remember the most horrible election I've worked on in 99.
I was in M dba. It was hot as hell. We, I had two. There was this big board in this maidan, and after each round of voting, you had to rub the board, next round is chalk se likhte the, over three or four days that used to happen, and it's a miracle I didn't die [00:29:00] of heat stroke by the end of it. Uh, now it's like, fatak, I think that, that is one good thing.
Uh, Be the paper stuffing of ballots and the destruction of those ballot papers was another thing that could happen then, which can't happen now. So these are the, from the point of view of a journalist. Um, but when it comes to the challenge given, uh, you know, uh, even if a challenge is given, Madhav, I think what the Aam Aadmi Party had done very cleverly, they did it in assembly so that he can't be prosecuted where he got access to, uh, He said, okay, we will fix it.
They said, but you can't touch it. The election commission. If I can't touch it, then what kind of a challenge is it? Like remotely, I'm not going to manipulate it. I said, he said, I can manipulate it. If you let me touch it. He says, manipulate it, but you can't touch the machine. So that was kind of a bizarre challenge.
I remember that became a big thing in the early days, but yeah, it's only been growing this entire distrust. And with, I think Poonam's story that, The election commission at least come and explain [00:30:00] why has within a mismatch in the VVPATS of these 370 machines, which I find it very unfortunate that the EC is not explaining.
Madhav: If I can interrupt, I can, I'll tell you two more important things that we need to, and probably Suhas Sir would be in a better position to talk.
Abhinandan: Sorry Madhav, before you come in, let me just introduce the third guest who's here and then you can take over. Uh, we have joining us Shruti Kapila. Hi Shruti. Hi,
Shruti: lovely to be back.
Yes,
Abhinandan: uh, we've, we've. Met at a conference also in London, I think a year or two years ago.
Anand: Yeah.
Abhinandan: Shruti is a professor of history and politics at the University of Cambridge. Her principal fields of scholarship and publications are modern and contemporary India and global political thought. She writes on the history of modern science and race, gender and political violence.
Her piece on BJP's manifesto is available in the print and the link is in the show notes below. You can check it out. She will talk a little bit about the BJP manifesto. As soon as we finish on the EVM chat. Yes, go ahead mother. You were saying.
Madhav: Right. So there are two more things that I, I think we need to, uh, really consider.
[00:31:00] The first one is for the first time, every voter has two votes, or the vote in two forms. One is the electronic boat, which is in the control unit, and the other one is the printed vote, which is in the form of VV pack slip. Hmm. And we have absolutely no clarity, which is the original. We can't have two originals.
We'll have one original and one copy, right? So there has to be a clarity, total clarity on which is the original vote going by the current election commission guidelines. The primacy is given to the Vivipat slip. Then the Supreme Court should, in my view, weigh in and say that, okay, if the slip is the primary.
Uh, vote the next count. That then it, that is the thing to be counted. You don't have to co co, you don't have to consider the copy at all.
Abhinandan: Right? That's
Madhav: the first, first, uh, uh, issue. The second issue is I think, uh, the Supreme Court. I do not know why they're even today, there is a hearing going on [00:32:00] and I don't know why they are not asking the election commission to get three EVMs right in, in the court in and let, why don't the judges operate those and see for themselves, whether they see the same symbol, whether they can see the slip falling down.
It's so easy. Both are in Delhi. It's a phone call away. It may be 15, 20, 30 minutes away. Just get it in the court, verify.
Anand: Why
Madhav: wait? Why depend on somebody else? It's, it's, uh, I think in my view, it's court's duty considering what is at stake, considering look at German Supreme Court. One voter was unhappy.
The voting election system could not prove to him that his concerns were addressed. Just one single German and the whole system has been put on hold. You can't use it here. Here we have at least a few lack who are expressing Concerns [00:33:00] who don't have confidence. It doesn't matter whether we have 140 crores and Germany, uh, has only maybe 20 crore Germans, that's not the point.
The point is if there are only one single soul whose doubts cannot be addressed. reasonably, then it has to be put on hold and it's court's duty to do it. So I don't know why they can't do it. I think also the
Abhinandan: effort also to address the doubts, but, uh, you know, before I bring Shruti and Suhas back into the conversation, let me just ask the panel here, uh, in your view, uh, Raman sir, is it healthier for democracy to have this conversation?
Are you satisfied by how the EC is handling the, you know, skepticism, or do you think it undermines the democratic process?
Raman: You know, when I see the politics of it, uh, I, I, I see that the party which is in power is not, uh, you know, transparent about the system. When, when the BJP wasn't in [00:34:00] power, they raised the same issue, the EVM issue, and the Congress did not do anything about it.
EC came up, uh, occasionally, you know, With some kind of demo, but it never cleared the mind. But at the same time, we did not have, we don't have any data. We suggest that some, uh, you know, something is wrong with these machines. I mean, some solid data. Even Lokniti, uh, has come up with this survey and it was raised in Supreme Court yesterday.
The Supreme Court also did not. They said they want more credible, uh, you know, Lokniti is private. So they are not even considering that. So, uh, And now when the BJP is in power and Congress is raising the same and the other parties are raising the issue, the BJP is also not very transparent about it. But, you know, after hearing the experts, uh, and also I want to say Prashant, I know Mr.
Prashant Bhushan and he's one of the parties to this, you know, [00:35:00] petition. So I, as a reporter, you know, there was a time when I also had doubts about this AVM machine. So I was talking to him. So he had also told us Uh, that Raman Max, you know, it will be you. You can make maybe 10 percent or 5%. But otherwise, there's nothing wrong with the machine.
Even Mr Bush and had said that. But having said it, it doesn't mean that he can't change his opinion because there is technology. Things may change. And after hearing these experts, uh, I definitely feel that a doubt has really emerged, uh, you know, among the people and it is, it should be addressed.
Abhinandan: And I think also considering the election commission's credibility has eroded as has for most institutions.
I think it's incumbent for everybody to actually come out and be up for scrutiny. What do you think Anand? Do you think it, it is also, you know, I think it's, you know, I mean, I, I haven't given it thought, but the, like we said in the headlines, the social media [00:36:00] platforms are either de listing or de prioritizing any video or information that is related to EVM machines and questioning them.
Uh, I mean, they're saying that it may undermine democracy. Okay, that I, I'm not sure I agree with that, but yeah, on all these or anything else related to this, Anand, what, what are your insights of use?
Anand: I think election commission's approach to conduct of elections has been of incremental adequacy, means a step by step improvement.
They are not for very radical revision of the processes. And yeah, That, uh, gets reflected in how, how the change is slow. So the critical marsh of feedback, uh, which, uh, are, which is a skeptical of the functioning of evms, I think, uh, that point has not been reached. It'll take time and it'll like, uh, [00:37:00] incrementally it has tried to, uh, address some questions through BB pad or, or as.
A sample 10 percent of audit or other methods, but, uh, I think it is also a function of time the way the election commission functions. Uh, second, uh, is, uh, about, um, the German constitutional code that Mr. De Spande, uh, was mentioning. Now it's a, uh, guiding principle was that something that. Uh, citizen, uh, can only know through expertise and scientific knowledge and not a layman can know, then that process has to be discarded.
That was its, uh, running theme of the judgment. Uh, so, uh, And, uh, that came up in the Supreme Court hearing yesterday. And the judge [00:38:00] said, uh, that, well, that both are not comparable. And the same point that Mr. Despond mentioned that India has 98 crore voters and it's a country of 5 crore voters. What you are comparing the logistical and administrative challenges are different.
But I think there is one more, uh, Uh, I think, um, flaw with the German, uh, constitutional courts, uh, view, uh, that, um, say some technological innovations like digital payments or, uh, could not be introduced if the same argument was taken. People would not have trusted the digital technology with their money because some processes there are also very complex.
But, uh, but of course, there is another argument that about transparency. Now, third is, uh, I think Supreme Court today [00:39:00] has observed in the ongoing observation that the number of VV pads verification, uh, Mr. Wilson's, uh, uh, Uh, petition was for a hundred percent, uh, slips, but it's a, it could be increased, uh, means it's not the final judgment, but the observation is that it could be increased the number of VPAT.
Uh, it's basically a print printout. That would be dropped by the voter himself in so that also Supreme Court is quite clear that we cannot go back to the ballot paper ballot paper ballot because that was the age of electoral banditry. A simple ink mark on the paper could be enough for invalidating the vote.
So these are three, four points.
Abhinandan: So, um, I'll just come quickly on this too. Kapila and Suhasa once again, but, you know, [00:40:00] talking about the context that any system operates in, I think the, the, the tendency of anyone with power, um, and that is a cultural aspect of India, feeling they don't have to explain, is a very Indian thing.
I think it comes from the caste system. Uh, media doesn't feel it's answerable. Uh, like today you cannot get a journalist to take questions. Um, and even in that, I mean, and I will say this is consistent, even Mr. Pranoy, you know, today we can say media has gone insane, but even back then, many times I had requested Dr.
Roy that, you know, media rumble we had, you know, let's, uh, no, we are not the story. And I know it doesn't come from the humility that we are not the story, it comes from the position of We don't have to explain. We are good. Uh, I think that is very fundamental to the privileged Indian and there's no more privileged Indian than a bureaucrat.
Uh, so they don't feel that they're unstable. That is, I think a big problem. And in that [00:41:00] context, I think in India, it's more important to make sure that the system is, uh, demonstrated to be You know, fair and clear because I mean, I went to Amsterdam a year ago and at the airport, you have self checkout. I could pick up salad, salad, there's this mirror kind of thing, you flash it there, your bill comes, I take out my credit card, pay whatever it comes, and I walk out.
No human has even checked have I, I mean, I could have shown a Gobi barcode and taken out, you know, a Lockie or whatever, or a Porsche or whatever it is. But the point is, there the system assumes that was, by and large, people try to put that here. I mean, just try. So, you have to see the context in which you're operating.
And I think the context in which you're operating to say that trust us, I'm sorry, that is not good enough for me, whether it's the media, whether it is, which is why we have these regular zoom calls with our subscribers who can ask us that, why do you do cover this? Why did you not cover this? Where are you getting your [00:42:00] funding from?
Where is it's, it's on our website. Before we put it out there, try to ask a media where you get your money from. They will not tell you even today when we say you tell us how much money you got from the UP state government or the Punjab central government, they don't tell you RTI
So no one wants to be held accountable. And I think the Election Commission is an extension of that very feudal mindset. Kiba, we don't have to show, just assume we are great people. So one thing
Anand: about that, that the facts, the frequently ask questions, no, uh, the, I think commissions, election commission's, uh, uh, approach is that.
There can be doubts, but uh, only reasonable doubts would be answered. Now, the test of reasonable, reasonable reasonableness is with them. Mm. That what is a reasonable doubt. Now, uh, Supreme Court yesterday observed that, uh, some. T's can be ticked, some I's can be dotted, but the text [00:43:00] cannot be abandoned because it's, it's a working system.
And yes, there can be some changes here and there, but overall the system is accurate. So, uh, that is how the court is also moving on this.
Abhinandan: Although I'm not sure I agree with the court being so certain at this stage, but yeah, uh, uh, you know, go ahead. Uh, you know, then we'll come back. To the BJP manifesto.
So let's get Shruti into this. What do you think, Shruti? Is it compromising the, are we doing a Trump and putting question marks on the democratic process? Or are we being transparent seeking do gooders?
Shruti: I don't know. I think it's a bit of both. I think that it would be fair to say that, um, the doubt, some of the doubts being, uh, raised, uh, I mean, they're not very focused.
I think that the EVM debate is focused. It is focused on one particular institution and one particular machine. But I think there is such a lot of conversation about disinformation, about say X, [00:44:00] about, you know, you know, it's a lot, uh, in the sense that when something is obviously going on, I'm not saying that, but I think the, um, and it's, it's, and it's no one's argument that the government or the ruling regime hasn't in a way dominated.
Uh, you know, political info, any information order, as it were, right? It is, it is running the information order and, uh, but I think there is, I mean, I find it interesting because, uh, it's because I'm here, I mean, I'll travel in a bit to India, but it is becoming harder now to get on, you know, as it were, algorithmically.
A wider range of views and things. So you have to go now specifically to particular websites or profiles to see what a particular leader is up to at any given point or seek notifications. So there is like in a very basic level, even in terms of digital, the way information is flowing, uh, you know, or [00:45:00] coming to you as an end user.
Uh, there it's, there's a, there is, you certainly feel something is up. Uh, you know, you do feel that, you know, uh, a very, you know, so, so I think that's, I mean, it's a big issue. And I do think the Supreme Court judgment on EVM is going to matter. The credibility of the election commission is going to matter.
You may say that in, I mean, that's a very big debate why India is or not a rules based society or why the Indian state is seen only as a kind of, um, Uh, uh, intervening force in your life and not something that we kind of engage with. And, you know, we see it as a very powerful instrument, which is out to get us.
Um, uh, I think that's a separate debate, but it's linked to all that. Uh, I mean, I think, um, it's, it's a very strange election. I mean, what is there to say? It's not like the Trump thing at all, because that's very, very polarized.
Abhinandan: Yeah. Also, also here, I think that Trump's. Motive was to, you know, [00:46:00] make the point
Shruti: that the DNC, the Democrats, uh, you know, as well as the Republicans are too well oiled machineries, you know, uh, that is, I mean, this is not about bringing out the level playing field issue, but there is no comparison to be had between as it were a very fragmented opposition with very, very small players to very old and tired players.
Um, you know, it's a completely different system, the American and the, it's very evenly poised. I mean, it's a much more divided, uh, uh, institutional framework. There are also the ability. The Indian one seems to be very dominant in one particular way at the moment.
Abhinandan: And also the agencies, you know, the role they play here and they play there is, is very different.
But Suhas, before we come to you for the BG manifesto, I want to go, uh, for the last word. on this to Madhav. But before I do that, you have anything to add to this entire EVM debate based on what you have heard [00:47:00] so far from the panelists?
Suhas: It's a question of institutional trust. And unless people trust that EVM are working well, I don't think any amount of just claims would suffice.
And that's why mothers or anyone else's questions need to be robustly and technically answered rather than simply claims being thrown across that everything is good. That I think is the rub of the situation. And last time we have seen that there was a discrepancy in a number of cases between the physical count and the EDM count of votes in certain booths.
And therefore, I think such discrepancies, when they remain unanswered, they add to the suspicion. Then they add to rumors, and finally they add to the undermining of the entire idea of legitimacy of the democratic system. That's why this is something that needs to be addressed.
Abhinandan: Madhav, last word to you before we start discussing hardcore politics.
Madhav: Yeah, I mean, [00:48:00] as Suhas Sir said, right, you know, trust is the cornerstone of all this. And that's why I said the Supreme Court should, uh, satisfy themselves by doing this, by, by making those trials. The second thing is, you know, it's very simple. Even if we go to a halwai and ask him for a hundred grams of peda, when he packs it, If there is a chance, and we would like to see what he's packed, you know?
Hmm. We always like to, why is that? We, we might know that Hawaii every day, but we will still want that. Or we, if we ask him, oh, do you use gh or do you use, and he refuses to answer,
Abhinandan: Hmm,
Madhav: then you will start suspecting if he answers to you saying that, okay, I use this GI or I use this oil, you are happy. You may not like the oil, but you are happy, you are not, you don't have issues about transparency and trust.
Here, the problem is they, they just refuse to answer. I have filed so many RTIs and it's been absolutely useless.
Abhinandan: Stonewalled.
Madhav: And where are these? Where are these? One of the RTIs [00:49:00] I got a response, this doesn't come under RTI because you have. And to me, I'm still trying to fathom what that sentence means.
What is the right question? I have no
Abhinandan: clue. I have no clue. And, and where are these units manufactured? The units
Madhav: are manufactured at Bharat Electronics and, uh, uh, ECIL, Electronics Corporation of India.
Abhinandan: Okay.
Madhav: The thing is, I mean, I have nothing against, because, because If we were to manufacture this, uh, in let's say some private co company, uh, then we would say, oh, why is this contract given to the private, uh, vendor?
So public sector is good. Not a problem. Thing is, come clean. Come clean. There is no absolutely no problem may opening up the circuit diagram because ultimately the manufacturing will be with you. You claim that you have digital certificates.
Abhinandan: Hmm. So
Madhav: digital certificates like a boarding pass to a plane.
When you go into the plane, you need a boarding pass, but you also [00:50:00] need your own identity,
Abhinandan: right?
Madhav: Just a pass doesn't because I could give my pass to you and you could go in if the identity was not checked.
Abhinandan: Right.
Madhav: But at the group level, you, if you have 200 boarding passes, you will not have 201 people. So at a group level, that security works at individual level.
It doesn't work.
Abhinandan: Hmm.
Madhav: But at the group level, you have it. So come clean.
Abhinandan: Right.
Madhav: That's the problem.
Abhinandan: Okay. Thank you so much for joining us, Madhav. Before we say goodbye, I'm going to ask you to recommend, uh, something that could enrich the lives of our listeners, an article, a piece. Your article will of course be linked to this podcast, but anything else you think they should consume?
Madhav: I, uh, I mean, I think it would be only good on my part not to recommend my own article. Okay. So I won't do that. Uh, but if you want, I mean, uh, currently I'm reading, uh, Dharmananda Kosambi is Bhagwan Buddha and it's absolutely fascinating. I just finished reading Atharva
Anand: Veda,
Madhav: but, uh, [00:51:00] anybody interested in real, because that's the only religion that is atheist, just as a matter of interest.
So anybody interested in doing that? I would recommend that.
Abhinandan: And do you think it's somewhat ironic that a book about an atheist religion is called Bhagwan Buddha?
Madhav: Yeah, it is ironic because that's how the people see it, right? Right,
Abhinandan: right.
Madhav: But the book is extremely well researched and extremely well written.
Fantastic. So
Abhinandan: might I also recommend after, if you haven't already, you must listen to this poem in Amitabh's voice of Harivanshah Bachchan. on Buddh. We have once played it here. It's a, it's a really nice one. I've always enjoyed it. Thank you so much Madhav for joining and shedding light on something that is so dense.
That many people just abandon even discussing it. Uh, so I hope to see more articles by you to provide more clarity on this issue and good luck with those rtis stay at it Thank you. so much for coming. [00:52:00] Okay. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye Okay. Now we're going to go to the bjp manifesto and all things political But before that I want to remind all our listeners and viewers pay to keep news free because when the public pays the public is served We only take You money from all of you because we believe only when public pays for journalism will it be public interest journalism so you will not see any banner ads which you'll see on many places.
Of either a waving Neta from Karnataka, Kerala, usually it's UP because UP Netas, I don't know Yogi has just covered Delhi with his bug shots. So, uh, but we only depend on you. So, you know, top up our election funds. And as you've seen, we've got a new election show, a mini series of Srinivas and Jain. So Vasu will be doing a show with the News Minute and News Laundry for this election.
Sound byte 2: In this election, I will travel across the country to dissect the powerful narratives driving the BJP's campaign, how much are claims and how much is reality. [00:53:00] Follow me on a journey that cuts through the noise and brings you the facts. Journalism that is free, fair, and in your interest.
Abhinandan: And in all likelihood, we'll also get another very well known journalist from the Northeast.
He'll be doing about four stories from us. Hridesh Joshi is also here. So News Laundry and News Minute Coalition is a place where you want to get good journalists to come into journalism. That is no longer possible to be done on legacy media. So on that note, the BJP manifesto, uh, let me come to the two experts who have written much about it and our researchers and professors, as opposed to us, who just like to chew the fat once in a while, once a week.
So, uh, let me come to you Suhas Sir first and then Shruti. Uh, the BJP manifesto, It's, you know, these days I've been listening to this song, which reminds me of Mr. Modi each time I hear it, because Mr. Modi said, yeh toh abhi trailer hai, film baaki hai, ten year trailer. So there's this very beautiful song, jhooti mooti mitwaan [00:54:00] bole, bhaado bole, kabhi saawan bol, ki bhai abhi aayega.
So, now apparently I haven't read the manifesto. I'm guessing some of it has been read by the panelists here because they would, uh, you know, have spent more time on this. A UCC has been promised, Uniform Civil Code, and, uh, they have promised one nation, one election. Uh, so, uh, so also the desirability of these, uh, and anything else that you think is noteworthy in the manifesto as compared to the others?
Madhav: Well,
Suhas: the most noteworthy thing about the manifesto is not, is that it's not the BJP manifesto. It is a Modi manifesto. And that is something that needs to be kept in mind that the party is completely sidetracked and it is only Modi who is guaranteeing us various things. And therefore it's his world against the party or our world and everyone else's world.
But that's sort of the general critique of what the Modi guarantee means. Uh, on the specific questions that you ask, I think the [00:55:00] UCC thing, uh, is, uh, something that the BJP and the Hindutva Brigade generally wanted for over last 70 years or so. And therefore, in a sense for their core constituency, this is something that would be very attractive, though elusive.
They don't know what to do about it. If the UCC that has been brought in Uttarakhand is any indication, it will come obviously with riders or exceptions,
Abhinandan: which is not a UCC then.
Suhas: Yeah, they have done that in Uttarakhand and therefore then the charge that they're interfering only with the Muslim personal law would stick.
Uh, the challenge, however, that the UCC. Point throws at the opposition is that they have to take a position on how to handle the question of reforming Muslim personal law. The opposition hides behind the Muslims, but doesn't have a clear answer to that. Fortunately for the opposition, the BJP too does not want [00:56:00] any serious debate on the question of UCC.
It is only using it as a beating stick. a whip cord, nothing more than that. The other I think is a more dangerous and probably far reaching proposal, uh, for which the COVID committee has already made a recommendation, uh, which is one nation, one election or simultaneous elections or whatever you call it.
And that really means irrespective of what Prime Minister Modi has been assuring, a complete overhaul of the constitution. Because unless you change the constitution, you cannot bring simultaneous election.
Abhinandan: Sure.
Suhas: I've said this again and again, that simply speaking, simultaneous elections Innocence, Joe paradise, a, the parliamentary structure and be the federal structure.
And once you have done that, you have changed the entire constitution. Again, RSS and Hindu to organizations have always been extremely skeptical about federalism and simultaneous elections [00:57:00] would be a very nice way for them to interfere in the federal structure. So I think these two can be controversial, but the latter one, the simultaneous elections one.
is far too dangerous than we realize it.
Abhinandan: Right. Thanks for us. I must say that it is such a pleasure having someone who speaks with such clarity and complete sentences. Uh, because you know, when you consume media, people talk like me, one sentence goes into the other. So we must have you more often, especially an explainer.
So has, but should the, uh, You know, as a commentator, you know, a political scientist and as a woman, you know, uh, my colleague Manisha isn't here. Yeah. And Manisha's a very rational person. And, you know, she's not quote unquote hin brigade or quote unquote, you know, Muslim appeasement brigade or anything.
But as a woman, and she's a very, uh, fierce, uh, feminist. Uh, you know, she had lots of problems with the kind of laws that exist, which kind of discriminate against [00:58:00] women at state level, at inheritance level, at Islam with the, you know, three talat thing. So of course she was not a UCC advocate, but she says there has to be a law that gives me as much power as a man.
I cannot be a, you know, no matter what religion I belong to. So there is a legitimate case to be made for an overhaul of. Our legal system that, you know, doesn't disadvantage a woman. And that happens at a state level, at an inheritance level, at many levels, even at the talaq level. So your take on the whole UC thing, and also I just like to give our audience one thing that, you know, we take Western democracy that have been around for 200, 250 years, even in America, mind you, there are certain states where you can only do a business if you have a partner who's, um, Native American, or if you're Native American, you get fishing rights.
And if you are, you know, white Caucasian American, you don't have rights that you have to buy a permit, but there are certain forest areas where you have [00:59:00] automatic hunting licenses, automatic fishing rights, adoption laws are different for Native American children and, uh, you know, white Caucasian or any settlers, I don't know what is the term for that.
There are, you know, different laws for different people in different countries because the reasons are different. And then you go into the historical aspect of why they are often justified. How does one reconcile these? Many demands in your view and anything else about the manifesto that you want to Yeah,
Shruti: I mean, I think there's a lot going on here in your, in your commentary.
I mean, just on the UCC, I mean, it's a long standing issue, uh, at the formation of the Indian constitution and the Republic itself. Uh, and, uh, you know, and I think it has, it is, one is obviously the feminist question of equal rights on which actually India, uh, Was far ahead of many Western democracies and giving universal adult, uh, you know, suffrage and franchise.
And so you've always had, as it were, women as equal rights bearing, uh, citizen, including in, you [01:00:00] know, very controversial things like abortion, uh, that have in a way, you know, distorted American democracy. as we know, continues to. So at, at one level, you know, the Indian constitution is extremely radical, forward looking, and all about equality.
The issue with personal law or family law is precisely that what, uh, Professor Bhattacharya was saying, that it actually becomes a focused on the minority question. Because it is, after all, at, at, at the formation of the Indian constitution, it is the only set of rights that the Muslim minorities could get.
Uh, remember they were, you know, uh, communal as it was seats and, you know, you had as it were, um, you know, reserve seats, uh, which went, you know, post partition and, and so no political or economic rights were given, uh, to the Muslims, but the only kind of, as it was so called concession was in the cultural domain of, of, of
Abhinandan: personal
Shruti: law.
But the initial debates are not actually about. [01:01:00] about Muslim personal law in India, but of course on the Hindu undivided family, uh, you know, 1950s. I mean, it is one of Nehru's biggest humiliations of his career, quite apart from Ambedkar, you know, having to resign and leave, uh, the Indian government. Uh, so the issue really has been and you know, has really actually been the reform of Hindu personal law, because it's really only till the, after the eight, eight, in the late eighties, early nineties onwards, that women start inheriting under that law, you know, and it takes good 50, 60 years.
So I think it's a contentious issue. This is as Professor Parjika says that, you know, if, and when it will come. It will, it will extract a lot of compromise from, you know, from, from various, uh, from various groups. And it'll be interesting to see how, as it were, the so called Hindu Orthodox or Hindu traditionalists are now going to refer to it.
Apart from saying whether the UCC is just going to be a default Hindu first. [01:02:00] Uh, thing because it's already in practice in case law. Now. I mean, it's a huge field of debate and research. So, I mean, I'm just glossing other people's work by case law already. There is now a considerable amount of uniformity in practice.
Uh, you know, that, uh, so, so that already has happened. And I think the criminalization of Triple Talaq was also a step in, in, in that direction. Having said all of this, I mean, I do think that this is a very weird manifesto. Uh, this is, you know, the BJP, you know, um, uh, it's, I mean, uh, it's got like 60 odd images in a 76 page document of prime minister Modi.
So of course it is about, Modiji. But in terms of its, uh, in terms of as it were its promises, apart from the UCC, which is a kind of ongoing demand of, of the Hindu nationalists, it's not a new demand that has been put. I mean, it's interesting that it wants to kind of lower the temperature on, on Hindutva, [01:03:00] which is not to say that that will or will not be their intention.
There is nothing on Kashi and Mathura for, uh, uh, For instance, uh, there is also nothing on the NRC, which is obviously, you know, the, the Home Ministers and the Home Ministries kind of, so the, the kinds of things that we have been hearing from the ramparts are not the things that have gone into, uh, as it were, this promissory note.
Uh, so that's fun. First thing to notice that is it, uh, is the BJP trying to moderate the very passions it has unleashed and which it cannot now control? Uh, I mean, that's one, uh, one, you know, begs that, uh, question. And the second is, I mean, for me, I think if you look at it, for all the talk and bluster of India becoming this gigantic economy, you know, this massive pride of being, you know, the fifth largest economy headed towards the third largest.
You know, status, uh, I mean, it is absolutely, you know, whether you're an economic liberal or a, or on the progressive side, whether you are more on [01:04:00] the progressive big state side or the free market, uh, person, regardless of where you stand on, on the economic spectrum, this is a singularly, uh, like a document lacking in economic vision.
And, and it is, it is absolutely shocking because if you're going to play global status games, uh, you might want to seize the opportunity that global, you know, to shape and direct, uh, uh, you know, the world economy. There is nothing here, which is, you know, it's Singapore light with a lot of infrastructure tech talk, you know, photographs of like, you know, Singapore, like, you know, uh, infrastructure and tech.
And then there's all these guarantees. You know, I mean, you know, from farmers, old people, young people, and it doesn't make, it doesn't go here. It doesn't tell us what the roadmap is, uh, and therefore it is really an admission of defeat that, you know, this is, uh, this has been the last 10 years have produced economic strife and have produced, you know, the fact that [01:05:00] tens of millions of Indians have to be given food rations as a guarantee for the
Abhinandan: next
Shruti: five years, you know, which is, you know, Uh, I mean, it's, it's, it's, it's, it should be shaming for, for any, any, for anyone, for, especially for a country which wants to sit on the top table of the world economy.
So I think there are like, I think for all the glitz and the Modi mania and, and all of that as a promissory note, because one of the interesting things about the BJP is that it does listen to its own manifesto. Right. Triple talaq was in the manifesto. Yeah. Ram
Abhinandan: temple. I mean, I, I, myself, you know, it's, it's, uh, you know, humbling of my cockiness a few years ago, although I still believe it was unconstitutional because I had the privilege of seeing a debate between Ramjet Malani, who was a force to reckon with even till 92 and Subramanyam Swami.
On is it constitutionally possible to revoke article three 70 and I was moderating that discussion and I was blown away by the clarity and the laws that [01:06:00] Ramji had provided.
Shruti: So it was never
Abhinandan: possible, but they made it possible. So they've delivered on everything.
Shruti: If you look at it, their manifestos, these things are there, these things have not come from nowhere.
And they deliver. Being that this as a promissory note is a, is a blur, I mean, to have even, I mean, you know, it might be cute or laughable to, to say that they're, you know, that they will put a program for wedding India for wedding destinations. Now, is this really worthy of like a major economic power to be thinking in this manner at the same time?
You know, I've read the manifesto with a tooth comb because I take their manifesto seriously. And it is lacking in vision direction and it, it is an admission of defeat of economic defeat. So do
Abhinandan: they only give a venue as a political engine or can aging old uncles like me also kind of find prospective brides?
Cause I mean, I'm happy to take
Shruti: them.
Abhinandan: They could do a coordination with [01:07:00] shadi. com or something. This, this manifesto is brought to you by shadi. com.
Shruti: Is it a zoyakhtar effect? I don't know. I mean like it's literally called Wedding India. Oh
Abhinandan: really? Okay. And find it
Shruti: in, you know, in that document. So anyway, but that's like by the by, but which just tells you it's, it's, it's an indication of how, um, dispersed.
The manifesto is and, and, and, and the only thing that is clear is that it is, uh, it is trying to like soften or manage expectations on, on the kind of, you know, the core Hindutva concerns, you know, Kashi, Mathura, NRC, uh, you know, delimitation is missing. You know, so you have one nation, one poll, but
Abhinandan: not delimitation was
Shruti: the prime minister has also been smoking,
Abhinandan: but I think the delimitation would actually throw, uh, uh, you know, there'd be red flags going up in the South.
And right now it's important to get at least a few seats there because they have hardly any presence. But Anand, uh, have you gone through the manifesto? Uh, what are your, you know, Basic takeaways from that, but I will say on one [01:08:00] thing, which often I see, you know, ministers saying fifth largest when you go to third largest, I think on that I completely agree with the most sensible economist that has no meaning.
It's like saying I'm the smartest, you know, guy in news laundry because, you know, I have the most hair on my head, like it has nothing. Yeah. What is your per capita income? I mean, you're 329 million hectares. This country is, you better be the fifth largest, you know, and you're the most populous, but what does that have to do with, I mean, it is not.
So this whole largest economy is a boast, which I, I, I find strange, but yeah. Anand, what is your takeaway from the manifesto? Achievable, non achievable. I'm sorry, do you think that they have kept out this delimitation because they want seeds from the south and it'll throw red flags there, but they'll come up with it later?
Anand: No, I think they have kept aside a lot of contentious elements. And there is also, uh, I think it's a manifesto of a party which is very assured of [01:09:00] a renewed mandate and it has not put a lot of energy in it. It's unlike Congress, which was very Uh, eager to tick too many boxes like this. Also, that also we have to appeal to this segment also, also.
So, uh, uh, it's, uh, also a manifesto in this age of round the clock, uh, political communication, uh, have, and they were not anywhere very important for electoral results. They were more of a. Uh, stuff for academic discussions and some in policy circles. Uh, I don't think they have had a very, uh, definitive electoral impact.
But, uh, as a social register, as a political register for, uh, uh, reference, there is still important. So, uh, mm. One thing, let, let me begin, like, uh, [01:10:00] how it is different from other manifestos of the party. Like in 2014, uh, is here. She, she wrote in the outlook that, uh, BJP has come as a conservative party, but paradoxically, paradoxically, it is a ward for change.
So, uh, so, uh. It's a transformative on many things, uh, like, uh, it has say on the, um, cultural policy, it has Ram Mandir, then, uh, then it has this, um, in the past. On political issues, it has abrogation of 3 72 of the things achieved now, uh, when it comes to a very entrenched political entity in the Indian system.
Now, the transformation is a work in progress for it. So, uh. It's now, uh, ki kind of, [01:11:00] uh, a new version of A BJP system till 1970s. Uh, re Ari said congress system. It may not be as abortive or umbrella party kind, but, uh, it, it is now seeing itself as a system and very cautious about, uh, what it now, uh.
promises it is cautious about over committing. So, uh, and so, uh, a second thing is that, uh, one, uh, um, thing, if you compare the Congress and BJP manifesto also, so there is lack of in both manifestos to be fair, uh, there is lack of say, welfarist imagination of, uh, of welfare Of a welfare architecture and more of dole out culture.
So do out culture. What, uh, political commentator, Hial Ahmad say it is, we are in an edge of a charitable estate [01:12:00] function, like welfare, a charity. Mm-Hmm. Now this scheme that is scheme thousand rupees. This, this, but overall architecture of welfare is, has suffered and there is lack of imagination in both.
So very specific rollouts, this, this, this, this. But. But not a system which will sustain a welfarist, um, say policy over a period of time, which would be an empowering agent, empowering agent for a sizable section of the population. So these are the A few things also, uh, on UCC, let's say, uh, when say it's of, of course it's a director principle of a state policy in Article 44.
Uh, so, uh, but it, uh, uh, I think they will, uh, roll out. This is the for next five weeks. My sense. I may be wrong. They will, uh, this is the big thing that they plan to do. Uh, in the next few [01:13:00] months after the election, uh, because, uh, going by their track record in the months, which had of, uh, uh, all this is as assuming that they come back to power.
So, uh, uh, because the, the, those are the months of least in care. Uh, incumbency. Mm-Hmm. So they did the, um, so, so I, the adjustment was through judiciary, but, uh, say abrogation of three 70, uh, it was in August. And, uh, these are the things that they do early in their term as, uh, the big changes. The tws, this,
Abhinandan: so, I mean, I, I will say that aga of the Ram Temple.
I think it's just a technicality to give credit to the Supreme Court. Uh, I think they can without, I mean, I, I, I think it was a very unfair thing to have happened. I think it, to our social fabric, it was, [01:14:00] it was worrying. But if you just, Remove that aspect from it. You can criticize the BJP that, Oh, it wasn't, the Supreme Court did it.
But let's be clear, Had Modi not been PM, It would not have happened. So, I think they can take credit for that. Without, without the, Caveat of that, Oh, it was the Supreme Court order. But sir, what do you make of, Uh, the, The whole UCC promise and other promises and I want to know that if, if Article 370 can be abolished and we can buy land in Kashmir, why can I not buy land in my hometown of Dehradun, uh, cause where I lived there for all my life till I was an adult.
And a mother had a house then she had to sell it because any empty house in Dehradun would get taken over by Gadwalis because if you were not living there, if it was an empty house, then you could not get them out. And now you can't buy it. They abolish article 371 also, but they would never dare to do that because they'd lose election all of Northeast and all the Pahadi states, which they have a hundred percent right now.
You know, they get seven out of seven, five out of five.
Raman: No, let us be [01:15:00] very clear that. UCC is not an instrument to bring liberty for women. They are not using UCC, you know, to bring, you know, to make women more liberal. However, how much ever you codify the human behavior, uh, this is more. to do with the patriarchal, you know, attitude of the society.
I think our, our laws are pretty liberal. So UCC here is to further consolidate Hindu votes. So that's how I feel. And I mean, of course, it is part of directive principles. The way they are using it, the way they have weaponized
Abhinandan: it. It's a very different way. They're,
Raman: they're just. Trashing, you know, one particular community.
Uh, so this is about the UCC. I think as Suhasar has said, I think the major Uh, fundamental issue of this, uh, I mean, of course, uh, Anand has also spoken about dole out. He has very rightly said so, but the main [01:16:00] thing is one nation,
Abhinandan: one
Raman: election. So we are already, uh, you know, federal. country with the, you know, unitary features.
So that's what a student of political science we have read over the years. But now I think this is the major threat. And this is what Prime Minister has been reemphasizing, you know, in his interviews to various, you know, media groups. And also, uh, So if you just see that how fast they have come out with the committee and the committee within a month or two has given a
Anand: report
Raman: also on this issue, I think this is what they are going to fast track, uh, you know, in the next election and, uh, and this is a major danger, uh, to our, uh, democracy.
Abhinandan: And I think it's also unfortunate how a former president was a willing party to this farce. Uh, it's, it's really unfortunate. But. You know, last words to our two panelists. So, Haas sir, you've heard what everyone had to say around, [01:17:00] uh, as far as manifestos are concerned, how important are they in your view in election?
I mean, has CSJS ever done a study that. What percentage of voters vote based on manifesto having been read and how many go by just who I love and who I hate and it's an emotional, like how important is manifesto in the larger scheme of winning an election in your view? Or is it just that people like us sit around and discuss it but it doesn't happen?
You
Suhas: know, there is no data on, uh, uh, whether people vote on the basis of manifesto or not. Uh, that's one. The second thing is, however, that parties themselves never really make it a point to popularize their manifesto. publicize their manifesto, uh, as part of their election campaign. Elections actually have their own dynamism and, uh, manifestos are mainly for records in a sense and for boardroom discussions or drawing room discussions.
Uh, in India, uh, [01:18:00] manifesto also do not delineate any definite policy outline that the party would really like to follow. It's merely a list of slogans and pious wishes. Beyond that, the manifestos rarely go. As a result of that, manifestos can be used in a campaign only as partly as a slogan, as a sloganeering posture, and nothing beyond that.
Uh, right now, for example, we have been discussing this question as to whether Kashi Mathura are not part of the manifesto and does that mean anything? And I would dare say that it simply doesn't mean anything because in courts and on the ground, these are going to be the issues the prime minister has already flagged.
That the question of Muslim appeasement and the question of Hindu assertion are going to be the central issues of the election. So whatever the manifesto says, it is only to gloss over this gory reality and to say that, no, no, we are doing something for [01:19:00] welfare. Beyond that, it doesn't mean much. And this is not only about the BJP manifesto.
I am saying this generally about manifestos of other parties as well. Take the Congress, for example, though we are not discussing the Congress right now. Uh, what have they done to their manifesto?
Anand: I
Suhas: haven't come across any Congress karyakarta, the carder or the campaigner, actually using the manifesto and saying, Hey, here are our job guarantees.
They are just clueless about job guarantees. So if the party workers themselves don't know about job guarantees, If the governments themselves of the run by the Congress don't follow that manifesto, the nyaya manifesto of the last election. Uh, why should we only be blaming BJP in the sense it is a cynicism that, uh, uh, characterizes most political parties.
Abhinandan: Fair enough. Shruti, last word to you.
Shruti: Um, well, I mean, I think, uh, a lot of it is sort of true, but I think manifestos is a great benchmark. If you're a historian or if an analyst, they offer a [01:20:00] benchmark between what may be a wish of a party and what ends up being the reality. And a lot of politics is between this kind of domain of, you know, vision and wish, and as it were the work of actually real politics or what actually ends up happening.
So I actually find them rather useful. And I do find them also in general quite useful in just kind of, even the fact that, you know, that the fact that yes, I mean, Professor Balchikar is absolutely right. The road to the courts has been taken on Kashi and Mathura, right? So that genie has, you know, that's left, the train has left the station and it's going to roll and roll.
But it's, for me as an analyst, Very interesting that they've not put their, they've not put their, as it were, political will behind it openly
Anand: at this point,
Shruti: right? And that in itself is a kind of indicator of that, is it that for me, therefore, I think the opposition has had an effect on this electoral election already, because it's precisely these kind of nyai guarantees, [01:21:00] uh, that, you know, the five guarantees that the Congress put out, uh, that has actually ended up, you know, in a very pirated form.
in the BJP, uh, uh, in, in the BJP election manifesto. So in that sense, you know, it is a victory in some ways of the opposition that a moderated BJP, it may be not very authentic, officially has to stand by its wishlist in this form. So I think it's, it's a, it's a kind of, it's an interesting, uh, it's for that very reason that, uh, A very telling document, whether people vote on it.
I don't I mean, you know, CSDS or, you know, I mean, I'm not sure, you know, but I do think whether the idea of the guarantee has already now become commonplace. To the Indian political lexicon, and that, of course, has an effect on on the election and the fact that, as you know, the previous person was saying that there is no welfare architecture.
It has been [01:22:00] dismantled in the last few years, and these have now become highly personalized guarantees. And, you know, so there's a kind of deinstitutionalization, uh, that has taken place in front of our eyes on one of the biggest spends. of, of the government. Anyway, so, so interesting. I find them interesting.
I wouldn't, as, as a historian, I mean, there's a, one of the few things I can go by to kind of, you know, as evidence of what actually was said at, uh, officially and, uh, and very telling. And they have been, and I think the BJP manifesto at this moment is telling that the, the BJP wants to cool the temperature.
Uh, it, you know, a little bit, it wants to bring the heat down on some of the very things that you know, it has, uh, gained, uh, by over the last, uh, over the last 10 years.
Abhinandan: So I have a theory on that, but I'll let that be for another day.
Shruti: Tell us, I mean, a lot of people have written to me about that and you know, a lot of senior journalists and a lot of people have like texted me about it.
What's your theory?
Abhinandan: My, my theory, it's a hedge, [01:23:00] uh, because, uh, it's a hedge, uh, of Mr. Modi and Shah. Uh, because they, they don't have very good friends inside the party. Uh, so it is a hedge to try to attract some people outside the BJP in case they face a rebellion inside. So that's my theory. But
Shruti: yes, it's all going to come down to the margins, which tells you that it's actually a much more contested field.
Abhinandan: Sure. No, that it is. That absolutely is. In fact, very,
Shruti: very contested field. And, and the manifesto is an admission of that. It is an admission of economic defeat, and it is an admission that, well, I mean, Indians might like Modi very much, but, uh, it's not very clear they are, you know, how hot they are on getting them back into power for the third, for the third term.
You know, for a historic third term, this is a very subdued election.
Abhinandan: Absolutely. Yeah. It doesn't have the noise that election usually does. Um, but yeah, that's also because half the people are in jail, but more on that later. Uh, so before we say goodbye to Suhas sir, [01:24:00] uh, can we get a recommendation and please keep yours ready as well, Shruti.
Suhas: Well, that's tough, but since we are discussing BJP, I would specifically recommend this biography of Atal Bheri Vashpayee.
Anand: Ah,
Suhas: very good. Uh, in a sense, a contrast to the president leadership, uh, but there are continuities between the BJP and Janashank of the earlier period and today's BJP. So let us not get, uh, sort of, uh, uh, carried away by the contrast.
It is the continuity, uh, within the party organization and it's a way of looking at Indian society. Which are more important to me. And that's why I think we should be looking at that book very carefully, although the full biography is yet to be out.
Abhinandan: Yeah. The second volume. Uh, so I don't know whether you know, but I like to boast, uh, Abhishek used to be my colleague at News Laundry.
He was, he was a news laundry on our desk. So, you know, anyone who goes up and goes out [01:25:00] and does something great usually has passed through news laundry.
Shruti: So
very privileged to be here.
Abhinandan: Thank you. So, yeah, in fact, he was here on, we did an interview on him based on his book, but I agree with you. It's fantastic. I can't wait for the second and, and the amount of primary research has gone through. I was like, dude, that must've been a lot of hard work.
Suhas: It's important in this sense that we can still still write or he could still write the biography, the first part of the biography without energizing the antagonist.
Right. I don't know, uh, in the future historians would be and biographers will have that liberty to do that.
Abhinandan: Right. Uh, Arisuthi, your recommendation for the audience? Well, I
Shruti: mean, I was very lucky to have endorsed the book. I wrote a blog for it and I read it for the press. I think it's easily one of my favorite all time biographies across cultures and so huge congratulations to your former colleague.
I mean, it may sound frivolous, but I am actually not going to recommend a book or even I read a lot, [01:26:00] but I'm going to recommend a series, which may sound frivolous. So And it's running on Apple TV and it's called the new look and it is about Coco Chanel. I'm not into fashion at all. And it is about Coco Chanel.
You know who she is. Chanel number five and her time as a collaborator during the Vichy regime when France was taken over. By the Nazis. Oh, interesting. And it's really what hap and the, the film is, the series is really about her rivalry and the emergence of actually the post-war, uh, , uh, who is part of the resistance, whose family is part of the resistance.
And it is fascinating about how, uh, French, uh, couture, which was completely killed by the Nazis revives itself. by people who were members of the resistance. Now, like Balenciaga, these are all big brand names. We know them as, you know, uh, as that. [01:27:00] And it's really a story of, yeah, collaborators with, during, and, and, and, and a very important cultural artistic industry of, of France.
And how actually the bad times do end. And there are people who have, you know, done some fascinating work to keep certain cultural and good things alive. And it's a gripping drama. It's an absolute gripping drama. Juliette Pinoche, really top actors in it. It's on Apple TV. Sorry to say this, but you know, I
Abhinandan: think that's the whole idea of the This, this segment that we have in the Hafta where everyone gives a recommendation, because we get very, very current recommendation often, you know, Anand will recommend, uh, you know, coffee with Karan's episode that he's thoroughly enjoyed.
I'm not going
Anand: that close.
Shruti: That
Abhinandan: was a, that was a
Shruti: joke. Currently I'm writing a very massive essay on the Indian constitution. So I, you know, my mind, lots of that kind of stuff, but
Abhinandan: [01:28:00] next time
Shruti: you should, you
Abhinandan: should recommend that
Shruti: human about what happens when you live under authoritarian regime and you're trying to create a creative industry and what happens, what happens to your friendships, what happens to people who have, you know, worked for the other side as it were.
And, uh, so I recommend it.
Abhinandan: Thanks, Shruti. Thank you, Suhasa. And hopefully we will have you on the show again. It's been an absolute pleasure.
Shruti: Thank you. And great to be in conversation with Dr. S. Palshakar and also to be back at News Laundry. Thank you.
Abhinandan: Thank you, Suhasa. Bye bye. Bye bye. So now coming to the emails, we only answer the emails of subscribers.
So if you have anything to say, you can click in the link below, uh, which opens up a little window and you can give your feedback there, which is a better way of doing it. You can also mail us directly at podcasts at newslondon. com. I repeat podcasts at newslondon. com, but we'd prefer if you click on the link and do it in that way.
I'll just read a few emails right now because the full gang isn't here. When Manisha's [01:29:00] back and Jayashree's back, then we can do all those, but I'll read a few. We have 11 today. Uh, I will read maybe four and the rest we will read when the whole panel is here so we can answer more thoroughly. So Faraz says.
Why do NL Sena contributions result in my subscription being extended? I see regular subscription as a means of showing ongoing support for your work, and NL Sena as a means of supporting a specific story that I find interesting. Instead of extending my subscription in lieu of Sena, may I suggest you convert them into gift subscription and distribute them to, distribute them to voting age students?
I think most regular Sena contributors will find this agreeable. Good point Faraz, I shall make a note of it right now, even as we speak, and immediately after we finish recording this, I shall take this suggestion and we shall implement it. on all future NL Sena contributions. Then, Praneel says, The last couple of weeks, panelists, mostly Abhinandan, have been talking about how most Delhiwalas see the BJP to have finally crossed a line by arresting Kejriwal.[01:30:00]
But in Al Jazeera report, Srinivas and Jain asked a bunch of people on the streets on what they thought and most approved of the arrest, saying that AAP should not worry if they haven't done anything wrong. One person went so far as to say that no one goes into politics without intentions of making money.
This reminds me of Sudipto Tomgaut how certain social groups can be apathetic and cynical about politics. I wonder if the different responses Abhinayan Vasu received has to do with the caste and class and would just like to know what you all think about it. Thank you for continuing to wring those in power in these trying times.
So, Praneel, you know, my observation is purely anecdotal. It's not really, uh, you know, data backed, although I have skepticism on data backed polls also, you know, my view on pre poll election polls and all that. So it was not, uh, I mean, it's just observational. So it doesn't have any, you know, authenticity or authority in the sense of how data would, uh, that's my position.
Raman: The more than the people, uh, If I speak about his [01:31:00] arrest, purely from the legal viewpoint, uh, they, he has been slapped with UAPA. But when you look at the evidences, the circumstantial evidence or the, uh, so that is just a material evidence. There's no material evidence. There's no paper trail. Nothing.
Nothing has been considered
Abhinandan: just,
Raman: uh, slapping something on the basis of somebody who has made a one, 164. Uh, you know, uh, a statement under section 164. And, and the, the authorities are saying that this will be picked up whether it is credible or not. This will be discussed at the time of the trial. So till the trial, let him be in the jail.
And, uh, after that we'll discuss whether it is credible or
Abhinandan: not. Right. Uh, Cyril says, I disagree with Manisha's view that we shouldn't vote for the MP we want to see. I represent us in the Lok Sabha and not look at the political party. The anti defection law has [01:32:00] made it almost impossible for individual MPs to go against the party, whip or diktat.
In fact, every time India voted for a single party to a majority in parliament since the enactment of the anti defection law, we essentially became a presidential system. The only way to preserve the parliamentary form of democracy is to ensure that no single party gets a majority in the Lok Sabha. A practical way to achieve this is by voting MPs from regional parties to parliament.
That's a good thought, sir. I agree with you. I'll just take one more email. This is from Inayat Khan. Inayat says, Hello NL Hafta team. Fan of your show. Love Manisha and Abhinandan. Question, why did you guys stop reporting on farmers protests? Were they already, they were already ignored by legacy media, but this time round even digital media has ignored them.
Is there a reason? Actually, very good point, Inayat. Sir, I want to say I had gone to Punjab, for those of our audience, for a function last weekend and I drove there. And just before I got to Kharad, in Punjab, the place I was going, they said that you can't take the highway, the farmers are sitting there, it's blocked, you know, come via this way.
I said, [01:33:00] they're still sitting here? He said, they've been sitting forever, you don't do anything about it? Aapne coverage hi nahi ki? You don't even, you don't know? Legacy Media's exactly what Anayat says, my friend told me on the phone. So, I, I didn't even know, but, you know, she's right, he's right, uh, that they've been sitting there and there's been absolutely no coverage, uh, on them.
And that is why. All these videos have emerged in Punjab that you not let us into Delhi, we will not let you into our village. So they had these cars with BJP flags. These guys stopped them, took out all the flags, said, you, we cannot enter Delhi. You will not enter Punjab. So it's, uh, interesting, but I think we should do a ground report from them because they're sitting there by the thousands, apparently.
I didn't know that. On
Raman: the highway.
Abhinandan: I mean, I couldn't go there because the diversion is way before, but apparently on the, on there's a stretch.
Raman: Where is the diversion?
Abhinandan: Uh, so just before Kharad, Mohali and Kharad, I think Kharad is before Mohali, just before that.
Raman: Okay. Yes. We'll definitely do a story. [01:34:00]
Abhinandan: So now for the recommendation of the week, uh, Anandi, you want to go first?
Anand: Okay, since, uh, election, uh, EVMs were discussed and elections in general were discussed, so, uh, take from the other side of, uh, the issue, uh, Naveen Chawla, the former, uh, the, uh, Um, chief election commissioner, his book, uh, the story of Indian elections, uh, it also discusses EVMs and he bats for EVM from an administrative and logistic point of view and explains.
So it's just a version from the other side. Also, uh, also because I don't like, uh, a lot of panic, uh, while discussing things, we get into panic. His prose is very calm about it. And, uh, in his explanation, he is very calm also because he, he is from an era which precedes this regime. Uh, he was election commissioner in around, uh, 2009, 10.
[01:35:00] So that also adds an value to that version. Uh, second is a book that I started reading now. It has just been released yesterday Salman Rushdie's knife. So how is it? Yeah, I'm done. So I am not I am just registering It That people take note of it because I would not recommend, because I have not finished it for recommending, you should, uh, have finished the book.
So just few pages, but it's, uh, important because, uh, uh, um, people like his writing or don't like, um, they are divided about it, but, uh, just because of the. period in which he wrote after the life attack on him in august 2022 uh, so it's Generally meditations about that only and he recounts the whole period his recovery period and how he took took [01:36:00] that attack and a lot of details about that and through that he draws some perspectives on of course obviously the state of free speech today.
So that's another one.
Abhinandan: Interesting.
Raman: My colleague Basant Kumar has done a wonderful story on, you know, which is, which the government claims the success story of 75, 000 farmers who, whose income has doubled, you know, in the past six years or so. So the, the government, Indian Council of Agriculture Research, ICAR, has come out with an official document of these 75, 000 farmers and they have given their pictures and they have given the amount of land that they hold and how they have doubled their income, uh, you know, in the past six years.
So Basant Kumar, uh, who is based [01:37:00] in Delhi, he just goes to. Some neighboring areas he identifies, he picks up the six. Seven farmers, you know, from the official record, he visits them and he finds a different story altogether. Uh, we can't even say that 99 percent uh, lie. It was 100 percent lie. Some farmers did not even have the land and the income have been shown, you know, has doubled.
And, and, and, uh, you know, There's so many. I mean, each farmer has a different story to tell. It's a video story, so it, it is more credible when you hear from the farmers. So this is an ongoing story for us coming. I know you're doing other states also. We're coming, we're gonna go to other states as well.
And, uh, we will also do the text stories on this fabulous story. And plus, uh, our election coverage, uh, Manisha is out. Uh, uh, [01:38:00] Atul was had gone. Yeah,
Abhinandan: we're doing a series, Srinivasan Jain, like I said, and we want to do a lot more journalists. So yeah,
Raman: so, so, so do
Abhinandan: check out Election Company. It's going to be, it's going to be
Raman: absolutely
Abhinandan: in the sheer scale that we are trying to accomplish this time.
We'll give Legacy Media, which has a lot more resources run for their money without any corporate funding. How about that? Only backed by you. So do top up our funds. So I have two recommendations. One is this. Uh, this is Singaporean channel, ironically enough, not that Singapore has any local standard to talk about democracy and all, but it's a Singapore channel called CNA Insider, India's war on fake news, how disinformation became India's number one threat.
It's alarming. A lot of this we already knew. I'm sure a lot of you knew. But just like the Modi, when you see it all together with one pattern and see the resources, it is alarming and worrying. Uh, the second, uh, [01:39:00] article I would want to point out is Quint's article, Poonam Agarwal, EVM vote count mismatch in 370 seats, which the EC refused to explain.
I think these are the kind of things that, you know, that kind of, for someone like me who was, you know, Who didn't have a position on it, I, I began to wonder. And, uh, finally I have a recommendation for our news channel Anchors who were blown away by the surj, uh, which I'm quoting. One said Aircraft may.
They were so blown away by this technology. Simple science experiments for kids. What you can do with lenses and [01:40:00] mirrors. We used to do it on Founder's Day. See through the wall, periscope. We used to get the leaves to swim with the surface tension. You should check it out, you'll love it. So, on the mainstream media, the scientific temper that was being promoted, after seeing that, I would So, this book I'm recommending to all our primetime anchors, Simple Experiments for Children Based on Science.
On that note, the song, I don't know whether we've used it before, or we haven't, but I think it's the season to use it again. It's a beautiful song, and, uh Friends, this is just a trailer. Newslaundry is yet
song: to come.[01:41:00] [01:42:00]
Sting: For the smoothest News Laundry experience, download the News Laundry app. It is the best way to listen to our paywall podcasts.
end sting: And you'll also get access to all free News Laundry shows. Keep us ad free and subscriber funded. Help us grow. Tell people who listen to you to pay to keep news free. Subscribe to News Laundry.
Keep journalism independent.
Newslaundry is a reader-supported, ad-free, independent news outlet based out of New Delhi. Support their journalism, here.
